The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB, Anoplophora glabripennis), an insect native to China, Japan, Korea, and the Isle of Hainan, is a destructive pest of hardwood trees. The ALB regulations in 7 CFR 301.51-1 through 301.51-9 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of ALB to noninfested areas of the United States.

In an interim rule  1 effective and published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2014 (79 FR 17387-17388, Docket No. APHIS-2013-0078), we amended the regulations by removing the entry for Middlesex and Union Counties, NJ. That action relieved restrictions on the movement of regulated articles from those areas that are no longer warranted. With that change, there are no longer any areas in New Jersey that are quarantined because of ALB.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before May 27, 2014. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.

This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

On December 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace at Phoenix, AZ (78 FR 78298). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from the National Business Aviation Association in support of the recommended change.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, at the Phoenix VORTAC navigation aid, Phoenix, AZ, to accommodate IFR aircraft under control of Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at the Phoenix VORTAC navigation aid, Phoenix, AZ.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

On December 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace at Truth or Consequences, NM (78 FR 78299). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment National Business Aviation Association was received in support of the recommended change.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, at the Truth or Consequences VORTAC navigation aid, Truth or Consequences, NM, to accommodate IFR aircraft under control of Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at the Truth or Consequences, NM VORTAC navigation aid, Truth or Consequences, NM.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary (GRNMS or sanctuary) off the coast of Georgia contains one of the largest nearshore, live-bottom reefs of the southeastern United States. Located 16 miles offshore from Sapelo Island, GRNMS is currently the only protected natural reef on the continental shelf off the Georgia coast and one of only a few marine protected areas in the ocean between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida. NOAA designated GRNMS as the nation's fourth national marine sanctuary in 1981 for the purposes of: Protecting the quality of this unique and fragile ecological community; promoting scientific understanding of this live bottom ecosystem; and enhancing public awareness and wise use of this significant regional resource. GRNMS protects 22 square miles of open ocean and submerged lands of particularly dense and nearshore patches of productive live bottom habitat. The sanctuary is influenced by complex ocean currents and serves as a mixing zone for temperate (colder water) and sub-tropical species. The series of rock ledges and sand expanses provide a solid base upon which temperate and tropical marine flora and fauna attach and flourish.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) section 304(e) requires that NOAA review and evaluate, among other things, the site-specific management techniques and strategies to ensure that each sanctuary continues to fulfill the purposes and policies of the NMSA. Emerging issues, such as the effects of invasive lionfish on sanctuary resources, were not adequately addressed in the 2006 GRNMS plan. The new management plan reflects some of these emerging issues and presents management priorities for GRNMS for the next 5-10 years. The regulatory changes will, in the case of the anchoring prohibition, clarify that attempting to anchor is also prohibited because deployment of anchors, even if the anchors do not set on the bottom, can result in negative impacts to the submerged lands. The regulatory changes will also allow the placement of weighted marker buoys used during otherwise lawful fishing or diving activities. The weighted marker buoys will be used for diving safety (markers provide a stationary point for divers to more accurately locate a site and for boat operators to find divers on their ascent), and to assist recreational fishers for marking and relocating a fishing spot as their boat drifts. Therefore, the purpose of deployment of a weight on the bottom is for safety or convenience while conducting diving and recreational fishing activities, since anchoring is not allowed.

The regulatory action will clarify a prohibition and add an exemption.

a. Clarification of anchoring prohibition: NOAA is clarifying the prohibition on anchoring in the sanctuary (15 CFR 922.92(a)(10)) by adding “. . . or attempting to anchor” to GRNMS's existing anchoring regulation. This will facilitate law enforcement efforts and protect sanctuary resources by allowing authorized officers to enforce the anchoring prohibition even when an anchor has not yet been set in the submerged lands of the sanctuary. Enforcement officials have experienced occasions where sanctuary users were “attempting” to anchor in GRNMS despite the prohibition, but because the anchor had not yet been “set,” the prohibition did not apply. This amendment will better align the regulation with its original intent.

b. Exemption for marker buoys: Current GRNMS regulations prohibit placing any material on the submerged lands of the sanctuary, including weights for marker buoys that sit on the seafloor to mark locations during recreational diving or fishing (15 CFR 922.92(a)(2)). NOAA is adding an exemption to this regulation for bottom placement of weighted marker buoys that are continuously tended and used during otherwise lawful fishing or diving activities, are not attached to a vessel, and are not capable of holding a boat at anchor. Weights used with a marker buoy must not have a combined weight of more than 10 pounds, must be attached with not greater than one-fourth inch ( 1/4 ″) line and must be removed from the sanctuary within twelve (12) hours of deployment. NOAA (or any authorized officer) could remove any weighted marker buoy that is not continuously tended, without notice. By “continuously tended”, NOAA means that the buoy is in use by fishers or divers at the time it is observed and that the fishers' or divers' boat is in some proximity to the buoy.

The weighted marker buoys will be used for diving safety (markers provide a stationary point for divers to more accurately locate a site and for boat operators to find divers on their ascent), and to assist recreational fishers for marking and relocating a fishing spot as their boat drifts. Because anchoring in GRNMS is currently prohibited, recreational diving must be conducted by “live-boat” (non-anchored vessels), and recreational fishing by trolling or drifting with a vessel. Public comment and Sanctuary Advisory Council discussion during scoping for the management plan review indicated strong support for regulatory exemption of weighted marker buoys. Although the use of marker buoys for recreational fishing is more a matter of convenience than safety, the impact of weighted marker buoys from diving or fishing on sanctuary resources is negligible and therefore, NOAA will allow this practice for both of these activities.

During the public comment period, four (4) written comments were received through the electronic rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov. Three (3) public hearings were also held to receive comment, but no members of the public attended any of the three. The written comments were grouped into two (2) general topics that are summarized below, followed by NOAA's response.

Comment 1: NOAA should move forward with the proposed rule, specifically the exemption for weighted marker buoys.

Response: Comment noted.

Comment 2: Although weighted marker buoys are proposed with certain limitations to reduce impacts to the submerged lands, impacts are still possible. Therefore, the exemption should be allowed only for a set, temporary period of time to benefit diving safety and to document actual effects, if any, on GRNMS resources. Once documented, a decision could be made to eliminate or continue the exemption to allow the use of weighted marker buoys in GRNMS.

Response: NOAA agrees that the proposed rule to allow the use of weighted marker buoys will contribute to diving safety in GRNMS. NOAA also determined that the expected effects on sanctuary resources from weights of ten (10) pounds or less placed temporarily on the submerged lands will be minimal.

In addition, NOAA is committed to managing the resources of GRNMS in an adaptive manner, as demonstrated by the deliberate and transparent management plan review process that takes place every 5-10 years. Any impacts of weighted markers on sanctuary resources would be brought to NOAA's attention during the next management plan review, which is open to public participation. Instead of an automatic end date for the regulation on weighted marker buoys, the next management plan review would be the appropriate mechanism for modifying this regulation, if appropriate.

No changes were made from the proposed to final rule.

NOAA has prepared an environmental assessment to evaluate the impacts of the rulemaking. Copies are available at the address and Web site listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant as that term is defined in Executive Order 12866.

NOAA has concluded this regulatory action does not have federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) at the proposed rule stage that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published with the proposed rule. No comments were received regarding this certification. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

This proposed rule would not require any additional collection of information, and therefore no paperwork reduction act action is required. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request (see ADDRESSES section).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, NOAA is amending part 922, title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Over the past several years, one of our highest priorities has been to improve the efficiency of our hearing process for the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) programs under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Act. Toward that end, we began a pilot program in July 2010 (75 FR 39154), under which the agency, rather than the ALJ, may set the time and place of the hearing under certain circumstances. Because we expect to continue to face significant challenges in dealing with the historically large number of hearing requests, we must maintain programs and policies that can provide us with the flexibility we need to improve the efficiency of our hearing process.

On November 10, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend our rules to allow the agency to set the time and place for a hearing before an ALJ. (73 FR 66564). Following receipt of public comments, we issued a final rule on July 8, 2010. (75 FR 39154). Under the rule, the agency acquired the authority to set the time and place for a hearing before an ALJ. In the rule, we explained that we would implement our authority to set the time and place for a hearing before an ALJ as a temporary pilot program. Therefore, we included in sections 404.936(h) and 416.1436(h) of the final rule a provision that the pilot program would end on August 9, 2013, unless we decided to either terminate the program earlier, or extend it beyond that date by publication of a final rule in the Federal Register . On July 29, 2013, we extended the sunset date of the program until August 9, 2014. 1 (78 FR 45451).

During the pilot program, we track ALJ productivity closely. We work with our ALJs to address any concerns about our hearing process. In situations where hearings were not being promptly scheduled, we worked with ALJs to correct these situations, and we continue to work with some ALJs on scheduling hearings with the expectation of using all authorities available. To date, our efforts to correct situations have been largely successful. We our retaining this authority in order to provide us with the flexibility we need to manage the hearing process appropriately. We consider the pilot program an important tool to better manage the number of hearings held and keep our hearing process as efficient as possible in our overall effort to reduce hearing backlogs.

During this extension of the pilot program, we will continue to monitor the productivity of ALJs, and we will continue to work with our ALJs to address any concerns regarding our hearing process. Accordingly, we are extending our authority to set the time and place for a hearing before an ALJ for another year, until August 10, 2015. As before, we are reserving the authority to end the program earlier, or to extend it by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register .

We are making one change to Part 405 for consistency with this final rule.

We follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 when developing regulations. Section 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5). Generally, the APA requires that an agency provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing a final rule. The APA provides exceptions to its notice and public comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures because they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that good cause exists for dispensing with the notice and public comment procedures for this rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This final rule only extends the date on which the pilot program will no longer be effective. It makes no substantive changes to our rules. Our current regulations expressly provide that we may extend the expiration date of the pilot program by notice of a final rule in the Federal Register . Therefore, we have determined that opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary, and we are issuing this rule as a final rule.

In addition, for the reasons cited above, we find good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). We are not making any substantive changes in our rules. Without an extension of the expiration date for the pilot program, we will not have the flexibility we need to ensure the efficiency of our hearing process. Therefore, we find it is in the public interest to make this final rule effective on the publication date.

We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Thus, OMB did not review the final rule.

We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending 20 CFR chapter III, parts 404, 405, and 416, as set forth below:

Pursuant to Title III of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. L. 112-74), as applied to FY 2013 funding by section 1706(j) of the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Div. F, Pub. L. 113-6), the United States of America, acting through the U.S. Agency for International Development, may issue certain loan guarantees applicable to sums borrowed by Banque Centrale de Tunisie, acting on behalf of the Republic of Tunisia (the “Borrower”), not exceeding an aggregate total of U.S. $500 million in principal amount. Upon issuance, the loan guarantees shall ensure the Borrower's repayment of 100% of principal and interest due under such loans and the full faith and credit of the United States of America shall be pledged for the full payment and performance of such guarantee obligations.

This rulemaking document is not subject to rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or to regulatory review under Executive Order 12866 because it involves a foreign affairs function of the United States. The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) do not apply.

Accordingly, a new Part 236 is added to Title 22, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Public Law 98-369, amended section 1092 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) relating to straddles. As amended, section 1092(b) instructed the Treasury Department and the IRS to write regulations governing mixed straddles. Regulations governing mixed straddles were issued in 1985, including § 1.1092(b)-2T (relating to holding periods and losses with respect to straddle positions) and § 1.1092(b)-3T (relating to mixed straddles) (collectively, the 1985 temporary regulations).

This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to mixed straddles subject to straddle-by-straddle identification under section 1092(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) (identified mixed straddles). On August 2, 2013, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register temporary regulations relating to identified mixed straddles (TD 9627 at 78 FR 46807) and a notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referencing the temporary regulations (REG-112815-12 at 78 FR 46854). The temporary regulations added § 1.1092(b)-6T, which provides that unrealized gain or loss on a position held prior to the establishment of an identified mixed straddle is taken into account at the time and has the character provided by provisions of the Code that would apply if the identified mixed straddle had not been established. The temporary regulations changed the timing of the recognition of the unrealized gain or loss as compared to § 1.1092(b)-3T(b)(6) of the 1985 temporary regulations, which provides that unrealized gain or loss on a position that becomes a position in an identified mixed straddle is recognized on the day prior to establishing the identified mixed straddle.

Section 1.1092(b)-6T applied to identified mixed straddles established after August 1, 2013, the date of filing of TD 9627 in the Federal Register . However, in response to comments raising concerns about the immediate applicability date of the temporary regulations, the regulations were corrected on October 29, 2013, to revise the applicability date (TD 9627 at 78 FR 64396 and REG-112815-12 at 78 FR 64430). As corrected, § 1.1092(b)-6T would apply to identified mixed straddles established after the date of publication of the final regulations in the Federal Register .

Written comments were received on the notice of proposed rulemaking and a public hearing was held on December 4, 2013. All comments were considered and the written comments are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request.

After consideration of all comments, these final regulations adopt the provisions of the proposed regulations with certain clarifications, and the corresponding temporary regulations are removed. The comments and clarifications are discussed in this preamble.

In response to the request for comments in the notice of proposed rulemaking, several comments were received. The comments address three general categories of issues: (1) the immediate applicability date of § 1.1092(b)-6T; (2) the character mismatch and timing of gain or loss recognition for assets held by insurance companies; and (3) certain technical rules in the 1985 temporary regulations and the temporary regulations relating to identified mixed straddles.

As previously noted, in response to comments raising concerns about the immediate applicability date of the temporary regulations, the regulations were corrected on October 29, 2013, to revise the applicability date. As corrected, § 1.1092(b)-6T would apply to identified mixed straddles established after the date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register . The correction notices informed taxpayers that the Treasury Department and the IRS anticipated finalizing the regulations no later than June 30, 2014.

One commenter asked that the applicability date be delayed for at least six months after the publication date of the final regulations in the Federal Register .

Because the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the additional time provided by the correction notices has provided taxpayers with ample notice, these final regulations apply to identified mixed straddles established after August 18, 2014.

Commenters noted that insurance companies generally are buy-and-hold investors that hold portfolio bonds to maturity absent other events compelling disposition. Bonds held by an insurance company are capital assets and the interest income generated by those assets is ordinary in nature. Consequently, when an insurance company sells a bond (sometimes pursuant to instructions from a regulator in the case of a bond that has deteriorated in credit quality), the sale may result in a capital loss that does not offset for tax purposes the ordinary income generated by the bond and other portfolio assets. The capital loss may expire unused unless the insurance company recognizes an offsetting capital gain. According to the commenters, the use of the existing regulations to generate capital gains allows an insurance company to avoid the transaction costs, risks of being unable to acquire suitable replacement property, and unfavorable accounting treatment associated with a sale and repurchase of appreciated bonds. The commenters requested that no new regulations on identified mixed straddles be issued because insurance companies rely on the existing regulations to control the timing of capital gain recognition on bonds in their portfolio.

The fact that bonds generate ordinary income on periodic payments but capital gain or loss on disposition (when held as a capital asset) is not unique to insurance companies, and is a fundamental aspect of debt (as well as stock) investments. Section 1092 was not intended to alleviate character mismatches on debt portfolios. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that using the section 1092(b)(2) identified mixed straddle rules as an alternative to selling or otherwise disposing of a position undermines the realization requirements that generally govern gain and loss recognition. These regulations are therefore being adopted to prevent selective recognition of gains and losses through the mechanism of an identified mixed straddle even though no disposition has occurred.

One commenter stated that the 1985 temporary regulations do not define what it means for gain or loss to be “attributable to” a section 1092(b)(2) identified mixed straddle period and asked the Treasury Department and the IRS to modify § 1.1092(b)-3T to address this issue. The commenter also requested an amendment to the 1985 temporary regulations to clarify the treatment of a net loss on the disposition of a section 1256 contract when there is an unrecognized gain in the retained non-section 1256 position.

Because these comments pertain to the operation of the 1985 temporary regulations, they are outside the scope of the proposed regulations, and the Treasury Department and the IRS do not believe that it is appropriate to address these comments in these final regulations. These final regulations are intended to address only the time for recognizing gain or loss that has accrued up to the date a taxpayer enters into an identified mixed straddle. All other rules that apply to an identified mixed straddle under the 1985 temporary regulations continue to apply.

The commenter also requested an amendment to the 1985 temporary regulations to clarify whether the rule in § 1.1092(b)-2T(c)(2) that resets the holding period on positions in an identified mixed straddle (holding period reset rule) continues to apply under these regulations, even to a position that had been held for the long-term holding period prior to the time the identified mixed straddle was established. Under the holding period reset rule, when an identified mixed straddle is established, the holding periods of all positions in that identified mixed straddle are reset to zero, and a position does not begin to accrue holding period until it is no longer part of a straddle.

This comment, requesting guidance on the holding period reset rule, is directly relevant to the computations required with respect to accrued gain or loss on a position when a taxpayer enters into an identified mixed straddle. Both the time period before a position becomes part of an identified mixed straddle and the time period after the identified mixed straddle is created are implicated by this comment. To address gain or loss that has accrued up to the day before a taxpayer enters into an identified mixed straddle, the text of § 1.1092(b)-6(a) has been revised and a new Example 3 in § 1.1092(b)-6(d) has been added to clarify that any gain or loss that would have been a long-term gain or loss under the 1985 temporary regulations will, when recognized, be a long-term gain or loss under these final regulations. To address gain or loss that accrues on or after the day a taxpayer enters into an identified mixed straddle, § 1.1092(b)-6(b) expressly provides that § 1.1092(b)-2T(a)(1) applies to positions in an identified mixed straddle. Consequently, the holding period reset rule in § 1.1092(b)-2T(a)(1) remains applicable to gain and loss that accrues on or after a position becomes part of an identified mixed straddle. As previously noted, the holding period reset rule resets the holding period on positions in an identified mixed straddle to zero and provides that a position does not begin to accrue holding period until it is no longer part of a straddle.

Finally, one commenter requested clarification as to whether unrecognized gain that accrued prior to a position becoming part of an identified mixed straddle is taken into account in determining whether a realized loss is deferred under section 1092(a). Section 1092(a) provides that any loss with respect to one or more positions shall be taken into account for any taxable year only to the extent that the amount of such loss exceeds the unrecognized gain (if any) with respect to one or more offsetting positions. In response to this comment, § 1.1092(b)-6(c) and a new Example 4 in § 1.1092(b)-6(d) have been added to clarify that the rules of section 1092(a)(3)(A), which include realized gain in unrecognized gain, apply to an identified mixed straddle. Section 1092(a)(3)(B), which applies to identified straddles that are subject to section 1092(a)(2) and includes only gain accrued after the establishment of the identified straddle, does not apply to the section 1092(b)(2) identified mixed straddles that are the subject of these final regulations.

The final regulations apply to an identified mixed straddle established after August 18, 2014.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small businesses. No comments were received.

The principal author of these regulations is Pamela Lew, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

On January 26, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Treasury (Treasury Department) published in the Federal Register (77 FR 3964) a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-208274-86) (the proposed regulations) that proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 301 under section 6039E of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 6039E provides rules concerning information reporting by U.S. passport and permanent resident applicants, and requires specified federal agencies to provide certain information to the IRS.

The proposed regulations set forth the information a U.S. citizen applying for a U.S. passport (passport applicant), other than a citizen who applies for an official passport, diplomatic passport, or passport for use on other official U.S. government business, must provide pursuant to section 6039E. They do not address information reporting by permanent resident applicants. The proposed regulations also withdrew a prior notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-208274-86, 1993-1 CB 822) published in the Federal Register (57 FR 61373) on December 24, 1992. The proposed regulations are proposed to be effective for applications submitted after the date final regulations are published in the Federal Register .

Comments were received on the proposed regulations. No public hearing was requested or held. After consideration of the comments, this Treasury decision adopts the proposed regulations with minor revisions as described in this preamble.

The proposed regulations require a passport applicant, other than an individual who applies for an official passport, diplomatic passport, or passport for use on other official U.S. government business, to provide certain information with his or her passport application pursuant to section 6039E. Specifically, the applicant must provide his or her full name and, if applicable, previous name; permanent address and, if different, the applicant's mailing address; taxpayer identifying number (TIN); and date of birth. A commentator requested that the scope of information be limited to the passport applicant's name, TIN, if any, and foreign country of residence, if any. The final regulations do not adopt this comment. Section 6039E(b)(4) grants the Secretary the authority to require any additional information as he may prescribe. The Department of State (State Department) requires the items of information required by these final regulations as part of its application process. Accordingly, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that requiring this information is not unduly burdensome to the applicant.

The proposed regulations provide guidance on the circumstances under which the IRS may impose a $500 penalty on a passport applicant who fails to provide the required information. Under the proposed regulations, before assessing the penalty, the IRS will provide to the passport applicant written notice of the potential assessment of the penalty, and the applicant has 60 days (90 days if the notice is addressed to an applicant outside of the United States) to respond to the notice. If the passport applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Commissioner or the Commissioner's delegate that the failure to provide the required information is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, after considering all the surrounding circumstances, then the IRS will not assess the penalty.

A commentator requested clarification with respect to when the period for responding begins to run. In response to the comment, the final regulations provide that a passport applicant has 60 days from the date of the notice of potential assessment of the penalty, or 90 days from such date if the notice is addressed to an applicant outside the United States, to respond to the notice.

A commentator requested that additional guidance be provided with respect to the factors that will be considered in determining whether a passport applicant has established reasonable cause for the failure to provide the required information. The comment was not adopted because this factual determination by the IRS is made on a case-by-case basis and involves consideration of all the surrounding circumstances.

Commentators requested that the proposed regulations be withdrawn because they may unduly affect the right of U.S. citizens to travel and apply for a U.S. passport. The IRS and the Treasury Department coordinated with the State Department in promulgating the proposed and final regulations. These regulations do not affect the manner in which the State Department processes passport applications, and Code section 6039E requires information reporting by passport applicants for tax administration purposes. Accordingly, the comments were not adopted.

The proposed regulations provide that the rules would apply to passport applications submitted after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations. A commentator requested that the regulations be effective for applications submitted after January 1st of the year following the date the regulations are published, rather than for applications submitted after the date the final regulations are published, on grounds that section 7805(b) of the Code requires such a delay of the effective date. This comment was not adopted. Section 7805(b), as amended in 1996 by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, only applies with respect to regulations which relate to statutory provisions enacted on or after July 30, 1996. Because section 6039E was enacted in 1986, section 7805(b) does not apply to these final regulations. Furthermore, even if the version of section 7805(b) cited by the commentator were to apply, section 7805(b) does not require the requested delay of the effective date. This is so because the final regulations apply to passport applications submitted after July 18, 2014, which is not before January 26, 2012, the date of the proposed regulations. See section 7805(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, these final regulations adopt the effective/applicability date included in the proposed regulations.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f), this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of this regulation is Rosy Lor of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission to TTB of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of the regulations and a name and a delineated boundary as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

TTB received a petition from Eric Carlson, owner of Calaboose Cellars, on behalf of himself and members of the Vineyard and Winery Operators of the Upper Hiwassee River Basin group, proposing the establishment of the approximately 690-square mile “Upper Hiwassee Highlands” AVA. The proposed AVA is located in the southern Appalachian Mountains within the upper Hiwassee River basin in all or portions of Cherokee and Clay Counties in southwestern North Carolina and Towns, Union, and Fannin Counties in northwestern Georgia. The proposed AVA contains 26 commercially producing vineyards, growing approximately 54 acres of French-American hybrids, American grape varieties, and Vitis vinifera. According to the petition, present vineyard operators estimate they will expand their plantings by an additional 75.5 acres within the next 5 years. Five wineries were operating within the proposed AVA at the time the petition was submitted. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Upper Hiwassee Highlands AVA include topography, temperature, and soils.

TTB published Notice No. 139 in the Federal Register on July 12, 2013 (78 FR 41891), proposing to establish the Upper Hiwassee Highlands AVA. In the document, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed AVA. The distinguishing features of the proposed AVA include topography, temperature, and soils. The document also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas. For a description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed AVA, and for a comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas, see Notice No. 139.

In Notice No. 139, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. The comment period closed on September 10, 2013.

In response to Notice No. 139, TTB received a total of 37 comments, all of which supported the establishment of the Upper Hiwassee Highlands AVA. Among the commenters were the Clay County (NC) Chamber of Commerce; the Clay County Travel and Tourism Board of Directors; the Clay County Economic Development Commission; the Cherokee County (NC) Director of Economic Development; the Cherokee County Board of Commissioners; the Cherokee County Tourism Development Authority; the Cherokee County Chamber of Commerce; the Agricultural Extension Agent for Cherokee County; the Director of Economic Development for Tri-County Community College in Murphy, North Carolina; Southern Appalachian Family Farms, which promotes local and alternative sustainable markets for agricultural products; the Director of Fermentation Sciences at Appalachian State University; the Georgia Department of Agriculture; the Tourism Division of the Georgia Department of Economic Development; the Towns County (GA) Chamber of Commerce; a Commissioner for Union County (GA); and the Blairsville-Union County Chamber of Commerce. After the comment period closed, TTB received a comment by mail from Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, expressing support for the proposed AVA. The Senator's comment was added to the rulemaking docket. TTB received no comments opposing the Upper Hiwassee Highlands AVA, as proposed.

After careful review of the petition and the comments received in response to Notice No. 139, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the approximately 690-square mile Upper Hiwassee Highlands AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Upper Hiwassee Highlands” AVA in Cherokee and Clay Counties, North Carolina, and Towns, Union, and Fannin Counties, Georgia, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

See the narrative description of the boundary of the AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Upper Hiwassee Highlands,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Once this final rule becomes effective, wine bottlers using the name “Upper Hiwassee Highlands” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin.

The establishment of the Upper Hiwassee Highlands AVA will not affect any existing AVA. The establishment of the Upper Hiwassee Highlands AVA will allow vintners to use “Upper Hiwassee Highlands” as an appellation of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the Upper Hiwassee Highlands AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance, and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label.

Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission to TTB of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of the regulations and a name and a delineated boundary as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

TTB received a petition from Ralph Jens Carter on behalf of the vintners and grape growers in the Malibu area of California, proposing the establishment of the “Malibu Coast” AVA. The proposed AVA is bordered by the city of Los Angeles to the east, the cities of Oxnard and Camarillo to the west, and the communities of Thousand Oaks, Conejo Valley, Calabasas, and Greenwich Village to the north. The proposed AVA contains approximately 44,590 acres of privately owned land within the rugged terrain of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Within the proposed AVA are 52 commercially producing vineyards covering approximately 198 acres. The steep mountains, valleys, and canyons of the proposed AVA make grape growing difficult and contribute to the small size of the individual vineyards.

The proposed Malibu Coast AVA is located in portions of Ventura County and Los Angeles County, California. The proposed AVA is not located within any established AVA. However, the established Malibu-Newton Canyon (27 CFR 9.152) and Saddle Rock-Malibu (27 CFR 9.203) AVAs are located within the boundaries of the proposed Malibu Coast AVA.

TTB published Notice No. 138 in the Federal Register on July 8, 2013 (78 FR 40644), proposing to establish the Malibu Coast AVA. In the document, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed AVA. The distinguishing features of the proposed AVA include topography, soils, and climate. The document also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas, as well as a comparison of the proposed AVA to the established Malibu-Newton Canyon and Saddle Rock-Malibu AVAs. For a description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed AVA, as well as a comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas and the established Malibu-Newton Canyon and Malibu-Saddle Rock AVAs, see Notice No. 138.

In Notice No. 138, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, TTB solicited comments on whether the geographic features of the established Saddle Rock-Malibu and Malibu-Newton Canyon AVAs are so distinguishable from the proposed Malibu Coast AVA that one or both of the established AVAs should not be part of the proposed AVA. The comment period closed on September 6, 2013.

In response to Notice No. 138, TTB received a total of 23 comments, all of which supported the establishment of the Malibu Coast AVA. Commenters included vineyard owners, vintners, local residents, and the editorial director of a wine and food blog. TTB received no comments opposing the Malibu Coast AVA, as proposed. TTB also did not receive any comments in response to its question of whether the established Saddle Rock-Malibu and Malibu-Newton Canyon AVAs are so distinguishable from the proposed AVA that one or both of the established AVAs should not be part of the proposed Malibu Coast AVA.

After careful review of the petition and the comments received in response to Notice No. 138, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Malibu Coast AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Malibu Coast” AVA in portions of Los Angeles County and Ventura County, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

TTB has also determined that the established Saddle Rock-Malibu and Malibu-Newton Canyon AVAs will be part of the Malibu Coast AVA because all three AVAs share similar characteristics, including high elevations, warm temperatures, marine fog, and well-drained soils that contain volcanic material. However, both the Saddle Rock-Malibu and Malibu-Newton Canyon AVAs have unique features that distinguish them from the larger surrounding Malibu Coast AVA. The two smaller AVAs are located in valleys set within the larger mountain range that comprises the Malibu Coast AVA and are somewhat sheltered from the marine fog by the high valley rims. As a result, temperatures within the two smaller AVAs are somewhat warmer than those found in the less-sheltered areas of the Malibu Coast AVA.

See the narrative description of the boundary of the AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Malibu Coast,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Once this final rule becomes effective, wine bottlers using the name “Malibu Coast” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin.

For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label.

Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

The approval of the proposed Malibu Coast AVA will not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Saddle Rock-Malibu” or “Malibu-Newton Canyon” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Saddle Rock-Malibu or Malibu-Newton Canyon AVAs will not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the Malibu Coast AVA will allow vintners to use “Malibu Coast” or “Saddle Rock-Malibu” as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Saddle Rock-Malibu AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the Saddle Rock-Malibu appellation. Similarly, vintners will be allowed to use “Malibu Coast” or “Malibu-Newton Canyon” as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Malibu-Newton Canyon AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the Malibu-Newton Canyon appellation. Finally, vintners may use both “Malibu Coast” and “Saddle Rock- Malibu” or both “Malibu Coast” and “Malibu-Newton Canyon” on the same label if the wine meets the eligibility requirements to use either “Saddle-Rock Malibu” or “Malibu-Newton Canyon,” as appropriate, as an appellation of origin. See § 4.25(e)(4) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(4)) for details.

TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Lakeside End of Season Fireworks safety zone listed in paragraph (a)(27) in 33 CFR 165.941. Section 165.941 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone. This Lakeside End of Seasons Fireworks zone encompasses all waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake Erie located within an area that is approximately 560 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°32′52″ N, 82°45′03″ W. (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced between from 9:45 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August 30, 2014.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his or her on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his or her designated representative.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.941, Safety Zones; Annual events in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this event via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

EPA is taking direct final action to approve the SIP revision submitted by the state of Missouri on January 14, 2014, for the purpose of removing an outdated rule. This action amends the SIP to remove a rescinded rule that was originally approved in 1972 and was intended to control emissions from all vehicles subject to required vehicle safety inspections in areas outside of the Kansas City, Springfield, and St. Louis metropolitan areas. In this action, EPA is removing rule 10 CSR 10-3.010 “Auto Exhaust Emission Controls” from the Missouri SIP. Since the most recent update to this rule in 1978, vehicle manufacturers have had to produce newer technology in order to meet more stringent Federal motor vehicle standards. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-3.010 referred to exhaust emission control components that are no longer manufactured. This rule has been rescinded in Missouri, effective January 30, 2014.

EPA has analyzed the state's request and compared the provisions of the rescinded rule to current Federally approved provisions. Rescinding this rule will not have an adverse effect on air quality since current Federal motor vehicle emission standards are more stringent. The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

EPA is taking direct final action to remove 10 CSR 10-3.010 from the Missouri SIP. We are publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve this SIP revision. If adverse comments are received on this direct final rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

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

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” 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).

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

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does 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).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” means EPA.

On September 11, 1978 (43 FR 40412), the EPA designated a portion of Grant County, New Mexico as a nonattainment area for the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS  1 under Section 107 of the CAA. The area that was designated nonattainment is located within the Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) No. 012, and consists of a 3.5 mile radius surrounding the former Kennecott Copper Corporation (now called the Chino Mines-Hurley Facility) and land above 6470 feet Mean Sea Level within an 8 mile radius of the Hurley Smelter, which is part of the Chino Mines-Hurley Facility in Hurley, New Mexico. Emissions from this source caused the violations of the SO 2 NAAQS that resulted in the area being designated nonattainment. EPA approved the attainment SIP for the Grant County SO 2 nonattainment area on May 5, 1982 (47 FR 19332).

On February 21, 2003, New Mexico submitted a request that the Grant County nonattainment area be redesignated to attainment for the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS. Along with this request, the state submitted a maintenance plan which demonstrated that the area was expected to stay in attainment of the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS for the initial maintenance period through 2015. The EPA approved the redesignation request and the maintenance plan on September 18, 2003 (68 FR 54672).

Section 175A(b) of the Act as amended in 1990 requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance plan covering a second ten-year period to EPA eight years after designation to attainment. To fulfill this requirement of the Act, New Mexico submitted the second ten-year update of the SO 2 maintenance plan to EPA on November 1, 2013. The limited maintenance plan SIP revision demonstrates that the area is expected to stay in attainment of the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS through 2025. The revision also requests to discontinue the only SO 2 monitor in the Grant Country maintenance area (the Hurley monitor, AQS ID 35-017-0003-42401-1) in light of the negligible SO 2 concentrations measured at the monitor, and to implement an alternative SO 2 monitoring methodology in its place. This action is being taken with respect to the 1971 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS. This action does not address the 2010 1 hour SO 2 Standard but we note that concentrations measured on a 1 hour basis are also quite low.

On November 1, 2013, the State of New Mexico submitted a revision to the New Mexico SIP. This revision provides the second 10-year update to the maintenance plan for the area, as required by the section 175A(b) of the Act. The purpose of this plan is to ensure continued maintenance of 1971 SO 2 NAAQS in Grant County by demonstrating that future emissions of this criteria pollutant are expected to remain at or below emission levels necessary for continued attainment of the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS. Since there are few specific content requirements defined in section 175A of the Act for maintenance plans, EPA has exercised its discretion to make available the option of submitting a Limited Maintenance Plan for areas that can make a demonstration of consistent air quality at or below 85% of the SO 2 NAAQS. EPA has developed guidance memoranda on Limited Maintenance Plan options that are specific to the ozone, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM 10 ), and carbon monoxide NAAQS. 2 Consistent with EPA's policy for limited maintenance plans as presented in those guidance memoranda, EPA here has the authority to exercise its reasonable discretion and conclude that a limited maintenance plan option is justifiable and appropriate in this case for the SO 2 NAAQS. New Mexico has opted to develop a Limited Maintenance Plan for the Grant County SO 2 maintenance area to fulfill the second 10-year maintenance period required by the Act. Our evaluation of the Grant County SO 2 Limited Maintenance Plan is presented below.

Following the approach presented in our guidance memoranda, we believe it appropriate for a limited maintenance plan for SO 2 option to be available for a State that demonstrates that the design values for SO 2 in the maintenance area are at, or below, 85 percent of the 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS or 0.119 parts per million (ppm). To support use of this option, the area's design value should not exceed the 0.119 ppm threshold throughout the entire rulemaking process. There is currently only one monitor located in the Grant County maintenance area, the Hurley, New Mexico monitor (AQS ID 35-017-0003-42401-1). This monitor has been operating since 1997 and EPA determined in a letter to NMED dated August 26, 2002, that the Hurley monitor was placed where modeling indicated the highest SO 2 concentrations were likely to occur. For this submission, the state provided data showing that the SO 2 design value for the 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS (0.14 part per million (ppm)) has been 0.0 ppm for each of the five most recent years (2007-2011) for which certified ambient air quality data is available for the Hurley monitor. These values are clearly below the 85% threshold, demonstrating that the Grant County maintenance area is suitable for a Limited Maintenance Plan option. Consistent with past contexts where a limited maintenance plan option was deemed to be available, the area does not have a recent history of monitored violations nor any long prior history of monitored air quality problems.

A Limited Maintenance Plan conventionally consists of several core provisions: An attainment inventory, a demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS, operation of a monitoring network, a contingency provision, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS.

The State's plan should include an emissions inventory to identify the level of emissions in the maintenance area that is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. The inventory should represent emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability requirements of the limited maintenance plan option. New Mexico's Grant County Limited Maintenance Plan submittal includes an SO 2 emissions inventory for Grant County Title V sources and Minor Point sources for the years 2007-2011. These base years represent the most recent emissions inventory data available and are consistent with the data used to determine applicability of the limited maintenance plan option (i.e., design values at, or below, 85 percent of the 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS). The source that caused the violations of the SO 2 NAAQS that resulted in the area being designated nonattainment, the former Hurley Smelter, was dismantled and its stacks removed in July 2006. 3 The former Hurley Smelter was the only major source of SO 2 located within the maintenance area boundary. There are currently no major sources of SO 2 located in the Grant County maintenance area. There are currently two Title V sources in Grant County (both located outside of the Grant County maintenance area): the Chino Mine and the Tyrone Mine. The combined actual SO 2 emissions for the two sources has been no more than 6.57 tons per year (tpy) for each of the years 2007-2011. The primary sources of SO 2 emissions for both facilities are blasting fugitives and diesel generator engines. There are currently four minor point sources located within the Grant County maintenance area with combined annual allowable SO 2 emissions of 316 tpy for each of the years 2007-2011. However, the actual SO 2 emissions generated by these sources are minimal. This data supports New Mexico's conclusion that the control measures contained in the original attainment plan will continue to protect and maintain the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS.

EPA considers the maintenance demonstration requirement satisfied if the monitoring data show that the area is meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas (i.e., design value at or below 0.119 parts per million (ppm) or 85% of the 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS). There is no requirement to project emissions over the maintenance period. Instead, EPA believes that if an area is at or below 85 percent of exceedance levels, the air quality along with the continued applicability of PSD requirements, any control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures, should provide adequate assurance of maintenance over the remainder of the 10-year maintenance period. As discussed above, the state provided data showing that the SO 2 design value for the 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS (0.14 part per million (ppm)) has been 0.0 ppm for each of the five most recent years (2007-2011) for which certified ambient air quality data is available for the Hurley monitor. These values are well below the 85% threshold, thus demonstrating the appropriateness of a Limited Maintenance Plan option for the Grant County maintenance area.

When EPA approves a limited maintenance plan, EPA is concluding that an emissions budget may be treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the SO 2 NAAQS would result.

To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Over the course of the last 30 years, New Mexico has operated four SO 2 monitors in the Grant County maintenance area. There have been no monitored exceedances of the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS in the Grant County maintenance area since 1979. The Hurley monitor (AIRS Monitor ID 35-017-0003-42401-1), which has been in operation since 1997, is the only SO 2 monitor currently operating in the Grant County maintenance area. EPA determined in a letter to NMED dated August 26, 2002, that the Hurley monitor was placed where modeling indicated the highest SO 2 concentration was likely to occur. Monitored SO 2 concentrations have been negligible for the most recent five years for which certified ambient air quality data is available, following the July 2006 dismantling of the Hurley Smelter, which was the source originally responsible for the violations of the SO 2 NAAQS that resulted in the area being designated nonattainment. The state provided data from the Hurley monitor showing that the SO 2 design value for the 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS (0.14 part per million (ppm)) has been 0.0 ppm for each of the five most recent years (2007-2011) for which certified ambient air quality data was available.

In light of the limited number of SO 2 emission sources, the limited amount of SO 2 emissions, and the negligible monitored SO 2 concentrations in the Grant County maintenance area, New Mexico is requesting to discontinue SO 2 air monitoring within the maintenance area, as currently required by its maintenance plan, and to instead implement an alternative SO 2 monitoring methodology that does not utilize a gaseous analyzer for determining compliance with the SO 2 NAAQS. The alternative SO 2 monitoring method will consist of using PSD and Title V modeling and any required post-construction monitoring for new and modified air quality permits and an annual emission review of all major SO 2 sources located in the Grant County maintenance area. In the event that PSD or Title V modeling, PSD or Title V post-construction monitoring, or the annual emissions review of major sources within the maintenance area indicate there is a significant increase in SO 2 emissions that may cause a potential SO 2 NAAQS violation, New Mexico will reinstitute a gaseous SO 2 monitor at the Hurley, NM monitoring location (AIRS ID 35-017-0003-42401-1) or at a site expected to read greater SO 2 levels than this site. If the monitored SO 2 values after one year are at or below 50 percent of the 24-hour or annual SO 2 NAAQS, or both, the monitor would again be removed and the alternative SO 2 monitoring methodology reinstated. The process would be repeated each time PSD or Title V monitoring, PSD or Title V post-construction monitoring, or the annual emission review of major SO 2 sources within the maintenance area indicate a potential SO 2 NAAQS violation.

We accordingly find that with the alternative SO 2 monitoring methodology in place, the Hurley monitor is no longer required as part of the 24-hour SO 2 maintenance plan. By our approval, the maintenance plan will not contain any contingency measures to be triggered by a monitored air quality concentration. NMED may submit a separate request for a system modification (including a request for discontinuation of a State or local air monitoring station) for EPA's review and approval under the bases provided in 40 CFR § 58.14. We find that the State has satisfied the monitoring network and verification of continued attainment requirements for the limited maintenance plan.

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after the area is redesignated to attainment. Under section 175A(d), contingency measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a specified event. The general approach for contingency measures discussed in the limited maintenance plan guidance memoranda provide that the contingency provisions should identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the State. However, the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498) states that SO 2 provisions require special considerations. A primary reason is that SO 2 control methods are well established and understood. Therefore, contingency measures for SO 2 need only consist of a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the SO 2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement.

There are currently no major SO 2 sources within the Grant County maintenance area. In the event that an SO 2 source(s) moves into or within close proximity to the Grant County SO 2 maintenance area, New Mexico will ensure that such source(s) will comply with all applicable state and federal SO 2 regulations and requirements. New Mexico is also committing to maintain a comprehensive compliance and enforcement program to identify sources of violation of the SO 2 NAAQS within the maintenance area and to undertake aggressive follow up measures to ensure compliance with the SO 2 NAAQS. In conformance with CAA section 175A(d), New Mexico will also implement all measures with respect to the control of air pollutants concerned which were contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of the area as an attainment area, to the extent such measures are applicable to any sources which may exist at the time of any NAAQS exceedance. We believe that New Mexico's contingency plan is adequate for identifying which SO 2 sources are responsible for violations of the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS and undertaking aggressive measures to ensure compliance of the SO 2 NAAQS. We find that New Mexico's contingency measures plan is approvable.

The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the second 10-year limited maintenance plan for Grant County submitted by the State of New Mexico.

We are approving this limited maintenance plan for the Grant County maintenance area for the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS. The State of New Mexico has complied with the requirements of section 175A of the CAA, consistent with its interpretation through past limited maintenance plan guidance provided several EPA memoranda dated November 16, 1994; October 6, 1995; and August 9, 2001. New Mexico has shown through its submittal that SO 2 emissions in the Grant County maintenance area have decreased to very low levels following the dismantling of the Hurley smelter in July 2006. New Mexico has also shown that the monitored levels of the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS in the Grant County area have been negligible since 2007, with design values of 0 ppm for the most recent five years for which certified ambient air monitoring data is available. Thus, the area has been consistently well below the requisite level of 0.119 ppm for the 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS in order to qualify for the limited maintenance plan option. New Mexico has also shown that all SO 2 monitored values have been consistently well below the 1971 SO 2 NAAQS levels. These low monitored values of SO 2 are expected through the end of the maintenance period.

We find that with the alternative SO 2 monitoring methodology in place, the Hurley monitor is no longer required as part of the 24-hour SO 2 maintenance plan. By our approval, the maintenance plan will not contain any contingency measures to be triggered by a monitored air quality concentration. NMED may submit a separate request for a system modification (including a request for discontinuation of a State or local air monitoring station) for EPA's review and approval under the bases provided in 40 CFR 58.14.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on September 16, 2014 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by August 18, 2014. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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

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

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

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does 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 Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed explanation of the revision, and the reasons for our proposed approval of the SIP revision were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking published on May 14, 2014, and will not be restated here (79 FR 27543). The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on June 13, 2014. The EPA did not receive any relevant comments on the proposal.

The EPA is approving the PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions inventory submitted by IDEQ on December 19, 2012, for the Franklin County, Idaho portion of the cross border Logan, Utah-Idaho nonattainment area. The EPA has determined that this action is consistent with sections 110 and 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

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

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

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

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. );

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

General Conformity is a requirement of section 176(c) of the CAA. Congress recognized that actions taken by Federal agencies could affect a State, Tribal, or local agency's ability to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Under General Conformity, any action by the Federal government cannot: Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; interfere with provisions in the applicable SIP for maintenance of any standard; increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or delay timely attainment of any standard, any required interim emission reductions, or any other milestones, in any area. The CAA Amendments of 1990 clarified and strengthened the provisions in section 176(c). EPA promulgated General Conformity SIP regulations on November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214) and required states to adopt and submit a General Conformity SIP for approval by EPA (See 40 CFR Part 51, subpart W (sections 850 to 860 (1993)).

On August 10, 2005, Congress passed the SAFETEA-LU Act that, among other things, amended the CAA to eliminate the requirement for States to adopt and submit General Conformity SIPs. On April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17254), EPA updated the General Conformity SIP Rules to, among other things, be consistent with the SAFETEA-LU by eliminating the Federal regulatory requirement for states to adopt and submit general conformity SIPs, instead making submission of a general conformity SIP a state option. See 40 CFR 51.851.

On March 11, 1998 (63 FR 11833), EPA approved Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) section 101.30, Conformity of General and State Actions to State Implementation Plans. Texas' rule mirrored the federal requirements in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B and Part 51, Subpart W, and specifically referenced the 1993 Federal General Conformity SIP rule. On July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43062), EPA made a ministerial correction to the table in 40 CFR 52.2270(c) to reflect the correct title of the EPA approved regulation in the Texas SIP. The ministerial correction applied to the table entry for Section 101.30, revising the title to “Conformity of General Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans”.

On October 28, 2011, the State of Texas submitted SIP revisions consisting of a repeal of section 101.30, Conformity of General Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans, in 30 TAC Chapter 101, General Air Quality Rules, Subchapter A, General Rules, as well as corresponding revisions to the narrative portion of the SIP to eliminate references to repealed federal rules. The repeal of the state rule is also intended to eliminate the need for future state rule revisions as a result of amendments to federal regulations.

We have reviewed Texas' submittal to assure consistency with the current Clean Air Act, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, and EPA regulations governing state procedures for general conformity (40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B and 40 CFR 51.851). The October 28, 2011 revisions, upon approval by EPA, removes § 101.30, “Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans,” from the SIP and revises the SIP Narrative. With the removal of § 101.30 from the SIP, the federal rules in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B will directly govern conformity of general federal actions in the State of Texas. 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B continues to subject certain federal actions to general conformity requirements without the need for identical state rules and SIPs. Therefore, repealing the state rule will not impact continuity of the general conformity program in Texas, and consequently meets the requirements of section 110(l). Federal agencies will only need to comply with the EPA General Conformity Rule requirements in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B. In addition, Texas' October 28, 2011 SIP revision meets the requirements set forth in section 110 of the CAA with respect to adoption and submission of SIP revisions.

We are taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Texas SIP submitted on October 28, 2011, that pertain to removal of § 101.30, “Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans,” from the SIP and update the narrative portion of the SIP. The approval of Texas' conformity SIP revisions will align the Texas SIP with the current Clean Air Act, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, and the most recent EPA regulations governing state procedures for general conformity.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on September 16, 2014 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by August 18, 2014. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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

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

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

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does 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 Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:

EPA is taking final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Missouri to EPA on September 21, 2010, with a supplemental revision submitted on July 3, 2013. The purpose of the SIP revision is to incorporate changes to a Missouri regulation (Title 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.390) to control Nitrogen Oxide (NO X ) emissions from large stationary internal combustion (IC) engines to ensure compliance with the federal NO X control plan to reduce the transport of air pollutants. 1 EPA finalized the second phase (Phase II) of its rule known as the NO X SIP Call Rule on April 21, 2004 (69 FR 21604). Phase II required the eastern one-third of Missouri to participate in the NO X SIP Call and included a provision related to source categories of IC engines. The IC provision established a requirement to decrease emissions from diesel and dual fuel stationary IC engines by ninety percent. Phase II of the NO X SIP Call also required each state in the control region to submit a SIP that contained adequate provisions prohibiting its sources from emitting air pollutants that would contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in one or more downwind states. See, generally, 69 FR 21608.

Missouri's rule establishes emissions levels for large stationary internal combustion engines of greater than one thousand three hundred horsepower located in the counties of Bollinger, Butler, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Clark, Crawford, Dent, Dunklin, Franklin, Gasconade, Iron, Jefferson, Lewis, Lincoln, Madison, Marion, Mississippi, Montgomery, New Madrid, Oregon, Pemiscot, Perry, Pike, Ralls, Reynolds, Ripley, St. Charles, St. Francois, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve, Scott, Shannon, Stoddard, Warren, Washington, and Wayne counties, and the City of St. Louis in Missouri. To be subject to this rule, the IC engines must either have emitted greater than one ton per day of NO X on average during the period from May 1 through September 30 of 1995, 1996, or 1997, or began operations after September 30, 1997. 10 CSR 10-6.390(1)(A), (B).

On January 8, 2014, EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed rulemaking to approve Missouri's request to revise Missouri's SIP and include this 2010 amendment to the Missouri rule. The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened January 8, 2014, the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on February 7, 2014. During this period, EPA received one comment letter from a member of the public. The letter is available in the docket to today's final rule. Today's final action includes EPA's response to this comment.

This section briefly summarizes the background for today's final action. More detailed discussion of the statutory and regulatory background can be found in the preamble to the proposal for this rulemaking. (79 FR 1350, January 8, 2014.)

The Missouri rule establishes emission rate limits using current reporting requirements for both large stationary diesel engines and dual fuel IC engines and adds a twenty-five ton NO X exemption.

Any compression ignited stationary engine that begins operation after September 30, 1997, and emits twenty-five (25) tons or less of NO X during the period from May 1 through September 30 is exempt from certain emission rate limits found at 10 CSR 10-6.390(3)(B)3 and 4. This exemption is based on the previous year's NO X emissions during the May 1 through September 30 period. If the exemption limit is exceeded, for any reason, the engine in question will be required to meet the applicable limits of subsection (3)(B) each year thereafter. The exemption does not apply to the record keeping and reporting requirements of 10 CSR 10-6.390(4).

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA shall not approve a revision of a SIP if the revisions would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The state's SIP revision included a demonstration that this twenty-five ton NO X exemption for compression ignited stationary IC engines will not adversely impact air quality. The analysis, included in the docket for today's action, also showed that the exemption will not affect the state's ability to meet its NO X SIP Call obligations.

EPA has reviewed the state's analysis of the potential impacts of this NO X exemption on air quality and has determined that the twenty-five ton NO X exemption in 10 CSR 10-6.390 will not adversely impact air quality and will not affect the state's ability to meet its NO X SIP Call obligations, previously approved in a separate action on August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46860).

The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened January 8, 2014, the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on February 7, 2014. During this period, EPA received one comment from a citizen, and the comment letter is available in the docket to today's final rule. Today's final action includes EPA's response to the comment.

Comment: The citizen commented, among other things, that Missouri's allowable NOx budget should be revised and subsequently a SIP revision should be requested to reflect the lower emissions ceiling.

Response: EPA would like to thank the citizen for the comment, but disagrees with the Commenter's view. EPA's NO X emissions budgets were set under the final Federal Phase II NO X SIP Call (69 FR 21604, April 21, 2004). The budgets were an accounting mechanism for ensuring that upwind states have adopted and are implementing control measures that will address their significant contribution to downwind nonattainment, and interference with maintenance areas in other states for the 1-hour and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. These budgets have been set through notice-and-comment rulemaking and EPA has already determined that Missouri has met its obligation under the Phase II NO X SIP call (71 FR 46860, August 15, 2006).

In today's rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the Missouri SIP to control NO X emissions from large stationary internal combustion engines. The revisions will also add a NO X exemption for compression ignited stationary internal combustion engines that emit 25 tons or less of NO X during the ozone season. If this level is exceeded, the regular emission rate limits in the regulation would apply. The requirements prescribed in the SIP revision are consistent with the April 21, 2004, final Federal Phase II NO X SIP Call. EPA has determined that the SIP submitted by the State of Missouri satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA.

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

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

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does 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).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0644 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 16, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0644, 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 CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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.

In the Federal Register of May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29731) (FRL-9910-29), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3F8164) by Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.567 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide zoxamide, 3, 5-dichloro- N -(3-chloro-1-ethyl-1-methyl-2-oxopropyl)-4-methylbenzamide, and its metabolites 3,5-dichloro-1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (RH-1455 and RH-141455) and 3,5-dichloro-4-hydroxymethylbenzoic acid (RH-1452 and RH-141452) calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of zoxamide, in or on onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.7 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Gowan Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing the tolerance as requested but revising the tolerance expressions for zoxamide. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for zoxamide including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with zoxamide follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

The toxicity data of zoxamide indicate that the primary target organ is the liver. Liver and thyroid weights increased along with liver histopathological change and increases in alkaline phosphatase. Systemic toxicity was not observed in the 28-day rat dermal toxicity study up to the limit dose (1,000 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)). There are no concerns for neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity, or reproductive toxicity. There was no evidence of increased susceptibility (quantitative or qualitative) for the offspring in the reproduction studies or for fetuses following in utero exposure in the developmental studies. Zoxamide is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on the lack of treatment-related tumors in acceptable/guideline carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by zoxamide as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Zoxamide. Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Use on Bulb Onions (Crop Subgroup 3-07A) in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0644.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for zoxamide used for human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to zoxamide, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing zoxamide tolerances in 40 CFR 180.567. EPA assessed dietary exposures from zoxamide in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for zoxamide; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated (CT), and default processing factors from the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 7.81 (except for grape, raisin and potato granules/flakes).

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that zoxamide does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for zoxamide in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of zoxamide. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of zoxamide for chronic exposures (non-cancer) are estimated to be 0.81 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 65.8 ppb for ground water, respectively.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 65.8 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Zoxamide is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found zoxamide to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and zoxamide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that zoxamide does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal toxicity studies include rat and rabbit prenatal developmental studies in addition to a reproduction and fertility effects study in rats; and the highest doses used in these studies are at or above the limit dose. In the developmental studies, maternal and fetal toxicity was not observed up to the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). In the rat reproduction and fertility effects study, decreased body weights and body weight gains was observed in only the parental females at the highest dose tested. Therefore, EPA has concluded that there was no evidence of increased susceptibility (quantitative or qualitative) for the offspring in the reproduction studies or for fetuses following in utero exposure in the developmental studies.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for zoxamide is complete.

ii. There is no indication that zoxamide is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. There is no evidence that zoxamide results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to zoxamide in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by zoxamide.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, zoxamide is not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to zoxamide from food and water will utilize 4.8% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for zoxamide.

3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate risk takes into account short-term and intermediate-term residential exposure, respectively, plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

Zoxamide is currently not registered for any use patterns that could result in short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure. Because short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure have already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), further assessment of short- and intermediate-term risk is not necessary. EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for zoxamide.

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, zoxamide is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to zoxamide residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD) and GC with mass selective detection (GC/MSD)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

Neither Codex, Canada, nor Mexico has not established a MRL for zoxamide in/on bulb onions, so there will be no need to harmonize the international standards.

One comment was received in response to the notice of filing of Gowan Company's application. The commenter objected to the increase of chemical residues generally and expressed concerns about the carcinogenic effects of chemicals in general on humans. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns regarding toxic chemicals and their potential effects on humans. Pursuant to its authority under the FFDCA, and as discussed further in this preamble, EPA conducted a comprehensive assessment of zoxamide, which included an assessment on the carcinogenic potential of zoxamide. Based on its assessment of the available data, the Agency has concluded that zoxamide is not likely to be a carcinogen and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of zoxamide.

EPA is revising the tolerance expressions to clarify:

1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of Zoxamide not specifically mentioned; and

2. That compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of zoxamide, 3, 5-dichloro-N-(3-chloro-1-ethyl-1-methyl-2-oxopropyl)-4-methylbenzamide and its metabolites 3,5-dichloro-1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (RH-1455 and RH-141455) and 3,5-dichloro-4-hydroxymethylbenzoic acid (RH-1452 and RH-141452) calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of zoxamide, in or on onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.7 ppm.

In addition, EPA is revising the tolerance expressions for zoxamide contained in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), and in paragraph (b), removing the commodity ginseng, and reserving paragraph (b).

This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0023 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 16, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0023, 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 CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 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.

In the Federal Register of February 21, 2014 (79 FR 9870) (FRL-9904-98), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10658) filed by Spring Trading Co., 10805W. Timberwagon Circle, Spring, TX 77380-4030, on behalf of Croda, Inc., 315 Cherry Lane, New Castle, DE 19720. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes with 20 to 80 moles of ethylene and/or propylene oxide, fatty acid esters with C 8 through C 22 aliphatic alkanoic and/or alkenoic fatty acids, branched or linear, the resulting polyoxyalkylene trimethylopropane esters having a minimum MW of 3,000. (CAS Reg. Nos., 25765-36-0; 29860-47-7; 37339-03-0; 52624-57-4; 58090-24-7; 63964-38-5; 72939-62-9; 74521-14-5; 75300-70-8; 75300-90-2; 84271-03-4; 84271-04-5; 86850-92-2; 107120-02-5; 133331-01-8; 137587-60-1; 149797-40-0; 149797-41-1; 150695-97-9; 152130-24-0; 163349-94-8; 163349-95-9; 163349-96-0; 163349-97-1; 163349-98-2; 165467-70-9; 183619-46-7; 183619-50-3; 185260-01-9; 202606-04-0; 210420-84-1; 233660-70-3; 263011-96-7; 283602-94-8; 701980-40-7; 872038-58-9; 875709-44-7; 875709-45-8; 875709-46-9; 875709-47-0; 879898-63-2; 910038-01-6; 1190748-04-9; 1225384-02-0; 1428944-41-5; and 1446498-15-2). That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average MW greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF 3 - or longer chain length as specified in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6).

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

8. The polymer's number average MW is greater than or equal to 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.

Thus, polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes.

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational, non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes is 3,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes do not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes.

None.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has not established a MRL for polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes.

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of polyoxyalkylated trimethylopropanes from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or otherwise have any unique impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

Although this action does not require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

The New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils develop management measures governing the monkfish fishery under the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Councils manage the fishery as two management units, with the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) covering the Gulf of Maine and northern part of Georges Bank, and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA) extending from the southern flank of Georges Bank through the Mid-Atlantic Bight to North Carolina. The monkfish fishery is primarily managed by landing limits and a yearly allocation of monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) calculated to enable vessels participating in the fishery to catch, but not exceed, the annual catch limit in each management area.

In May 2013, we conducted an operational stock assessment to update monkfish biological reference points and provide projections to set future catch levels. The New England Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the results of that assessment and additional analysis by the Councils' Plan Development Team, but concluded that no changes to existing catch levels are warranted at this time. The Councils concurred with the SSC's conclusions, and did not propose any changes to existing catch levels. Accordingly, existing catch levels remain in place until changed by a future management action (see Table 1).

In recent years, the monkfish fishery has failed to achieve optimum yield (OY) because it has not fully harvested the Annual Catch Target (ACT) specified for each year, particularly in the NFMA. Further, members of the monkfish fishing industry have indicated that existing regulations reduce their ability to maximize available monkfish fishing opportunities and land more monkfish, particularly restrictions on when monkfish-only DAS may be used and where vessels issued limited access monkfish Category H permits may fish. The Councils developed Framework 8 to incorporate the results of the latest monkfish stock assessment, and to revise measures to better achieve OY and enhance the operational efficiency of existing management measures. We published a proposed rule to implement measures proposed in Framework 8 on May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30065), with public comments accepted through June 11, 2014. A full summary of the development of Framework 8 and the purpose of each proposed measure is included in that rule, and in the EA developed for this action (see ADDRESSES ).

The following summarizes the approved Framework 8 measures. These measures build upon the provisions implemented by previous management actions, and are intended to either supplement or replace existing regulations, as described for each measure. This final rule also includes revisions to regulations that are not specifically identified in Framework 8, but are necessary to correct errors or clarify existing provisions, as authorized by section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Because measures proposed under Framework 8 and implemented through this final rule did not become effective until after the start of fishing year (FY) 2014 on May 1, 2014, all monkfish catch since May 1, 2014, will be deducted from the catch levels specified in Table 1 for FY 2014. Further, consistent with the regulations at 50 CFR 648.96(a)(3)(iv), any monkfish DAS used by a vessel on or after the start of FY 2014 will be counted against the monkfish DAS allocation the vessel ultimately receives during FY 2014 upon the implementation of measures approved under this action.

This action updates the monkfish biological and management reference point values to be consistent with those recommended by the SSC and the best available scientific information from the 2013 monkfish operational assessment (see Table 2). These reference points are used to determine if overfishing is occurring on either stock (fishing mortality rate (F) threshold (F Threshold )), if either stock is overfished (biomass (B) threshold (B Threshold )), or if either stock is rebuilt (B Target ).

Existing monkfish DAS allocations and landing limits are raised to help increase monkfish landings and the proportion of the TAL and ACT caught in each area (see Table 3). Under this action, all limited access monkfish permits are allocated 46 monkfish DAS. Each permit's monkfish DAS allocation is then reduced by 0.8 DAS to set aside 500 monkfish DAS under the Monkfish Research Set Aside program, resulting in 45.2 monkfish DAS (46 DAS—0.8 DAS) allocated to each limited access monkfish permit starting in FY 2014. Of this 45.2 monkfish DAS allocation, up to 32 may be used in the SFMA. This represents a 5.2 DAS increase in a permit's total monkfish DAS allocation, and a 4 DAS increase in the number of monkfish DAS that may be used in the SFMA.

Monkfish incidental landing limits are increased for limited access monkfish Category C and D vessels fishing under a Northeast multispecies (groundfish) DAS in the NFMA, while monkfish directed landing limits are increased for vessels fishing under a monkfish DAS in the SFMA (see Table 3). All other monkfish incidental landing limits remain the same as those implemented by previous management actions.

Monkfish DAS allocations and landing limits for vessels issued a limited access Category F permit and electing to participate in the Offshore Fishery Program in the SFMA are calculated separately from the monkfish DAS allocation to all limited access monkfish permits. As outlined in § 648.95(g)(2), we calculate the monkfish DAS allocation for each Category F permit by dividing the daily landing limit when fishing under the Offshore Fishery Program (1,600 lb (726 kg) tail weight) by the SFMA monkfish landing limit applicable to the vessel's monkfish limited access permit category. We then multiply that number by the vessel's monkfish DAS allocation (32 DAS in the SFMA plus up to 4 DAS carried over from the previous year) to get the permit's monkfish DAS allocation when participating in the Offshore Fishery Program. Table 4 summarizes the monkfish DAS allocated to Category F permits participating in the Offshore Fishery Program under this action.