Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority and Background B. Rulemaking Process II. Request for Information and Comments A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking B. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Product Classes 2. Technology Assessment C. Screening Analysis D. Engineering Analysis 1. Baseline Efficiency Levels 2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technology Levels 3. Intermediate Efficiency Levels 4. Other Efficiency Level Considerations 5. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price E. Markups Analysis F. Energy and Water Use Analysis G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses H. Shipments Analysis I. National Impact Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics III. Submission of Comments I. Introduction A. Authority and Background

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B  2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include RCWs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))

Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).

EPCA required that all rinse cycles of clothes washers manufactured after January 1, 1988 include an unheated water option, but stated that such clothes washers may have a heated water rinse option. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) EPCA directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)(A) and (B)) DOE completed the first rulemaking cycle for RCWs in 1991 by establishing performance-based energy conservation standards for top-loading compact and top-loading standard-size RCWs manufactured on or after May 14, 1994. 56 FR 22249 (May 14, 1991). DOE completed a second rulemaking cycle by publishing a final rule on January 12, 2001 (“January 2001 Final Rule”), which amended the standards for top-loading compact and standard-size RCWs and established performance-based standards for front-loading RCWs. 66 FR 3314. These amended standards were based on a joint proposal submitted to DOE by clothes washer manufacturers and energy conservation advocates. Id.

EPCA further amended the energy conservation standards for top-loading and front-loading standard-size RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2011. 3 (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(A)) EPCA further directed DOE to conduct a rulemaking to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B)(i))

Most recently, DOE completed a third rulemaking cycle to amend the standards for RCWs by publishing a direct final rule on May 31, 2012 (“May 2012 Direct Final Rule”). 77 FR 32307. These amended standards were based on a joint proposal submitted to DOE by interested parties representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups.

The current energy conservation standards are located in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, section 32(g). The currently applicable DOE test procedures for RCWs appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2 (“Appendix J2”).

EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the energy conservation standards for each type of covered product and publish either a notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the affected products;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product compared to any increase in the initial cost or maintenance expenses;

(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.

DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I-1 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.

As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for RCWs.

In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for RCWs may be warranted.

As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a “no new standard” determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing.

Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its energy conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and compliance and certification requirements applicable to RCWs, while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

This RFI covers those products that meet the definitions for RCWs, as codified at 10 CFR 430.2:

EPCA does not define the term “clothes washer”. DOE has defined a “clothes washer” as a consumer product designed to clean clothes, utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes: automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2

An “automatic clothes washer” is a class of clothes washer that has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature, regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse, drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves. Id.

A “semi-automatic clothes washer” is a class of clothes washer that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves. Id.

“Other clothes washer” means a class of clothes washer that is not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer. Id.

Issue II.A.1. DOE requests comment on whether the definitions for RCWs require any revisions—and if so, how those definitions should be revised.

The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy conservation standard provides information about the RCW industry that will be used throughout the rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers, estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency improvements in the design and manufacturing of RCWs. DOE also reviews product literature, industry publications, and company websites. Additionally, DOE conducts interviews with manufacturers to improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for RCWs.

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id.

For RCWs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10 CFR 403.32(g) are based on four product classes, differentiated by capacity and method of loading clothes ( i.e., axis of loading):

• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet (cu.ft.) capacity);

• Top-loading, standard (1.6 cu.ft. or greater capacity);

• Front-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cu.ft. capacity); and

• Front-loading, standard (1.6 cu.ft. or greater capacity).

In a previous rulemaking to amend standards applicable to commercial clothes washers, DOE determined specifically that the “axis of loading” constituted a feature that justified separate product classes for top loading and front loading clothes washers, and that “the longer average cycle time of front-loading machines warrants consideration of separate [product] classes.” 79 FR 74492, 74498 (Sept. 15, 2014). DOE stated that a split in preference between top loaders and front loaders would not indicate consumer indifference to the axis of loading, but rather that a certain percentage of the market expresses a preference for ( i.e., derives utility from) the top-loading configuration. DOE further noted that separation of clothes washer equipment classes by location of access is similar in nature to the equipment classes for residential refrigerator-freezers, which include separate product classes based on the access of location of the freezer compartment ( e.g., top-mounted, side-mounted, and bottom-mounted). The location of the freezer compartment on these products provides no additional performance-related utility other than consumer preference. In other words, the location of access itself provides distinct consumer utility. Id. 79 FR 74499. DOE also reasoned that top-loading residential clothes washers are available with the same efficiency levels, control panel features, and price points as front-loading residential clothes washers, and that given these equivalencies, purchase of top loaders indicates a preference among certain consumers for the top-loading configuration, i.e., the top-loading configuration provides utility to those customers preferring one configuration over another, with all other product attributes being equal. Id.

Issue II.B.1. DOE requests feedback on the current RCW product classes and whether changes to these individual product classes and their descriptions should be made.

DOE is also aware that new configurations and features are available for RCWs that may not have been available at the time of the last energy conservation standards analysis. For example, DOE is aware of auxiliary or supplementary clothes washers designed to accompany a standard-size RCW from the same manufacturer, which may be integrated as a single product; RCWs that contain a built-in basin that can be used to pre-treat and soak clothing before the start of a wash cycle; and RCWs that provide drying functionality as an optional feature that can be added to the end of a wash cycle.

Issue II.B.2. DOE seeks to ensure that it does not inhibit the development of features, or eliminate from the market existing features, that provide utility to the consumer. DOE therefore requests information regarding such new configurations and features, including how prevalent they are in the market, the consumer utility of such features, and data detailing the corresponding impacts on energy use.

DOE recently granted a petition for rulemaking to propose a new product class for dishwashers with a normal cycle of 60 minutes or fewer. 4 DOE determined that under the product-class provision in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)), cycle time is a performance-related feature for dishwashers that justifies a separate product class subject to a higher or lower standard than that currently applicable to dishwashers. In the context of dishwashers, DOE found that there is consumer utility in shorter cycle times to clean a normally-soiled load of dishes.

Issue II.B.3. DOE requests comment on the extent to which shorter cycles for RCWs could likewise affect consumer utility and whether creation of a separate product class would enable the availability of such products.

Additionally, as noted, EPCA identifies product capacity as a performance-related feature that may justify the establishment of a higher or lower standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type or class for any group of covered products. 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). For clothes washers, products with a larger capacity are inherently able to achieve higher efficiency levels; conversely, products with smaller capacity are inherently unable to achieve as high efficiency levels, for two main reasons. First, a larger tub capacity can contribute to improved efficiency because a larger amount of clothing can be washed using an incremental increase in the quantity of water that is less than the incremental increase in capacity, therefore reducing the amount of water and energy per pound of clothing. Second, a larger drum diameter can exert a higher g-force on the clothing during the final-spin portion of the cycle, thus removing more water and reducing the drying energy component of the integrated modified energy factor (“IMEF”) metric (resulting in a better IMEF rating).

DOE notes that the front-loading clothes washer market is segmented based on product width (which inherently affects clothes washer capacity). A significant majority of front-loading RCWs currently on the market in the United States have a nominal cabinet width of 27 inches or greater. However, the front-loading market also includes narrower products with a nominal cabinet width of 24 inches. These products are designed to be installed in confined spaces such as small closets and under-counter installations. At the time of the rulemaking culminating in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, the efficiency levels of both 27-inch and 24-inch RCWs overlapped sufficiently such that both types of products were available at the efficiency levels considered for the rulemaking analysis and at the amended standard level. However, in the current market, almost no overlap in efficiency exists between 24-inch and 27-inch RCWs (specifically, the 24-inch products have lower efficiency ratings than the 27-inch products, which may be due to the limitation on drum diameter and volume, as described above).

Similarly, while a significant majority of top-loading RCWs currently on the market have a nominal cabinet width of 27 inches or greater, the standard-size product class also includes smaller products that typically have clothes container capacities less than 3 cu.ft. and are designed to be portable. Due to size and installation limitations, such products may be less able to incorporate certain efficiency-related technologies such as larger drum volume or higher spin speeds compared to 27-inch stationary products.

Issue II.B.4. DOE requests information and data on the installation environments and consumer use of smaller-size front-loading and top-loading RCWs such as those designed for confined spaces and/or portable use.

In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of the technology options DOE considered during its most recent rulemaking for RCWs. A complete list of those options appears in Table II-1.

Issue II.B.5. DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table II-1 regarding their applicability to the current market and how these technologies may impact the efficiency of RCWs as measured according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how these technologies may have changed since they were considered in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics currently available for each technology option.

Issue II.B.6. DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies may impact product features or consumer utility.

The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.

DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from further consideration based on the following criteria:

(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further.

(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If a technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further. 5

(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.

Technology options identified in the technology assessment are evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from interested parties ( e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the screening analysis are referred to as “design options” in the engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.

Table II-2 summarizes the screened-out technology options, and the applicable screening criteria, from the May 2012 Direct Final Rule.

Issue II.C.1. DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the four screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the technology options listed in Table II-1 with respect to RCWs. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same criteria would affect any other technology options not already identified in this document with respect to their potential use in RCWs.

Issue II.C.2. With respect to the screened out technology options listed in Table II-2, DOE seeks information on whether these options would, based on current and projected assessments regarding each of them, remain screened out under the four screening criteria described in this section. With respect to each of these technology options, DOE requests comment on what steps, if any, could be (or have already been) taken to facilitate the introduction of each option as a means to improve the energy performance of RCWs and the potential to impact consumer utility of RCWs. DOE also requests comment on whether any of the remaining technology options ( i.e., those not screened out) should be screened out under the four screening criteria.

The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency (“efficiency levels”). This relationship serves as the basis for the cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the increase in manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) associated with increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline, up to the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) efficiency level for each product class.

DOE has historically used the following three methodologies to generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency levels (“ELs”) for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse-engineering) approach, which provides “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed data as to costs for parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that operate at particular efficiency levels.

For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as a reference point against which any changes resulting from energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and provides basic consumer utility. If DOE determines that a rulemaking is necessary, consistent with this analytical approach, for each product class, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current standard levels as the baseline efficiency levels.

The current standards for all four product classes are based on two metrics:

The current standards for RCWs are found in 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4).

Issue II.D.1. DOE requests feedback on whether using the potential baseline efficiency levels identified above for each product class would be appropriate for DOE to apply to each product class in evaluating whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for these products. DOE requests data and information to determine baseline efficiency levels to better evaluate amending energy conservation standards for these products.

As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. Table II-3 in the next section shows the current maximum available IMEF efficiency levels for each existing RCW product class, based on information in DOE's Compliance Certification Database. 6

DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that the maximum available efficiency levels for RCWs corresponded to the max-tech efficiency levels.

Issue II.D.2. DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency levels are appropriate and technologically feasible for consideration as possible energy conservation standards for the products at issue.

Issue II.D.3. DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency levels correspond to the max-tech efficiency levels, given the current state of technology, or whether DOE should consider max-tech efficiency levels different than the current maximum available efficiency levels.

Issue II.D.4. DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain combinations of design options.

DOE may also define intermediate efficiency levels in between the baseline and max-tech efficiency levels. Typically, DOE identifies intermediate efficiency levels, where appropriate, based on a variety of sources including, but not limited to: (1) Clusters of models currently on the market at intermediate efficiency levels; (2) efficiency levels defined by programs such as ENERGY STAR or the Consortium for Energy Efficiency's (“CEE”) Super-Efficient Home Appliances Initiative; or (3) “gap-fill” levels to bridge large divides between existing clusters in the market.

Table II-3 indicates potential intermediate efficiency levels, along with baseline and maximum available levels, that DOE could consider for each existing RCW product class, based on a preliminary review of the current market according to models listed in DOE's Compliance Certification Database.

Issue II.D.5. DOE seeks input on whether the potential efficiency level definitions shown in Table II-3 are appropriate for each product class. DOE also seeks input on whether DOE should consider any additional “gap fill” efficiency levels between any of the potential efficiency levels shown in the table.

As an alternative to the current RCW standards based on IMEF and IWF, DOE could consider defining an IMEF and/or IWF standard as an equation based on capacity. Such an approach would be consistent with the approach used by DOE for consumer refrigerator-freezer standards, for example. If DOE were to adopt such an approach, the efficiency levels considered in the analysis would represent variations from a baseline equation that DOE would establish. For example, if such an approach used a linear equation to define the standard, the higher efficiency levels considered in the analysis could represent equations with the same slope as the baseline equation but with a different y-intercept, or vice-versa, or some combination of both.

Issue II.D.6. DOE requests feedback on whether it should consider an IMEF and/or IWF standard as an equation based on capacity.

As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that describe the estimated increases in MPC associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed product classes. For the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed the cost-efficiency relationships for the top-loading standard and front-loading standard product classes using a combination of the reverse-engineering approach and the efficiency-level approach. DOE used the design-option approach to develop the cost-efficiency relationships for the top-loading compact and front-loading compact product classes, because less data was available for these product classes.

Issue II.D.7. DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would incorporate any of the technology options listed in Table II-1 to increase energy efficiency in RCWs beyond the baseline within each product class. This includes information on the order in which manufacturers would incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve the efficiencies of products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the increased energy efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested in information regarding any potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's ability to incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer demand.

Issue II.D.8. DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with incorporating each particular design option. Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs estimated for design options in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule have changed since the time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production impacts.

Issue II.D.9. DOE requests comment on whether certain design options may not be applicable to (or may be incompatible with) specific product classes.

To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. For the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE used a baseline manufacturer markup of 1.22 for all product classes to convert MPC to MSP.

Issue II.D.10. DOE requests feedback on whether a baseline manufacturer markup of 1.22 remains appropriate for RCWs.

To carry out the life-cycle cost (“LCC”) and payback period (“PBP”) calculations, DOE would need to determine the cost to the residential consumer of baseline products, and the cost of more-efficient units the consumer would purchase under potential amended standards. By applying a multiplier called a “markup” to the MSP, DOE is able to estimate the residential consumer's price. In generating end-user price inputs, DOE must identify distribution channels ( i.e., how the products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer) and estimate relative sales volumes through each channel. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE only accounted for the retail outlets distribution channel because data from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) 2005 Fact Book indicated that the overwhelming majority of residential appliances were sold through retail outlets, as described in chapter 6 of the technical support document accompanying the May 2012 Direct Final Rule. The main actors included were manufacturers and retailers. 7 The AHAM 2009 Fact Book indicated a similar share for the products sold. Thus, DOE analyzed a manufacturer-to-consumer distribution channel consisting of three parties: (1) The manufacturers producing the products, (2) the retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them to consumers, and (3) the consumers who purchase the products. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not include a separate distribution channel for RCWs included as part of a new home because DOE did not have enough information to characterize which of these products come pre-installed by builders in the new homes. Should sufficient information become available, DOE may consider including a separate distribution channel that includes a contractor in addition to the existing retail outlets distribution channel.

For a potential new analysis, DOE would determine an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers of appliances whose product range includes RCWs. DOE will determine an average retailer markup by analyzing both economic census data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the annual SEC 10-K reports filed by publicly traded retailers.

In addition to developing manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE would develop and include sales taxes to calculate appliance retail prices. DOE would use an internet source, the Sales Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate applicable sales taxes.

Issue II.E.1. DOE requests information on the existence of any distribution channels other than the retail outlet distribution channel that should be included in a future analysis. DOE also requests data on the fraction of RCW sales that go through both, a wholesaler/retailer and a contractor, as well as the fraction of sales through any other identified channels.

As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy and water use analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and thereby determine the energy and water savings potential of efficiency improvements. The energy and water use analysis seeks to capture the range of operating conditions for RCWs in U.S. homes. The energy and water use analysis is meant to represent typical energy and water consumption in the field.

To determine the field energy and water use of products that would meet possible standard levels, DOE would use data from the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”) 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (“RECS”), the most recent survey available from EIA. 8 RECS is a national sample survey of housing units that collects statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures for energy in housing units along with data on energy-related characteristics of the housing units and occupants. RECS provides sufficient information to establish the type (product class) of RCW used in each household. As a result, DOE would be able to develop household samples for each of the considered product classes. RECS specifies the use cycles of RCWs, thereby allowing DOE to determine the RCW's annual energy and water consumption.

For each sample household, DOE would estimate the field-based annual energy and water use of front- and top-loading standard-capacity RCWs by multiplying the annual number of RCW cycles for each household by the per-cycle energy and water use values established by the engineering analysis (using the DOE test procedure) for each considered efficiency level. Per-cycle energy use is calculated in the test procedure as the sum of per-cycle machine energy use (including the energy used to heat water and remove moisture from clothing), and standby mode and off-mode energy use.

Issue II.F.1. DOE requests input from interested parties on approaches for specifying the typical values and variability in the annual energy consumption of RCWs.

For the purpose of its analysis, DOE would account for any rebound effect in its determination of annual energy and water consumption. The rebound effect occurs when a piece of equipment, made more efficient and used more intensively, does not yield the expected energy savings from the efficiency improvement. In the case of more efficient RCWs, research to date indicates no conclusive causality between increased efficiency and increased use.

Issue II.F.2. DOE seeks comments on any rebound effect associated with more efficient RCWs. In other words, DOE seeks input on what portion of the energy savings resulting from more efficient models may be offset due to increased usage of RCWs.

The effects of more stringent energy conservation standards on a consumer of RCWs include changes in operating expenses (usually decreased) and changes in purchase prices (usually increased). DOE would analyze data input variability and uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations on a representative sample of households from RECS for the considered product classes using Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions. The analysis results are a distribution of results showing the range of LCC savings and PBPs for a given efficiency level relative to the baseline level.

DOE would analyze the net effect on consumers by calculating the LCC and PBP using engineering performance data (section II.D of this document), energy and water consumption data (section II.F of this document), and equipment retail prices (section II.E of this document). Inputs to the LCC and PBP calculation include the total installed cost to the consumer (purchase price plus installation cost) and operating cost (energy and water expenses, repair costs, and maintenance costs). Additional inputs to the LCC calculation include energy price forecasts, the lifetime of the RCW or other defined period of analysis, and discount rates.

To derive the installation costs, DOE would use the 2017 RSMeans Residential Cost Data on labor requirements to estimate installation costs for RCWs. 9 DOE would make adjustments to the costs if needed to account for changes in weight and/or dimensions of higher-efficiency products.

Issue II.G.1. DOE seeks input on whether RCW installation costs scale with equipment weight and/or dimensions.

In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not have any data to support increases in maintenance and repair costs associated with increases in efficiency levels within each of the product classes considered in the analysis. Therefore, DOE did not assume that more efficient RCWs in each product class would have greater repair or maintenance costs. 77 FR 32308, 32342.

Issue II.G.2. DOE requests feedback and data on whether or not maintenance costs differ by technology option for any of the options listed in Table II-1.

Issue II.G.3. DOE requests information and data on the frequency of repair and repair costs by product class.

DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels relative to a no-standards case that reflects the market in the absence of amended standards. DOE would develop market-share efficiency data ( i.e., the distribution of product shipments by efficiency) for the product classes DOE is considering, for the year in which compliance with any amended standards would be required. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more efficient products, DOE would avoid overstating the potential benefits from potential standards.

Issue II.G.4. DOE seeks input and data on the fraction of RCWs currently sold with efficiencies greater than the minimum energy conservation standards, including the January 1, 2018, standards. DOE also requests information on expected trends in product efficiency over the next 5 years.

DOE develops shipments forecasts of RCWs to calculate the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy consumption, net present value (“NPV”), and future manufacturer cash flows. Typically, DOE shipments projections utilize available historical data broken out by product class, capacity, and efficiency. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed a shipments model for RCWs driven by historical shipments data, which were used to build up a product stock and calibrate the shipments model. 77 FR 32308, 32344. The key drivers of the shipments model included the new owner and replacement markets. Current sales estimates would allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends in the market.

Issue II.H.1. DOE requests annual sales data ( i.e., number of shipments) for top-loading standard, front-loading standard, top-loading compact, and front-loading compact RCW units. For each category, DOE also requests the fraction of sales that are ENERGY STAR qualified.

Table II-4 provides a summary table of the data requested in Issue II.H.1:

Issue II.H.2. DOE requests data and information on any trends in the RCW market that could be used to forecast expected trends in product class market share.

An initial analysis of market data indicates that consumers are purchasing more top-loading units in recent years, showing an upswing in the market share for this product class.

Issue II.H.3. DOE seeks data and information on whether the trend towards increased sales of top-loading units is expected to continue or level off.

The purpose of the national impact analysis (“NIA”) is to estimate aggregate impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. Impacts reported by DOE include the national energy savings (“NES”) from potential standards and the national net present value (“NPV”) of the total consumer benefits. The NIA considers lifetime impacts of potential standards on RCWs shipped in a 30-year period that begins with the expected compliance date for new or amended standards.

Analyzing impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards for RCWs requires a comparison of projected U.S. energy consumption with and without the amended standards. The forecasts contain projections of annual appliance shipments (section II.H of this document), the annual energy and water consumption of new RCWs (section II.F of this document), and the purchase price of new RCWs (section II.E of this document).

A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV would be the RCW energy efficiency forecasted over time for the no-standards case and each of the potential standards cases. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE based projections of no-standards-case shipment-weighted efficiency (“SWEF”) for the RCW product classes on growth rates determined from historical data provided by AHAM. 77 FR 32308, 32342. For a potential future rulemaking, DOE would expect to consider recent trends in efficiency and input from interested parties to update product energy efficiency forecasts.

Issue II.I.1. DOE seeks historical SWEF (IMEF and IWF) data for RCWs by product class. DOE also seeks historical market share data showing the percentage of product shipments by efficiency level for as many product classes as possible.

The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) is to estimate the financial impact of any amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of RCWs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), an industry cash-flow model adapted for covered RCW product classes, with the key output of industry net present value (“INPV”). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as product characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and important market and product trends.

As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze the impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of RCWs, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (“SBA”) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”). 10 Manufacturing of RCWs is classified under NAICS 335220, “Major Household Appliance Manufacturing,” and the SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees of less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. This employee threshold includes all employees in the parent company and any other subsidiaries.

One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation standards, including previous standards affecting the same product, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.

Issue II.J.1. To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that distribute RCWs in the United States.

Issue II.J.2. DOE has identified small businesses as a subgroup of manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by future amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and contact information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold for RCW manufacturers, that distribute products in the United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other manufacturer subgroups that potentially could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any potential approaches that could be considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses.

Issue II.J.3. DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers of RCWs associated with (1) other DOE standards applying to different products that these manufacturers may also make and import and (2) product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and how DOE could reduce this burden while complying with the requirements of EPCA.

In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of amended energy conservation standards for RCWs.

In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of energy conservation standards for RCWs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this document.

DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by September 3, 2019, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservation standards for RCWs. After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the public comments received and may begin collecting data, conducting the analyses discussed in this RFI.

Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email to Consumer ClothesWasher2017STD0014@ee.doe.gov or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process or would like to request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

On May 2, 2019, the Bureau issued a notice of proposed rulemaking at 84 FR 20972 (May 2019 Proposal) relating to Regulation C's coverage thresholds and the partial exemptions under HMDA and requested public comment. 1 The May 2019 Proposal was published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2019.

In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed two alternatives to amend Regulation C to increase the current 25-loan coverage threshold for reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans so that institutions originating fewer than either 50 closed-end mortgage loans, or alternatively 100 closed-end mortgage loans, in either of the two preceding calendar years would not have to report such data. The May 2019 Proposal proposed an effective date of January 1, 2020 for any amendment to the closed-end coverage threshold. The May 2019 Proposal would also adjust the coverage threshold for reporting data about open-end lines of credit by (a) extending to January 1, 2022 the current temporary coverage threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit, and (b) setting the permanent coverage threshold at 200 open-end lines of credit upon the expiration of the proposed extension of the temporary coverage threshold. In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau also proposed to incorporate into Regulation C the interpretations and procedures from the interpretive and procedural rule that the Bureau issued on August 31, 2018 to implement and clarify section 104(a) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA), 2 and proposed to make other changes to effectuate section 104(a).

To facilitate the potential revisions of the thresholds that the Bureau proposed to take effect on January 1, 2020, the Bureau used a 30-day comment period for the May 2019 Proposal, which ended on June 12, 2019. 3 The Bureau received over 300 comments. Among the comments received were a number of letters expressing concern that the 2018 HMDA Data would not be available until after the close of the comment period for the May 2019 Proposal. These commenters noted that the 2018 HMDA Data includes data points that were reported for the first time under the Bureau's October 2015 HMDA final rule and stated that access to the 2018 HMDA Data would enable the public to comment more precisely on the data that would be lost if the proposed changes were finalized. For example, a group of 18 consumer advocacy and other non-profit organizations asked the Bureau to reissue the May 2019 Proposal and allow for a new 90-day comment period after the release of the 2018 HMDA Data. 4 A State attorney general expressed concern that the May 2019 Proposal asked the public to provide comment on the efficacy of data it has yet to see. An industry commenter stated that analysis of the 2018 HMDA Data was necessary so as to gain an accurate understanding of how changes to the coverage thresholds would affect regulators and current HMDA reporters.

The Bureau has balanced the potential benefits from allowing interested parties additional time to consider the 2018 HMDA Data in commenting on the May 2019 Proposal with the Bureau's desire to finalize certain aspects of the May 2019 Proposal expeditiously. The Bureau expects the 2018 HMDA Data to be released in late summer. In light of these factors, the Bureau has decided that reopening certain aspects of the May 2019 Proposal for a limited period of time to comment is appropriate, as discussed below. 5 The Bureau does not, however, believe it is necessary or appropriate to reissue the May 2019 Proposal with a new 90-day comment period as the letter from 18 non-profit organizations requested. Instead, the Bureau will reopen the comment period on certain aspects of the NPRM until October 15, 2019, so comments can reflect the 2018 HMDA Data without interposing substantial delay in the adoption of any new permanent thresholds.

The Bureau believes that it would be useful to have public comment on the 2018 HMDA Data in considering where to set the permanent coverage thresholds for closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit. For example, the new data may shed light on the number of institutions and percentage of market activity covered at different potential coverage thresholds and the value of the data that would not be reported if the thresholds were increased. The Bureau is therefore reopening the comment period and requesting comment on the Bureau's proposed changes to the permanent coverage thresholds for closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit. The relevant aspects are: (1) The proposed amendments to the permanent closed-end coverage threshold in §§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and (g)(2)(ii)(A) and 1003.3(c)(11), and comments2(g)-1, 2(g)-5, 3(c)(11)-1, and 3(c)(11)-2, that the Bureau proposed would take effect on January 1, 2020, and (2) the proposed amendments to the permanent open-end coverage threshold in §§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and (g)(2)(ii)(B) and 1003.3(c)(12) and 2(g)-3 and 2(g)-5 and 3(c)(12)-1 and 3(c)(12)-2 that the Bureau proposed would take effect January 1, 2022.

Due to the reopening of the comment period on the permanent closed-end coverage threshold, the Bureau will not be able to finalize any change to the closed-end coverage threshold in time to take effect on the Bureau's originally proposed effective date of January 1, 2020. The Bureau therefore requests additional comment on the appropriate effective date for any change to the closed-end coverage threshold, should the Bureau decide to finalize a change. Specifically, the Bureau requests comment on the costs and benefits of a mid-year effective date during 2020 ( e.g., May 2020) versus a January 1, 2021 effective date. 6 With respect to the alternative of a mid-year effective date during 2020, the Bureau also requests comment on the costs and benefits of specific days of the week or times of the month, quarter, or year for a new closed-end coverage threshold to take effect and whether there are any other considerations that the Bureau should address in a final rule if it were to adopt a mid-year effective date. Regarding the effective date for a permanent open-end coverage threshold, reopening the comment period will still allow the Bureau to issue a final rule to adjust the permanent open-end coverage threshold effective January 1, 2022, as the Bureau proposed in the May 2019 Proposal, should the Bureau choose to do so.

As discussed below, the Bureau has already received comment on the proposed two-year extension of the temporary coverage threshold for open-end lines of credit and the proposed amendments to incorporate the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions into Regulation C. The Bureau is not soliciting comment during the reopened comment period on these issues, and any further such comments will be considered outside of the scope of this request for public comment. The Bureau encourages commenters to limit their submissions accordingly to (1) the Bureau's proposed changes to the permanent coverage threshold for closed-end mortgage loans, (2) the Bureau's proposed changes to the permanent coverage threshold for open-end lines of credit, and (3) the appropriate effective date for any change to the closed-end coverage threshold. The reopened comment period will close on October 15, 2019, which will allow interested parties adequate time to consider the 2018 HMDA Data after its release in late summer. Comments on the proposed rule that were previously submitted during the initial comment period, which ended on June 12, 2019, remain part of the rulemaking docket and therefore do not need to be resubmitted for the Bureau to consider them.

The Bureau has decided not to reopen the comment period with respect to the May 2019 Proposal's proposed two-year extension of the temporary open-end threshold. As discussed in the May 2019 Proposal, the proposed extension would provide the Bureau with additional time to assess how a requirement to report open-end lines of credit would affect institutions whose origination volume falls just above the proposed threshold of 200 open-end lines of credit. 7 The proposed extension would also provide any newly covered institutions with sufficient time to revise and update policies and procedures, implement any necessary systems changes, and train staff before the proposed threshold of 200 lines of credit would take effect in 2022. The Bureau does not believe that additional comment on the 2018 HMDA Data is necessary for the Bureau to determine whether to finalize the proposed two-year extension of the open-end threshold. The Bureau expects to issue a final rule in the fall of 2019 indicating whether it will extend the temporary open-end coverage threshold so that, if finalized, the extension can take effect as proposed on January 1, 2020. Therefore, the Bureau is not reopening that portion of the proposal for further comment relating to the 2018 HMDA Data.

The Bureau also does not believe that additional comment on the 2018 HMDA Data is necessary for its consideration of the provisions in the May 2019 Proposal that would incorporate the EGRRCPA partial exemptions into Regulation C and further implement EGRRCPA section 104(a). The Bureau is proposing to implement the new statutory partial exemptions that Congress established in EGRRCPA section 104(a), and the Bureau does not believe that comment on the 2018 HMDA Data would assist it in determining how to implement the new statutory partial exemptions. To provide further clarity on the new partial exemptions as quickly as possible, the Bureau anticipates that it will address the proposed amendments relating to the partial exemptions in a final rule issued in the fall of 2019.

On May 7, 2019, the Bureau issued an NPRM proposing to amend Regulation F, 12 CFR part 1006, to prescribe Federal rules governing the activities of debt collectors, as that term is defined in the FDCPA. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2019. 1 The NPRM would, among other things, address communications in connection with debt collection; interpret and apply prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices in debt collection; and clarify requirements for certain consumer-facing debt collection disclosures. The NPRM requested public comment on each of those topics, among others.

The NPRM provided a 90-day public comment period that was set to close on August 19, 2019. The Bureau has received written requests asking that the Bureau extend the comment period. Two written requests from consumer advocates and an industry trade group asked that the Bureau extend the comment period by either 60 or 90 days. The requests indicate that the interested parties would use the time to conduct additional outreach to relevant constituencies and to properly address the many questions presented in the NPRM.

The Bureau has balanced interested parties' desire to have additional time to consider the issues raised in the NPRM, gather data, and prepare their responses, with the Bureau's interest in proceeding expeditiously with the debt collection rulemaking. In light of these factors, the Bureau believes that a 30-day extension of the NPRM comment period to September 18, 2019, is appropriate. This extension should allow interested parties more time to prepare responses to the NPRM without delaying the debt collection rulemaking. The NPRM comment period will now close September 18, 2019.

The proposed regulations that are the subject of this correction are under section 951A of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published, the notice of proposed regulations (REG-101828-19) contains errors which may prove to be misleading and need to be clarified.

Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-101828-19) that was the subject of FR Doc. 2019-12436, published at 84 FR 29114 (June 21, 2019), is corrected to read as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

On February 2, 2019, the Sarasota Scullers Youth Rowing Program notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting the Battle of the Bridges sculler race from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on September 28, 2019. The race will take place on portions of the Intracoastal Waterway in Venice, FL. The Captain of the Port St. Petersburg (COTP) has determined potential hazards associated with the race to be a safety concern for anyone within area where the race is taking place.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the regulated area during the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

The COTP proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on September 28, 2019. The regulation would cover a race, which would take place on approximately 3.5 miles of the Intracoastal Waterway starting near the Shamrock Park and Nature Center and ending near the Tamiami Trail Bridge in Venice, FL. The duration of the regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters during the scheduled race. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Persons or vessels receiving permission to enter the regulated area must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. This regulation would impact approximately 3.5 miles of the Intracoastal Waterway in Venice, FL for twelve hours on one day. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulation, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the race area. Advance notice of the regulation will be provide the local community with ample time to plan around the race event accordingly.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulation area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation, which temporarily limits access to the portions of the Intracoastal Waterway in Venice, FL to race participants for twelve hours on one day. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L(61) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), who owns and operates the A1A North Causeway Bridge, has requested a rule to allow for scheduled drawbridge openings. There has been an increase in vehicular traffic over the bridge in recent years due to residential development along the beach.

The exisiting A1A North Causeway Bridge across the AICW, mile 964.8 in Fort Pierce, St Lucie County, FL is a bascule bridge. It has a vertical clearance of 26 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet. The bridge currently operates under 33 CFR 117.5.

On August 30, 2018, the Coast Guard published a Test Deviation entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Fort Pierce, FL in the Federal Register (83 FR 44233). We received 113 comments.

During the test, the majority of comments received were in support of scheduled openings. However, most felt that the bridge was still opening too frequently. A review of the bridge tender logs did not support the claim that the bridge was opening too frequently. The logs did show, however, that openings tended to be twice per hour as opposed to three times per hour. In addition, the majority of comments recommended scheduled openings during the evening and on weekends.

In response to all of the comments from the original Test Deviation, on March 21, 2019, the Coast Guard published an alternate Test Deviation entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Fort Pierce, FL in the Federal Register (84 FR 10411). This test deviation was issued to determine if an alternate operating schedule to the previous test deviation is appropriate to better balance the needs of marine and vehicle traffic. We received 33 comments.

During this test, all comments were in favor of the alternate operating schedule that included around the clock scheduled weekday and weekend openings.

The proposed rule will allow the drawbridge to be placed on a regular operating schedule. Under this proposed regulation, the draw of the A1A North Causeway Bridge would open on the hour and half-hour.

This proposed change would still allow vessels that can transit under the bridge, without an opening, to do so at any time while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of transportation. Vessels in distress, public vessels of the United States, and tugs with tows must be passed at any time.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge twice an hour, and vessels that can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so at any time. Vessels in distress, public vessels of the United States and tugs with tows will be allowed to pass at any time.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) and U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). We have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally this action is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

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

Vermont is part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under Section 184(a) of the CAA. Sections 182(b)(2) and 184 of the CAA require states with ozone nonattainment areas that are classified as moderate or above, as well as areas in the OTR, to submit a SIP revision requiring the implementation of reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources covered by a control techniques guideline (CTG) and for all major sources. A CTG is a document issued by EPA which establishes a “presumptive norm” for RACT for a specific VOC source category. RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. 1 The CTGs usually identify a particular control level which EPA recommends as being RACT. States are required to address RACT for the source categories covered by CTGs through adoption of rules as part of the SIP.

On October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), EPA issued four new CTGs, which applicable areas were required to address by October 5, 2007: Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing; Flexible Package Printing; and Flat Wood Paneling Coatings. On October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57215), EPA issued three more CTGs, which applicable areas were required to address by October 9, 2008: Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Large Appliance Coatings; and Metal Furniture Coatings. On October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58841), EPA issued an additional four CTGs, which applicable areas were required to address by October 7, 2009: Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings; Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. Lastly, on Oct 27, 2016 (81 FR 74798), EPA issued the most recent CTG for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, which applicable areas were required to address by October 27, 2018.

On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone to 0.075 parts per million (ppm), averaged over an 8-hour timeframe. EPA determined that the revised 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory diseases such as asthma.

On July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42560), EPA issued a Direct Final Rule Approving Vermont RACT for the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. In its approval, EPA conditionally approved permit conditions for Churchill Coatings Corporation and H.B.H. Prestain, Inc. into the Vermont SIP.

On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), EPA published a final rule outlining RACT requirements and requiring states in the OTR to certify RACT requirements by July 20, 2014. This rule, referred to as the “2008 Ozone Implementation Rule,” contains a description of EPA's expectations for states with RACT obligations. The 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule gives states several options for meeting RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone standard. States may (1) establish new or more stringent rules that meet RACT control levels for the 2008 standard; (2) certify, where appropriate, that previously adopted RACT rules approved by EPA under a prior ozone standard represent adequate RACT control levels for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; or (3) submit a negative declaration in instances where there are no sources in the state covered by a specific CTG source category. States may use these options alone or in combination to demonstrate compliance with RACT requirements.

On October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65291), EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.070 ppm averaged over an 8-hour time frame. On December 6, 2018 (83 FR 62998), EPA published a final rule that outlines the obligations for areas in nonattainment with the 2015 ozone standard, as well as obligations for areas in the OTR. This rule, referred to as the “2015 Ozone Implementation Rule,” requires states in the OTR to certify RACT requirements by August 3, 2020.

On February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9158), EPA published a final rule finding that Vermont, as well as 14 other states and the District of Columbia, had failed to submit SIP revisions in a timely manner to satisfy certain requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. With respect to Vermont, EPA found that the state had failed to submit three required SIP elements: NO X RACT for Major Sources; Non-CTG VOC RACT for Major Sources; and CTG VOC RACT. Id. at 9162. This finding became effective March 6, 2017, and started a SIP sanctions clock, which required the missing SIP elements to be submitted and deemed complete before September 6, 2018. Id. at 9160-61.

On September 6, 2018, Vermont submitted a SIP revision to address its RACT requirements set forth by the CAA for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQSs ( i.e., RACT Certification). Also, on September 6, 2018, EPA determined that Vermont's SIP submittal was administratively and technically complete. This determination stopped the 18-month sanctions clock for all three of Vermont's outstanding RACT SIP submittal elements. Because the sanctions clock stopped on September 6, 2018, sanctions had no effect in the state of Vermont for the February 2017 finding of failure to submit (82 FR 9158).

Vermont's RACT Certification submittal is based on the fact that (1) all required RACT controls, both major sources and those subject to CTGs, are being implemented in Vermont and will be part of the Vermont SIP upon final approval of this EPA action; (2) previously approved controls, not being revised herein, continue to represent RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS; and (3) Vermont has no applicable sources for 29 CTG categories for which negative declarations are described in Section III.

Specifically, Vermont's September 2018 SIP revision contains: A certification that Vermont has met all RACT requirements for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS with negative declarations for 29 CTG categories; the addition of Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations (APCRs) 5-253.8 Industrial Adhesives, 5-253.9 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, and 5-253.17 Industrial Solvent Cleaning to the Vermont SIP; revisions to Vermont APCRs 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling and 5-253.13 Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic; revisions to single-source requirements for “Isovolta Inc. (Formerly U.S. Samica, Inc.) Operating Permit RACT provisions”, “Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC. Operating Permit RACT provisions,” and “Okemo Limited Liability Company Operating Permit RACT provisions”; and withdrawal of the single-source requirements for “Churchill Coatings Corporation Operating Permit RACT conditions” and “H.B.H Prestain, Inc.”

Section 182 of the CAA requires RACT be applied to any major existing stationary source in the OTR with the potential to emit 100 tons or greater per year of NO X . Vermont's NO X RACT regulation applies to all sources with potential NO X emissions of 100 tons per year, or greater, APCR 5-251(2)(a), unless they are already subject to a more stringent level of NO X control ( i.e., new source review), id. 5-251(2)(c). Subsection 5-521(2)(a) does not set specific NO X emission limitations or technology standards, but rather requires that sources have RACT defined on a case-by-case basis by VT ANR. Such case-specific RACT determinations must then be approved by EPA as revisions to Vermont's SIP. In 2011 (76 FR 42560), EPA approved APCR 5-251(2) as meeting NO X RACT requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA proposes that APCR 5-251(2) continues to represent RACT for applicable major stationary sources of NO X in Vermont for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards.

Vermont has determined that it has only five operating sources with the potential to emit greater than 100 tons per year of NO X , as described in Table 3a of Vermont's September 2018 SIP Revision. Of these five sources, only two are subject to NO X RACT under APCR 5-251(2)(a). The source-specific requirements for these two facilities, Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC and Okemo Limited Liability Company, were last approved into the Vermont SIP by EPA on July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42560). The relevant NO X RACT requirements for these two facilities are included in this submittal and contain NO X emission limits that have been further reduced. EPA proposes to adopt the revisions into Vermont's SIP as RACT. The other three sources, Joseph C. McNeil Generating Station, OMYA, Inc. Vermont Marble Power Division, and Ryegate Power Station, are each subject to major new source review permitting under APCR 5-502, “Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications,” and thus are subject to most stringent emission rate (MSER), which exceed, or are no less stringent than, RACT.

After reviewing existing stationary NO X sources in Vermont, the EPA agrees with Vermont's determination that requirements for major sources of NO X meet, or are more stringent than, RACT requirements. Herein, EPA proposes that the above controls represent RACT for these NO X sources in Vermont for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards because no new control technologies are known to be reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility for these sources since our last approval.

Section 184(b)(2) of the CAA requires RACT be applied to any major existing stationary source with the potential to emit 50 tons or greater per year of VOCs. Vermont's APCR 5-253.20 applies to all sources with potential VOC emissions of 50 tons per year, or greater, that are not regulated under a CTG specific regulation. In 2011 (76 FR 42560), EPA approved APCR 5-253.20 as meeting RACT requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA proposes that APCR 5-253.20 continues to represent RACT for applicable major stationary sources of VOCs in Vermont for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards.

Vermont has determined it has only five operating sources with the potential to emit greater than 50 tons per year of VOCs, as described in Table 2 of Vermont's September 2018 SIP Revision. Two of these sources (Ethan Allen Orleans and Ethan Allen Beecher Falls) are subject to the wood furniture CTG RACT in APCR 5-253.16, approved by EPA on July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42560). Two sources (Churchill Coatings Corporation and HBH Holdings LLC) were previously subject to source-specific RACT orders but are now subject to the revised Flat Wood Paneling CTG RACT in APCR 5-253.12 and being proposed to be adopted in to the VT SIP in this action (discussed later in the “CTG VOC RACT” section of this notice). Thus, Vermont requests the prior single source RACT determinations for these two facilities be withdrawn and regulation 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling now constitutes RACT in lieu of the previous source-specific RACT conditions.

The remaining single-source RACT order facility, Isovolta, Inc. (formerly US Samica Corporation), had previously been approved by EPA on April 9, 1997. This order was updated on January 6, 2006, and Vermont has submitted the relative portions of the single-source requirements with its September 2018 RACT submittal. The provisions being added to the SIP contain specific compliance assurance requirements, such as, pollution control device monitoring and function testing, plus general recordkeeping and reporting requirements, all of which are required as part of an approvable RACT control.

After reviewing existing stationary VOC sources in Vermont, the EPA agrees with Vermont's determination that the requirements for major sources of VOC meet RACT requirements. EPA proposes that APCR 5-253.20 and the one remaining source-specific determination represent RACT for major VOC sources in Vermont for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standard because no new control technologies are known to be reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility for these sources since our last approval.

Vermont's submittal requests that EPA approve three APCRs for CTG VOC RACT in to the VT SIP: 5-253.8 Industrial Adhesives; 5-253.9 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing; and 5-253.17 Industrial Solvent Cleaning. The submittal also requests that two APCRs for CTG VOC RACT currently in the SIP be replaced with revised APCRs that Vermont has since promulgated: 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling; and 5-253.13 Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts. Vermont certifies that the remining VOC RACT rules, previously approved by EPA on September 19, 2011 (76 FR 42560), continue to represent RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQSs.

The addition of APCR 5-253.8 Industrial Adhesives to the VT SIP generally applies to any person in Vermont that uses or supplies industrial adhesive or adhesive primer, with certain exceptions noted in the rule. The new rule is consistent with the recommendations for RACT found in EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (EPA-453/R-08-005, September 2008). Applicable persons are required to use low-VOC adhesives and primers or limit their VOC emissions by using add-on control equipment with an overall control efficiency of 90%. The new regulation also specifies application methods, as well as work practices for waste and cleaning materials, to further limit VOC emissions from industrial adhesive activities.

The addition of APCR 5-253.9 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing to the VT SIP applies to graphic arts operations that use the offset lithographic printing process. The new rule is consistent with the recommendations for RACT found in EPA's CTG for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing (EPA-453/R-06-002, September 2006). The threshold applicability consists of 15 lbs/day for fountain solutions and cleaning materials and 25 tons per year for heat-set dryers. Applicable sources are required to limit the VOC content of inks, coatings, adhesives, and cleaning solvents or use VOC pollution control devices. These sources are also required to follow work practices for material application, storage, spill cleanup, and containment as well as maintain records of the regulated materials used.

Vermont's APCR 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling was previously approved by EPA on April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19829). The revised rule applies to flat wood paneling coating sources that emit at least 3 tons per 12-month rolling period of VOC before consideration of controls. Flat wood paneling coatings means wood paneling products that are any interior, exterior or tileboard (class I hardboard) panel to which a protective, decorative, or functional material or layer has been applied. The revised rule now includes coating of clapboards, for which Vermont has several applicable facilities. The new rule is generally consistent EPA's CTG for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (EPA-453/R-06-004, September 2006), with the exception of coating of certain solid wood exterior siding, discussed in more detail below. Applicable sources are required to limit VOC emissions by adding on a pollution control device with 90% efficiency or by limiting VOC content in coatings to either: 2.9 lbs of VOC per gallon of coating for solid wood exterior siding of cedar, hemlock, mahogany and redwood species at a stationary source whose actual emissions from all coating operations are less than 50 tons of VOCs per 12-month rolling period, or an emission limit of 2.1 lbs of VOC per gallon of coating for all other flat wood paneling operations. The rule also requires record keeping and work practices for handling VOC-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and coatings-related waste materials. The revised rule reduces VOC emissions by lowering the maximum VOC content of most coatings, compared to Vermont's previously-approved APCR 5-253.12 and source specific requirements for applicable facilities. Therefore, the revised rule is expected to achieve equivalent or greater emissions reductions. Thus, revising the SIP to incorporate the revised rule will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. See CAA § 110(l).

Vermont APCR 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling contains a transcription error whereby the metric equivalent of 2.9 lbs/gal is incorrectly stated as 325 grams/liter, when in fact the metric equivalent is 350 grams/liter. VT DEC confirmed in a letter to EPA dated June 28, 2019, that it is DEC's intention to limit solid wood exterior siding coatings, at facilities that emit less than 50 tons per year of VOCs, to 2.9 pounds/gallon and the metric equivalent 350 grams/liter. The discussion on page 3 of the “Vermont RACT SIP—Responsiveness Summary” further explains Vermont's intention for this category limit to be “350 grams/liter (2.9 lbs/gal).” Vermont set this exterior wood siding coating limit slightly higher than the EPA CTG recommendation of 2.1 lbs/gal based on: The limited number of impacted facilities (two); the relatively small size of the impacted operations (less than 50 tons per year of VOC coating emissions); this particular solid wood coating only constitutes a portion of the total VOC emissions at the impacted facilities; and the higher VOC content coating applied to solid wood is expected to last longer and, thus, reduce the need for additional coating applications. EPA agrees and proposes that for Vermont, the enforced limit of 350 grams/liter (2.9 lbs/gal) VOC content for solid wood exterior siding coatings at facilities where total VOC emissions from all coating lines is under 50 tons per year constitutes RACT.

Vermont's APCR 5-253.13 Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts was previously approved by EPA on April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19829). The revised rule contains updated work practices, coating application methods, and recordkeeping requirements for all applicable facilities. While the rule lists multiple types of coating applications methods, other coating application methods capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent to, or better than, that provided by high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray application may also be used. Additional control options permit equivalent emissions limits expressed in terms of mass of VOC per volume of solids as applied or the use of add-on controls capable of achieving an overall VOC efficiency of 90 percent. The new coating limits generally follow the recommendations in EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coating (EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008), with three exceptions: Extreme high gloss topcoat, other substrate antifoulant coating, and antifouling sealer/tie. For these three categories, Vermont reviewed industry data and determined that for purposes of functionality, cost, and VOC emissions, the higher limits adopted for these three coating categories constitute RACT. Vermont's approach is consistent with the EPA guidance memorandum entitled “Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings—Industry Request for Reconsideration” from Stephen Page to Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X, dated June 1, 2010. Vermont's new VOC coating limits are also lower than most of the previously SIP-approved limits. Although some specialty coatings limits are higher than previous limits, since the general use coating limit is lower and these coatings are more frequently used, coupled with the fact that the revised rule's applicability is broader, the revised rule reduces VOC emissions and will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. See CAA § 110( l ). This analysis is also consistent with the March 17, 2011, EPA guidance memorandum entitled “Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coating Categories.”

The addition of Vermont's APCR 5-253.17 Industrial Solvent Cleaning to the Vermont SIP will add to Vermont's solvent cleaning requirements, which are currently in the Vermont SIP under APCR 5-253.14 Solvent Metal Cleaning, which was last approved by EPA on April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19825). The added rule applies to industries that use organic solvent for cleaning unit operations such as mixing vessels (tanks), spray booths, and parts cleaners, who purchase for use at the premises at least 855 gallons of cleaning solvents, in aggregate, per rolling 12-month period. EPA proposes the purchase-for-use threshold of 855 gallons per rolling 12-month period is commensurate with the EPA recommended CTG applicability of 15 pounds per day of actual VOC emissions based on a solvent density of 7.36 pounds per gallon and up to 55 gallons of solvent used for exempt uses. The cleaning activities include actions such as wiping, flushing, and spraying. Vermont's Industrial Cleaning Solvents rule is consistent with the recommendations for RACT found in EPA's CTG for Industrial Cleaning Solvents (EPA-453/R-06-001, September 2006). Applicable sources are required to limit VOC emissions by using cleaning solvents that contain no more than 50 g VOC/l or have a composite vapor pressure of 8.0 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) at 20 degrees Celsius or by using add-on controls capable of achieving an overall VOC reduction efficiency of 85%. The work practices in the rule minimize VOC emissions during the use, handling, storage, and disposal of cleaning solvents. The added rule reduces VOC emissions by lowering the VOC content of most solvent, or by applying add-on controls, and thus satisfies the anti-back sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of the CAA.

Vermont has determined that there are no applicable stationary sources of VOC in Vermont for 29 CTG categories: (1) Aerospace; (2) Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings (2008); (3) Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants; (4) Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials (2008); (5) Flexible Packaging Printing Materials (2006); (6) Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing; Equipment; (7) Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography; (8) Large Appliance Coatings (2007); (9) Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners; (10) Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment; (11) Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins; (12) Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires; (13) Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products; (14) Metal Furniture Coatings (2007); (15) Oil and Natural Gas Industry (2016); (16) Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings (2007); (17) Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks; (18) Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds; (19) SOCMI Air Oxidation Processes; (20) SOCMI Distillation and Reactor Processes; (21) Shipbuilding/repair; (22) Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnet Wire; (23) Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; (24) Surface Coating of Cans; (25) Surface Coating of Coils; (26) Surface Coating of Fabrics; (27) Surface Coating of Large Appliances; (28) Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; and (29) Surface Coating of Paper. These negative declarations mean that Vermont has no applicable stationary sources of VOC that are covered by these CTGs.

EPA has evaluated Vermont's CTG VOC regulations, which the state certifies as meeting RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards, and finds that they are sufficiently consistent with recommendations in the respective EPA CTGs and are based on currently available technologically and economically feasible controls. Therefore, EPA proposes that the regulations being added and revised in this action, along with the past approved VOC CTG regulations, represent RACT in Vermont for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standard.

EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's SIP revision as meeting the State's RACT obligations for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQSs as set forth by sections 182(b) and 184(b)(2) of the CAA, and to add “State Implementation Plan Revision Supporting Compliance with Requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Under the 2008 and 2015 8-Hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Final Submittal, September 6, 2018” to the Vermont SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the addition of Vermont APCR 5-253.8 Industrial Adhesives, 5-253.9 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, and 5-253.17 Industrial Solvent Cleaning in to the Vermont SIP. EPA is proposing to revise APCR 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling and 5-253.13 Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts currently in the Vermont SIP. EPA is also proposing to revise the single-source requirements for “Isovolta Inc. (Formerly U.S. Samica, Inc.) Operating Permit RACT provisions,” “Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC. Operating Permit RACT provisions,” and “Okemo Limited Liability Company Operating Permit RACT provisions” currently in the Vermont SIP. EPA is proposing to withdraw the single-source requirements for “Churchill Coatings Corporation Operating Permit RACT conditions” and “H.B.H Prestain, Inc. Operating Permit RACT provisions” from the Vermont SIP. Lastly, EPA is proposing to convert our July 2011 conditional approval of RACT with respect to the 1997 ozone standard to a full approval because the proposed addition of APCR 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling will constitute RACT in lieu of the previous source-specific RACT conditions for Churchill Coatings Corporation and H.B.H. Prestain, Inc. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register .

In this document, EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. As described in the proposed action above, EPA is proposing to add and revise provisions of the Vermont APCR at 40 CFR 52.2370(c), “EPA approved regulations” in the Vermont State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. Also in this document, as described in the proposed action above, EPA is proposing to revise and remove provisions of the EPA-approved Vermont source specific requirements at 40 CFR 52.2370(d), “EPA-approved State Source specific requirements” in the Vermont State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On July 15, 2011, the EPA determined that the submittal for VCAPCD Rule 74.11 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

We approved an earlier version of Rule 74.11 into the SIP on September 24, 1999 (64 FR 51688). The VCAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on May 11, 2010, and CARB submitted them to us on June 21, 2011.

Emissions of NO X contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control NO X emissions. The current SIP-approved Rule 74.11 establishes NO X emission limits, and certification, compliance, and testing requirements for residential natural gas-fired water heaters sold or installed by anyone in Ventura County. Revisions to the SIP-approved rule include broadening the applicability to any natural gas-fired water heater rated at less than 75,000 Btu/hr  1 (not just residential units), lower NO X limits, the addition of NO X limits for mobile homes (previously exempt from the rule), and the acceptance of water heaters certified, exclusively, by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1121) as certified for sale or installation in Ventura County. Other rule revisions include additional compliance report documentation related to certification, additional enforcement requirements, and the re-arrangement of and additions to the definitions. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each major source of NO X in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The VCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Serious for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 81.305). However, because this rule does not affect major sources, it does not need to implement section 182(b)(2) RACT. While section 182(b)(2) RACT does not apply, the Ventura County ozone nonattainment area is subject to the SIP requirement to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) and for attainment of the NAAQS.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).

3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

4. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (the NO X Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.

5. “Alternative Control Techniques Document—NO X Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers,” EPA 453/R-94-022, March 1994.

6. “Alternative Control Techniques Document—NO X Emissions from Process Heaters (Revised),” EPA-453/R-93-034, September 1993.

We have reviewed VCAPCD Rule 74.11 and determined that it is consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, and SIP revisions. With respect to our evaluation for compliance of this SIP revision with CAA section 110(l), we note that the 2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan relies on the emissions reductions from VCAPCD Rule 74.11, as amended in 2010, as part of the strategy to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. 2 The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

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).

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

3. Environmental justice. 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. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, 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 pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR [part 174 and/or part 180] for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

PP IN-11271. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0279). Spring Trading Company (203 Dogwood Trail Magnolia, TX 77354-5201) on behalf of BASF Corporation (100 Campus Drive, Florham Park NJ 07932), requests to amend an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123-06-9) by increasing the limitation from 20% by weight to 50% by weight when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (solvent/co-solvent) in pesticide formulations applied in or on raw agricultural commodities and to growing crops under 40 CFR 180.910 and applied in/on animals under 40 CFR 180.930. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

1. PP 9E8739. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0694). The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon establishment of the tolerance referenced above under “New Tolerances” to remove the existing tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.672 for residues of the insecticide cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-[((methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates in or on Strawberry at 1.0 ppm. Contact: RD.

2. PP 9E8743. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0250). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, proposes to amend 40 CFR part 180.613(a) for residues of the insecticide flonicamid, including its metabolites and degradates, to be determined by measuring only the sum of flonicamid, N -(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide, and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG, N -(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid, in or on Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach by increasing the existing tolerance from 4.0 ppm to 8.0 ppm. Upon establishment of the amended tolerance above, the petitioner requests removal of the existing tolerance for flonicamid on Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach at 4.0 ppm. The analytical method used to quantitate above designated flonicamid residues in plants incorporates a liquid chromatograph (LC) equipped with a reverse phase column and a triple quadruple mass spectrometer (MS/MS). Contact: RD.

3. PP 9E8755. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0128). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon establishment of tolerances referenced in this document under “New Tolerances (for PP 9E6755 )” to remove the existing tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.685 for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone, in or on the following commodities: Pea, edible-podded at 1.0 ppm and Pea, succulent shelled at 0.05 ppm. Contact: RD.

PP IN-11264. (EPA-HQ-OPP- 2019-0327). Spring Trading Company (203 Dogwood Trail Magnolia, TX 77354-5201) on behalf of Stoller Enterprises, Inc. (9090 Katy Freeway, Suite 400 Houston, TX 77024), requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of formic acid (CAS Reg. No. 64-18-6) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (pH adjuster) in pesticide formulations applied in or on raw agricultural commodities and to growing crops under 40 CFR 180.910 and applied in/on animals under 40 CFR 180.930. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

1. PP 8F8713. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0368). Acqua Concepts, Inc. (d/b/a Ag Water Chemical), 2665 S. Chestnut, Fresno, CA 93725, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the gopher repellent methyl mercaptan in or on all food commodities that use irrigation lines treated with methyl mercaptan. The analytical method “ASTM D 5504-12 using a gas chromatograph equipped with a sulfur chemiluminescence detector (SCD)” is available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide residues. Contact: BPPD.

2. PP 9F8735. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0324). Biocontrol Technologies, S.L., Avgda. Madrid, 215-217, entresòl A, 08014 Barcelona, Spain (c/o Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 640, Hockessin, DE 19707), requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide and bactericide Trichoderma asperellum, strain T34 in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is being proposed. Contact: BPPD.

3. PP 9F8760. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0367). Valent BioSciences LLC, 870 Technology Way, Libertyville, IL 60048, requests to establish a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the biochemical plant regulator (fruit thinner)1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) in or on apples and stone fruits. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because of low toxicity and minimal residues. Contact: BPPD.

1. PP 8F8708. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384). E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19805, requests to establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide indoxacarb in or on corn, pop, grain at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) and corn, pop, stover at 15 ppm. The plant residue enforcement method detects and quantitates indoxacarb in various matrices including sweet corn, lettuce, tomato, broccoli, apple, grape, cottonseed, tomato, peanut and soybean commodity samples by HPLC UV. The limit of quantitation in the method allows monitoring of crops with KN128/KN127 residues at or above the levels proposed in these tolerances. Contact: RD.

2. PP 9E8739. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0694). The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.672 for residues of the insecticide cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-[((methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates in or on Strawberry at 1.5 ppm. The high-pressure liquid chromatography with ESI- MS/MS detection is used to measure and evaluate cyantraniliprole. Contact: RD.

3. PP 9E8752. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0281). IR-4, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. 500 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.446 for residues of the insecticide, clofentezine, 3,6-bis(2-chlorophenyl)-1,2,4,5-tetrazine in or on hops, dried cones at 6 parts per million (ppm). The high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) and limit of detection (LOD) were determined to be 0.01 ppm and 0.003 ppm, respectively. Contact: RD.

4. PP 9E8755. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0128). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.685 for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone, in or on the following commodities: Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 0.4 parts per million (ppm); Hop, dried cones at 5 ppm; and Tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, smooth, inedible peel, subgroup 24B at 0.1 ppm; individual crops of proposed crop subgroup 6-18B: Edible podded pea legume vegetable subgroup including: Chickpea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Dwarf pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Edible podded pea at 1 ppm; Grass-pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Green pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Lentil, edible podded at 1 ppm; Pigeon pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Snap pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Snow pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; and Sugar snap pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; and individual crops of proposed crop subgroup 6-18D: Succulent shelled pea subgroup including: Chickpea, succulent shelled at 0.05 ppm; English pea, succulent shelled at 0.05 ppm; Garden pea, succulent shelled at 0.05 ppm; Green pea, succulent shelled at 0.05 ppm; Lentil, succulent shelled at 0.05 ppm; and Pigeon pea, succulent shelled at 0.05 ppm. Adequate analytical methodology, high-pressure liquid chromatography with MS/MS detection, is available to enforce the oxathiapiprolin tolerance expression. Contact: RD.

5. PP 9E8763. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0388). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.613(a) for residues of the herbicide saflufenacil, including its metabolites and degradates, determined by measuring only the sum of saflufenacil, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2 H )-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro- N -[[methyl(1-methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide, and its metabolites N -[2-chloro-5-(2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-1(2 H )-pyrimidinyl)-4-fluorobenzoyl]- N ′-isopropylsulfamide and N -[4-chloro-2-fluoro-5-({ (isopropylamino)sulfonyl amino}carbonyl)phenyl]urea, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of saflufenacil, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.03 parts per million (ppm), Chia, seed at 1 ppm, Chia, straw at 15 ppm, Fig at 0.03 ppm, and Fig, dried at 0.05 ppm. Adequate enforcement analytical methodology (liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) for plant and livestock commodities is available to enforce the saflufenacil tolerance expression. Contact RD.

6. PP 9F8747. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0230). Valent U.S.A. LLC, P.O. Box 8025, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide, ethaboxam (( RS )- N -(α-cyano-2-thenyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethylamino)-1,3-thiazole-5-carboxamide) in or on beet, sugar, root at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). The analytical method uses high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS-MS), with turbo-ion spray ionization in positive ion mode for ethaboxam and metabolites EEO, and negative ion mode for EEHO. A linear forced-origin calibration curve was used to quantify ethaboxam in the sample extracts. Contact: RD.

Executive Order 13777, entitled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (82 FR 12285), instructs agencies to review regulations which should be repealed, replaced, or modified. As a result of a review undertaken after the issuance of Executive Order 13777, OIG identified a Proposed Rule (described below), which we do not intend to finalize. Accordingly, OIG is withdrawing the Proposed Rule from the Federal Register .

The Proposed Rule that OIG is withdrawing was published in 2002. OIG neither applied nor enforced the position stated therein, nor does it now intend to do so. If OIG were to finalize this proposal, we would require updated comments from the public, as reimbursement methods and other aspects of the healthcare industry have changed in the interim. As a result, OIG is withdrawing the following Proposed Rule to eliminate any confusion that could result from its presence in the public domain:

The Proposed Rule, Medicare and State Health Care Programs: Fraud and Abuse; Safe Harbor Under the Anti-Kickback Statute for Waiver of Beneficiary Coinsurance and Deductible Amounts (67 FR 60202, September 25, 2002), would have expanded an existing safe harbor at 42 CFR 1001.952(k) to include waivers of cost sharing amounts for Part A and B services for holders of Medicare SELECT policies (a type of Medicare supplement (Medigap) plan).

We expect minimal regulatory impact and reaction because of the passage of time since the Proposed Rule was published and because, to our knowledge, the public is not currently relying on, and may be unaware of, it.

Executive Order 13777, entitled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (82 FR 12285), instructs agencies to review regulations which should be repealed, replaced, or modified. As a result of a review undertaken after the issuance of Executive Order 13777, OIG identified a Proposed Rule (described below), which we do not intend to finalize. Accordingly, OIG is withdrawing the proposed rule from the Federal Register .

The Proposed Rule that OIG is withdrawing was published in 1994. OIG neither applied nor enforced the positions stated therein, nor does it now intend to do so. If OIG were to finalize this proposal, we would require updated comments from the public, as reimbursement methods and other aspects of the healthcare industry have changed in the interim. As a result, OIG is withdrawing the following Proposed Rule to eliminate any confusion that could result from their presence in the public domain:

The Proposed Rule, Health Care Programs: Fraud and Abuse; Civil Money Penalties for Hospital Physician Incentive Plans (59 FR 61571, December 1, 1994), would have codified in regulations OIG's authority to levy CMPs when a hospital knowingly makes incentive payments to a physician as an inducement for reducing services to Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries).

We expect minimal regulatory impact and reaction because of the passage of time since the Proposed Rule was published and because, to our knowledge, the public is not currently relying on, and may be unaware of, it.

Dates, Times and Locations

The dates, times, and locations of scoping meetings are scheduled as follows:

The North Atlantic right whale population has been declining since 2010, and the most recent estimate indicates a population of no more than 411 individuals at the end of 2017. The decline has been exacerbated by an Unusual Mortality Event in 2017, following a calving season (2016-2017) with only five documented births and coinciding with the first calving season since monitoring began in 1990 with no new births documented (2017-2018). While climate change and the availability and redistribution of prey appear to be contributing to the population's declining fitness, a primary cause of significant injury and mortality of North Atlantic right whales is entanglement in fishing gear. With mortalities continuing to outpace births, the population decline is continuing, and further mitigation of entanglements that cause serious injury or mortality is needed.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) mandates that NMFS develop and implement Take Reduction Plans for preventing the depletion and assisting in the recovery of certain marine mammal stocks that are seriously injured or killed in commercial fisheries. Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS convenes Take Reduction Teams, composed of stakeholders that make recommendations for reducing serious injuries and deaths to acceptable levels. The teams design each plan to reduce bycatch within a specific timeframe through a combination of voluntary and regulatory measures implemented by NMFS.

Right whales are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and considered depleted under the MMPA. NMFS formed the Team in 1997 to consider serious injuries and mortalities caused by incidental take in commercial fisheries of right whales as well as humpback and fin whales. The Team develops and recommends measures to reduce the impact of commercial fisheries on large whales in the Atlantic to achieve the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level. This level is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population.

The Team has previously implemented several regulations to reduce the impacts of fishing gear on large whales in the region, such as area closures, gear configuration requirements, and gear marking rules. The most recent rule in 2014, amended in 2015, was implemented to reduce the risk of entanglement by decreasing the number of buoy lines, vertical lines in the water column that identify where fishing gear is set and allow fishermen to retrieve the gear.

During a meeting in April 2019, the Team provided near-consensus recommendations to NMFS to reduce entanglements that cause right whale serious injuries and mortalities in trap/pot gear in New England waters by more than half to achieve the PBR level of less than one right whale per year in New England trap/pot fisheries. At the 2019 meeting, the Team discussed several management options to decrease the risk and severity of entanglements in these fisheries including: Vertical line reduction through trap or line limits and ropeless fishing technologies, gear modifications to reduce the breaking strength of ropes so entangled whales could break free, and area closures where right whales can be predicted to aggregate seasonally. Ultimately, all but one Team member present recommended jurisdiction-specific vertical line reductions and gear modifications.

In addition to changes in line numbers and strength, the Team strongly supported amplification of gear marking requirements to reduce uncertainty about where and in what fisheries large whales are entangled. During a June 2019 teleconference, the Team supported consideration of expanding the markings on buoy lines to all U.S. fixed gear fisheries including previously exempted waters, increasing spatial resolution in nearshore New England fisheries (“red” areas), adding a three-foot long mark within one fathom of the surface buoy system, and increasing the frequency of marks on buoy lines. Further information regarding that discussion can be found here: https://go.usa.gov/xmSS3.

Further information about the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan can be found at the website: https://go.usa.gov/xmSKh. Further information about the April 2019 Team meeting that resulted in the recommendations to modify the Take Reduction Plan can be found here: https://go.usa.gov/xmSk3 .

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may significantly affect the human environment. NMFS has determined that an EIS should be prepared under NEPA for the purpose of informing rulemaking to modify the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. We will prepare an EIS in accordance with NEPA requirements, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ); NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508); and other Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

The Proposed Action for analysis in the Final EIS is NMFS rulemaking to modify the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. NMFS' purpose for the proposed action is to fulfill the mandates of the MMPA to reduce impacts of fisheries on large whale species below their PBR level.

The EIS will consider the Team's recommendations to reduce vertical lines by changing gear reconfigurations and/or trap allocations to reduce buoy lines and to modify gear to require rope that whales can break. Additional buoy line marking will likely also be considered as part of this rulemaking. Additions or modifications to areas closed to trap/pot fishing may also be considered. Measures to be considered will respect the framework adopted by the Team to include area-specific measures that are operationally feasible for the varying gear configurations and lobster fishing conditions across New England. Measures will be created in collaboration with New England states and will take into account any measures states propose as they respond to Team recommendations.

Everyone potentially impacted by or interested in changes to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, and particularly, management of trap/pot fisheries in New England, is invited to participate in the public scoping process by submitting written comments or attending public scoping meetings. This scoping process aims to gather input regarding the scope of actions to be proposed for rulemaking, the development of alternatives to analyze in the EIS, and the potential impact of management actions. NMFS particularly requests comments and input on the operational challenges of gear modifications likely to be considered. In addition to direct costs of replacing new gear, input is requested on indirect cost of gear modification measure alternatives, such as costs in time required to install sleeves, install weak rope, and mark gear and costs related to fewer vertical lines or seasonal closures.

Comments and suggestions that are within the scope of the proposed actions to reduce risk of serious injury and mortality of large whales due to entanglements and to improve gear marking to reduce uncertainty about where entanglements occur will be considered when developing the alternatives for analysis in the draft EIS. Previous comments that have already been received regarding a proposed rule are already being considered and do not need to be resubmitted.