Federal Register Vol. 81, No.122,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 122 (June 24, 2016)

Page Range41171-41410
FR Document

81_FR_122
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 41358 - Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Bylaw Amendments Relating to Assessment of SIPC MembersPDF
81 FR 41354 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
81 FR 41303 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 41302 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 41307 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41296 - Availability of the Draft Report to Congress: Section 404 Fisheries ResearchPDF
81 FR 41327 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Counseling Training Grant ProgramPDF
81 FR 41328 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: ConnectHome Use and Barriers Focus GroupsPDF
81 FR 41331 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Monument Butte Area Oil and Gas Development Project, Duchesne and Uintah Counties, UtahPDF
81 FR 41352 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Amended Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
81 FR 41306 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41328 - Availability of HUD's Fiscal Year 2014 Service Contract InventoryPDF
81 FR 41330 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects, White Pine County, NevadaPDF
81 FR 41321 - Notice of Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 41333 - Notice of Application for Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting; Idaho (IDI 38117)PDF
81 FR 41350 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery ActPDF
81 FR 41282 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site RemediationPDF
81 FR 41294 - Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 41310 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41368 - Prisoner Transportation Services, LLC-Control-U.S. Corrections, LLC D/B/A U.S.C.PDF
81 FR 41301 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 41292 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
81 FR 41219 - Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens Strain PTA-4838; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
81 FR 41283 - Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit Program Revision; New JerseyPDF
81 FR 41301 - EPA Great Lakes Advisory Board; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 41235 - Acquistion Regulation: Update to Construction and Architect-Engineer and Key Personnel RequirementsPDF
81 FR 41253 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
81 FR 41258 - Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.PDF
81 FR 41343 - Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Systems, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Determination To Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist OrdersPDF
81 FR 41347 - Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Intervenor Status to Google, Inc.PDF
81 FR 41289 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 41287 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Trafficking Controls and Fraud InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 41288 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), State Law Enforcement Bureau (SLEB) Fraud InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 41368 - Texas Disaster #TX-00471PDF
81 FR 41296 - Endangered Species; File No. 20197PDF
81 FR 41296 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41217 - Special Local Regulations; Patriots Point Fireworks DisplayPDF
81 FR 41215 - Special Local Regulations; North Charleston Fireworks DisplayPDF
81 FR 41215 - Special Local Regulation; Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SCPDF
81 FR 41329 - Notice of Public Meeting, Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council MeetingPDF
81 FR 41262 - Energy Efficiency Program: Test Procedure for Televisions; Request for InformationPDF
81 FR 41308 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of AuthorityPDF
81 FR 41312 - Request for Statements of InterestPDF
81 FR 41301 - Proposed Agency Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 41348 - Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From Canada and China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 41257 - Petition To Amend Animal Welfare Act Regulations To Prohibit Public Contact With Big Cats, Bears, and Nonhuman PrimatesPDF
81 FR 41351 - Notice of Public Comment Period on the Presentation of the Forensic Science Discipline Review FrameworkPDF
81 FR 41213 - Extension of Effective Date for Temporary Pilot Program Setting the Time and Place for a Hearing Before an Administrative Law JudgePDF
81 FR 41290 - Current Mandatory Business SurveysPDF
81 FR 41239 - International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Purse Seine Observer Requirements, and Fishing Restrictions and Limits in Purse Seine and Longline Fisheries for 2016-2017PDF
81 FR 41370 - Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
81 FR 41297 - Procurement List AdditionPDF
81 FR 41297 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 41353 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
81 FR 41316 - Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines; Request for Nominations for Voting MembersPDF
81 FR 41352 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: Capital Punishment Report of Inmates Under Sentence of DeathPDF
81 FR 41314 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41303 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 41305 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 41251 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual SpecificationsPDF
81 FR 41302 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of MichiganPDF
81 FR 41371 - Pipeline Safety: Public Workshop on Underground Natural Gas Storage SafetyPDF
81 FR 41315 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41313 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41290 - Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee Discussing Current Civil Rights Concerns in the StatePDF
81 FR 41344 - Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 41345 - Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From China and Indonesia; Scheduling of Full Five-Year ReviewsPDF
81 FR 41346 - Certain Inflatable Products With Tensioning Structures and Processes for Making the Same; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 41312 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41354 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 41354 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 41375 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Interagency Statement on Complex Structured Finance TransactionsPDF
81 FR 41373 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Real Estate Lending and AppraisalsPDF
81 FR 41374 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Survey of Minority Owned InstitutionsPDF
81 FR 41300 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2016-2019PDF
81 FR 41286 - Radio Broadcasting Services; Grant, OklahomaPDF
81 FR 41285 - Radio Broadcasting Services; Eagle Butte, South DakotaPDF
81 FR 41364 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adopting New NYSE MKT Rules 2090-Equities (Know Your Customer) and 2111-Equities (Suitability) That Are Substantially Similar to FINRA Rules 2090 (Know Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability), Deleting Current NYSE MKT Rule 405-Equities (Diligence as to Accounts), and Making Other Conforming ChangesPDF
81 FR 41368 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41354 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41359 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Options Pricing at Chapter XV, Section 2PDF
81 FR 41355 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, To List and Trade Shares of the Pointbreak Diversified Commodity Strategy Fund of the Pointbreak ETF Trust Under BATS Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund SharesPDF
81 FR 41320 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41317 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41318 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41318 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41320 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41319 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41319 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41321 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41320 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 41255 - Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage AreasPDF
81 FR 41349 - Certain Carbon Spine Board, Cervical Collar, CPR Masks and Various Medical Training Manikin Devices, and Trademarks, Copyrights of Product Catalogues, Product Inserts and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 41299 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; Preschool Development Grants-Preschool Pay for Success Feasibility PilotPDF
81 FR 41342 - Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof, and Packaging and Manuals Therefor; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 41219 - Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Wheeling Heritage Port Festival; Ohio River Mile 90.2 to 90.7; Wheeling, WVPDF
81 FR 41217 - Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Upper Ohio Valley Italian Festival; Ohio River Mile 90.0 to 90.5; Wheeling, WVPDF
81 FR 41298 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41211 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Charlottesville, VAPDF
81 FR 41279 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Indiana, PAPDF
81 FR 41280 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Santa Rosa, CAPDF
81 FR 41196 - Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation AdjustmentsPDF
81 FR 41212 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lisbon, NDPDF
81 FR 41238 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Removal of Grant Handbook References (NFS Case 2016-N001)PDF
81 FR 41335 - Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore the Island of Oahu, Hawaii-Call for Information and Nominations (Call)PDF
81 FR 41334 - Environmental Assessment for Commercial Wind Leasing and Site Assessment Activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Offshore the Island of Oahu, Hawaii; MMAA104000PDF
81 FR 41218 - Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Boston ZonePDF
81 FR 41321 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 41171 - Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2016PDF
81 FR 41377 - Energy Conservation Program: Certification, Compliance, Labeling, and Enforcement for Electric Motors and Small Electric MotorsPDF
81 FR 41208 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan EnginesPDF
81 FR 41200 - Fuel Tank Vent Fire ProtectionPDF
81 FR 41222 - South Dakota: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by ReferencePDF
81 FR 41285 - South Dakota: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by ReferencePDF
81 FR 41229 - Wyoming: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by ReferencePDF
81 FR 41284 - Wyoming: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by ReferencePDF

Issue

81 122 Friday, June 24, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

See

Rural Housing Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Petition to Amend Animal Welfare Act Regulations to Prohibit Public Contact with Big Cats, Bears, and Nonhuman Primates, 41257-41258 2016-14976 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Current Mandatory Business Surveys, 41290-41292 2016-14970 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41303-41306 2016-14956 2016-14957 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41306-41308 2016-15021 2016-15029 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41310-41313 2016-14945 2016-15010 Request for Statements of Interest: National Advisory Committee on the Trafficking of Children and Youth in the United States, 41312 2016-14980 Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, 41308-41310 2016-14981 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Illinois Advisory Committee, 41290 2016-14949 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Eighth Coast Guard District, Upper Ohio Valley Italian Festival, Ohio River Mile 90.0 to 90.5, Wheeling, WV, 41217-41218 2016-14899 Eighth Coast Guard District, Wheeling Heritage Port Festival, Ohio River Mile 90.2 to 90.7, Wheeling, WV, 41219 2016-14900 Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Boston Zone, 41218-41219 2016-14783 Special Local Regulations: Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SC, 41215-41217 2016-14985 North Charleston Fireworks Display, 41215 2016-14986 Patriots Point Fireworks Display, 41217 2016-14987 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 41297-41298 2016-14962 2016-14963 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Interagency Statement on Complex Structured Finance Transactions, 41375-41376 2016-14940 Real Estate Lending and Appraisals, 41373-41374 2016-14939 Survey of Minority Owned Institutions, 41374-41375 2016-14938 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41298-41299 2016-14898 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 2016-2019, 41300-41301 2016-14937 Preschool Development Grants—Preschool Pay for Success Feasibility Pilot, 41299-41300 2016-14904 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Certification, Compliance, Labeling, and Enforcement for Electric Motors and Small Electric Motors, 41378-41410 2016-14479 Energy Efficiency Program: Test Procedure for Televisions; Request for Information, 41262-41279 2016-14982
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41301 2016-14978 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Acquistion Regulations: Construction and Architect-Engineer and Key Personnel Requirements, 41235-41238 2016-15002 Exemptions from the Requirement of a Tolerance: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838, 41219-41222 2016-15006 State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions: South Dakota; Final Authorization and Incorporation by Reference, 41222-41229 2016-14298 Wyoming; Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference, 41229-41235 2016-14284 PROPOSED RULES Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit Program Revision: New Jersey, 41283-41284 2016-15004 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation, 41282 2016-15012 State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions: South Dakota; Proposed Authorization and Incorporation by Reference, 41285 2016-14297 Wyoming; Proposed Authorization and Incorporation by Reference, 41284-41285 2016-14283 NOTICES Charter Renewals: Great Lakes Advisory Board, 41301 2016-15003 Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Michigan; Authorized Program Revision Approval, 41302 2016-14954 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 41301-41302 2016-15008 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: General Electric Company Turbofan Engines, 41208-41211 2016-14474 Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace: Charlottesville, VA, 41211-41212 2016-14881 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Lisbon, ND, 41212-41213 2016-14873 Fuel Tank Vent Fire Protection, 41200-41208 2016-14454 PROPOSED RULES Amendment of Class E Airspace: Indiana, PA, 41279-41280 2016-14880 Santa Rosa, CA, 41280-41282 2016-14879 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Radio Broadcasting Services: Eagle Butte, SD, 41285-41286 2016-14935 Grant, OK, 41286 2016-14936 Federal Election Federal Election Commission RULES Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments, 41196-41200 2016-14877 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 41302-41303 2016-15030 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 41303 2016-15031 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—Trafficking Controls and Fraud Investigations, 41287-41288 2016-14993 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—State Law Enforcement Bureau Fraud Investigations, 41288-41289 2016-14991 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41313-41316 2016-14951 2016-14952 2016-14958 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, 41316-41317 2016-14960 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: ConnectHome Use and Barriers Focus Groups, 41328-41329 2016-15024 Housing Counseling Training Grant Program, 41327-41328 2016-15025 Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 41321-41327 2016-14643 Fiscal Year 2014 Service Contract Inventory, 41328 2016-15018 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the People's Republic of China, 41292-41294 2016-15007 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 41294-41296 2016-15011 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from China and Indonesia, 41345-41346 2016-14947 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Carbon Spine Board, Cervical Collar, CPR Masks and Various Medical Training Manikin Devices, and Trademarks, Copyrights of Product Catalogues, Product Inserts and Components Thereof, 41349-41350 2016-14909 Certain Inflatable Products with Tensioning Structures and Processes for Making the Same, 41346-41347 2016-14946 Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Systems; Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders, 41343-41344 2016-14997 Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof, and Packaging and Manuals Therefor, 41342-41343 2016-14903 Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same, 41344-41345 2016-14948 Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Granting Intervenor Status to Google, Inc.; Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, 41347-41348 2016-14995 Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and China, 41348-41349 2016-14977 Justice Department Justice Department See

Justice Programs Office

NOTICES Forensic Science Discipline Review Framework, 41351-41352 2016-14975 Proposed Amended Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 41352 2016-15022 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 41350-41351 2016-15013
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Capital Punishment Report of Inmates under Sentence of Death, 41352-41353 2016-14959 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Application for Withdrawal of Public Lands: Salmon National Forest, Idaho, 41333-41334 2016-15015 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Monument Butte Area Oil and Gas Development Project, Duchesne and Uintah Counties, UT, 41331-41333 2016-15023 Proposed Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects, White Pine County, NV, 41330-41331 2016-15017 Meetings: Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council, 41329-41330 2016-14983 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements: Removal of Grant Handbook References, 41238-41239 2016-14851 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance; Denials: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd., 41370-41371 2016-14964 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 41320 2016-14914 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 41318-41319 2016-14920 Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee, 41321 2016-15016 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 41319, 41321 2016-14915 2016-14916 National Cancer Institute, 41317-41318 2016-14922 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 41319-41320 2016-14917 2016-14918 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 41318 2016-14921 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 41320-41321 2016-14919 National Institute on Aging, 41320 2016-14923 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 41253-41254 2016-15001 Fisheries Off West Coast States: Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications, 41251-41253 2016-14955 International Fisheries: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Purse Seine Observer Requirements, and Fishing Restrictions and Limits in Purse Seine and Longline Fisheries for 2016-2017, 41239-41251 2016-14967 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41296 2016-14988 Draft Report to Congress: Section 404 Fisheries Research, 41296-41297 2016-15026 Permits: Endangered Species; File No. 20197, 41296 2016-14989 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permit Applications, 41353 2016-14961 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41354 2016-15150 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for Fiscal 2016, 41171-41196 2016-14490 PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Rulemaking; Denials: C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc., 41258-41262 2016-14998 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Commercial Wind Leasing and Site Assessment Activities on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore the Island of Oahu, HI, 41334-41335 2016-14829 Requests for Nominations and Information: Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore the Island of Oahu, HI, 41335-41342 2016-14830 Personnel Personnel Management Office PROPOSED RULES Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas, 41255-41257 2016-14912 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: Pipeline Safety: Public Workshop on Underground Natural Gas Storage Safety, 41371-41373 2016-14953 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 41354 2016-14941 2016-14942 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 41354 2016-14943 2016-14944 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41289-41290 2016-14994 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41289-41290 2016-14994 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41354-41355, 41368 2016-14930 2016-14931 Bylaw Amendments: Securities Investor Protection Corp., 41358-41359 C1--2016--14499 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 41355-41358 2016-14928 NYSE MKT, LLC, 41364-41368 2016-14933 The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 41359-41364 2016-14929 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Texas, 41368 2016-14990 Social Social Security Administration RULES Extension of Effective Date for Temporary Pilot Program Setting the Time and Place for a Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge, 41213-41214 2016-14974 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Approving and Authorizing Finance Transactions: Prisoner Transportation Services, LLC—Control—U.S. Corrections, LLC D/B/A USC, 41368-41370 2016-15009 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 41378-41410 2016-14479 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

81 122 Friday, June 24, 2016 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 9, 170, and 171 [NRC-2015-0223] RIN 3150-AJ66 Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2016 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending the licensing, inspection, special project, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees and, for the first time, the NRC is recovering its costs when it responds to third-party demands for information in litigation where the United States is not a party (“Touhy requests”). These amendments are necessary to implement the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended (OBRA-90), which requires the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its annual budget through fees.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on August 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0223 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0223. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. For the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers and instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michele Kaplan, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-5256, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background; Statutory Authority II. Discussion III. Opportunities for Public Participation IV. Public Comment Analysis V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification VI. Regulatory Analysis VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality VIII. Plain Writing IX. National Environmental Policy Act X. Paperwork Reduction Act XI. Congressional Review Act XII. Voluntary Consensus Standards XIII. Availability of Guidance XIV. Availability of Documents I. Background; Statutory Authority

The NRC's fee regulations are primarily governed by two laws: (1) The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701), and (2) OBRA-90. The OBRA-90 statute requires the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority through fees; this fee-recovery requirement excludes amounts appropriated for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, generic homeland security activities, and Inspector General (IG) services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, as well as any amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The OBRA-90 statute first requires the NRC to use its IOAA authority to collect user fees for NRC work that provides specific benefits to identifiable applicants and licensees (such as licensing work, inspections, special projects). The regulations at part 170 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) authorize these fees. But, because the NRC's fee recovery under the IOAA (10 CFR part 170) does not equal 90 percent of the NRC's budget authority, the NRC also assesses generic “annual fees” under 10 CFR part 171 to recover the remaining fees necessary to achieve OBRA-90's 90-percent fee recovery. These annual fees recover regulatory costs that are not otherwise collected through 10 CFR part 170.

II. Discussion FY 2016 Fee Collection—Overview

The NRC is issuing the FY 2016 final fee rule based on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), amount of $1,002.1 million, which is a decrease of $13.2 million from FY 2015. As explained previously, certain portions of the NRC's total budget are excluded from the NRC's fee-recovery amount—specifically, these exclusions include: $1.3 million for waste-incidental-to-reprocessing activities, $1.0 million for IG services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and $18.8 million for generic homeland security activities. Additionally, 10 percent of the NRC's budget is recovered through a congressional appropriation. After accounting for the OBRA-90 exclusions, this 10-percent appropriation, and net billing adjustments—i.e., the sum of unpaid current year invoices (estimated) minus payments for prior year invoices and the prior year billing credit issued to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the transportation fee class—the NRC must collect $883.4 million in FY 2016 from its licensees. Of this amount, the NRC will recover $332.7 million through 10 CFR part 170 user fees, and the remaining $550.7 million through 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Table I summarizes the fee-recovery amounts for the FY 2016 final fee rule using the enacted budget, and taking into account excluded activities, the 10-percent appropriation, and net billing adjustments (individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding).

Table I—Budget and Fee Recovery Amounts [Dollars in millions] FY 2015
  • final rule
  • FY 2016
  • final rule
  • Percentage change
    Total Budget Authority $1,015.3 $1,002.1 −1.3 Less Excluded Fee Items −20.3 −21.1 3.8 Balance $995.0 $981.0 −1.4 Fee Recovery Percent 90 90 0.0 Total Amount to be Recovered: $895.5 $882.9 −1.4 10 CFR Part 171 Billing Adjustments: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unpaid Current Year Invoices (estimated) 2.8 6.3 125.0 Less Prior Year Billing Credit for Transportation Fee Class 0.0 −0.2 100 Less Payments Received in Current Year for Previous Year Invoices (estimated) −9.6 −5.6 −41.7 Subtotal −6.8 0.5 −107.4 Amount to be Recovered through 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Fees $888.7 $883.4 −0.6 Less Estimated 10 CFR Part 170 Fees −321.7 −332.7 3.4 Less Prior Year Unbilled 10 CFR Part 170 Fees −0.0 −0.0 0.0 10 CFR Part 171 Fee Collections Required $567.0 $550.7 −2.9
    FY 2016 Fee Collection—Hourly Rate

    The NRC uses an hourly rate to assess fees for specific services provided by the NRC under 10 CFR part 170. The hourly rate also helps determine flat fees (which are used for the review of certain types of license applications). For FY 2016, the NRC's hourly rate is $265, a decrease of $3 from the hourly rate in the FY 2015 final rule. This rate is applicable to all activities for which fees are assessed under §§ 170.21 and 170.31.

    The NRC derives its hourly rate by dividing the sum of recoverable budgeted resources for: (1) Mission-direct program salaries and benefits; (2) mission-indirect program support; and 3) agency support—which includes corporate support, office support (FY 2015 only), and the IG. In FY 2016, the agency eliminated the office support category for budgetary resources. Created in FY 2011, office support included indirect resources that sustained an individual office—such as supervisory, administrative assistant, and other support staff FTE hours. In FY 2015, the agency contracted with E&Y (formerly Ernst and Young) to study the NRC's budget structure in comparison with peer agencies. Based on E&Y's recommendations (and starting in FY 2016), the NRC reclassified resources formerly budgeted in office support into either mission-indirect program support or corporate support, depending upon whether the resources were budgeted in support of a program office or a corporate support office.

    The mission-direct FTE hours are the product of the mission-direct FTE multiplied by the estimated annual hours per direct FTE. The only budgeted resources excluded from the hourly rate are those for contract activities related to mission-direct and fee-relief activities. Billable contract activities are included as a separate line item on the 10 CFR part 170 invoice.

    The hourly rate decrease is the result of an increase in estimated direct hours worked per mission-direct full-time equivalent (FTE) during the year and reduced budget. The FY 2016 estimated annual direct hours per staff is 1,440 hours, which is up from 1,420 hours in FY 2015. Assuming a constant budget, as the FTE hours per staff increases, the hourly rate decreases. Table II shows the hourly rate calculation methodology. The FY 2015 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

    Table II—Hourly Rate Calculation [Dollars in millions] FY 2015
  • final rule
  • FY 2016
  • final rule
  • Percentage change
    Mission-Direct Program Salaries & Benefits $365.6 $369.6 1.1 Mission-Indirect Program Support $67.7 $140.6 107.6 Agency Support (Corporate Support, Office Support * and the IG) $422.7 $314.0 −25.7 Subtotal $856.0 $824.2 −3.7 Less Offsetting Receipts −$0.0 −$0.1 41.5 Total Budget Included in Hourly Rate $856.0 $824.1 −3.7 Mission-Direct FTE (Whole numbers) 2,250 2,157 −4.1 Mission-Direct FTE hours 1,420 1,440 1.4 FTE Converted to Hours (Mission-Direct FTE multiplied by Mission-Direct FTE hours worked annually) (In Millions) 3.2 3.1 −2.8 Professional Hourly Rate (Total Budget Included in Hourly Rate Divided by FTE Converted to Hours) (Whole Numbers) $268 $265 −1.0 * FY 2015 only.
    FY 2016 Fee Collection—Flat Application Fee Changes

    The NRC amends the flat application fees that it charges to applicants for import and export licenses, applicants for materials licenses and other regulatory services, and holders of materials, import, and export licenses in its schedule of fees in §§ 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect the revised hourly rate of $265. The NRC calculates these flat fees by multiplying the average professional staff hours needed to process the licensing actions by the professional hourly rate for FY 2016. The NRC analyzes the actual hours spent performing licensing actions and then estimates the average professional staff hours that are needed to process licensing actions as part of its biennial review of fees, which is required by Section 902 of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 902(8)). The NRC performed this review in FY 2015 and will perform this review again in FY 2017. The lower hourly rate of $265 is the primary reason for the decrease in application fees.

    The NRC rounds these flat fees in such a way that ensures both convenience for its stakeholders and that any rounding effects are minimal. Accordingly, fees under $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10, fees between $1,000 and $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $100, and fees greater than $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $1,000.

    The licensing flat fees are applicable for import and export licensing actions (see fee categories K.1. through K.5. of § 170.21), as well as certain materials licensing actions (see fee categories 1.C. through 1.D., 2.B. through 2.F., 3.A. through 3.S., 4.B. through 5.A., 6.A. through 9.D., 10.B., 15.A. through 15.L., 15.R., and 16 of § 170.31). Applications filed on or after the effective date of the FY 2016 final fee rule will be subject to the revised fees in the final rule.

    FY 2016 Fee Collection—Fee-Relief and Low-Level Waste (LLW) Surcharge

    As previously noted, Congress provides 10 percent of the NRC's recoverable budget authority through an appropriation. The NRC applies this 10-percent congressional appropriation to offset certain budgeted activities—see Table III for a full listing. These activities are referred to as “fee-relief” activities. Any difference between the 10-percent appropriation and the budgeted amount of these fee-relief activities results in a fee adjustment (either an increase or decrease) to all licensees' annual fees, based on their percentage share of the NRC's budget.

    In FY 2016, the NRC's budgeted fee-relief activities fall below the 10-percent appropriation threshold—therefore, the NRC assessed a fee-relief credit to decrease all licensees' annual fees based on their percentage share of the budget. Table III summarizes the fee-relief activities for FY 2016. The FY 2015 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

    Table III—Fee-Relief Activities [Dollars in millions] Fee-relief activities FY 2015
  • budgeted costs
  • FY 2016
  • budgeted costs
  • Percentage change
    1. Activities not attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensee: a. International Assistance activities $9.3 $12.6 35.5 b. Agreement State oversight 12.0 12.6 5.0 c. Scholarships and Fellowships 18.9 18.2 −3.7 d. Medical Isotope Production Infrastructure 4.9 1.0 −79.6 2. Activities not assessed under 10 CFR part 170 licensing and inspection fees or 10 CFR part 171 annual fees based on existing law or Commission policy: a. Fee exemption for nonprofit educational institutions 10.3 10.1 −2.5 b. Costs not recovered from small entities under 10 CFR 71.16(c) 8.8 8.5 −3.7 c. Regulatory support to Agreement States 18.5 16.5 −10.8 d. Generic decommissioning/reclamation (not related to the power reactor and spent fuel storage fee classes) 16.4 15.2 −7.1 e. In Situ leach rulemaking and unregistered general licensees 1.4 1.6 21.4 f. Potential Department of Defense remediation program MOU activities 0.0 1.7 100 Total fee-relief activities 100.5 98.0 −2.4 Less 10 percent of the NRC's total FY budget (less non-fee items) −99.5 −98.1 −1.4 Fee-Relief Adjustment to be Allocated to All Licensees' Annual Fees 1.0 −0.1 −107.0

    Table IV shows how the NRC allocates the −$0.1 million fee-relief adjustment (credit) to each license fee class.

    In addition to the fee-relief adjustment, the NRC also assessed a generic LLW surcharge of $3.3 million. Disposal of LLW occurs at commercially operated LLW disposal facilities that are licensed by either the NRC or an Agreement State. There are three existing low-level waste disposal facilities in the United States that accept various types of low-level waste. All are in Agreement States. The NRC allocates this surcharge to its licensees based on data available in DOE's Manifest Information Management System. This database contains information on total LLW volumes and NRC usage information from four generator classes: Academic, industry, medical, and utility. The ratio of utility waste volumes to total LLW volumes over a period of time is used to estimate the portion of this surcharge that should be allocated to the power reactors, fuel facilities, and materials fee classes. The materials portion is adjusted to account for the fact that a large percentage of materials licensees are licensed by the Agreement States rather than the NRC.

    Table IV shows the surcharge, and its allocation across the various fee classes.

    Table IV—Allocation of Fee-Relief Adjustment and LLW Surcharge, FY 2016 [Dollars in millions] LLW surcharge Percent $ Fee-relief adjustment Percent $ Total $ Operating Power Reactors 31 1.0 86.1 −0.1 1.0 Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning 0.0 0.0 3.6 −0.0 −0.0 Research and Test Reactors 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Fuel Facilities 53 1.8 4.8 −0.0 1.7 Materials Users 16 0.5 3.1 0.0 0.5 Transportation 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Rare Earth Facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Uranium Recovery 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 Total 100 3.3 100 −0.1 3.2 FY 2016 Fee Collection—Revised Annual Fees

    In accordance with SECY-05-0164, “Annual Fee Calculation Method,” dated September 15, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052580332), the NRC rebaselines its annual fees every year. Rebaselining entails analyzing the budget in detail and then allocating the budgeted costs to various classes or subclasses of licensees. It also includes updating the number of NRC licensees in its fee calculation methodology.

    The NRC revised its annual fees in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 to recover approximately 90 percent of the NRC's FY 2016 budget authority (less non-fee amounts and the amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees). The total 10 CFR part 170 collections for this final rule are $332.7 million, an increase of $11.0 million from the FY 2015 fee rule. The NRC, therefore, must recover approximately $550.7 million through annual fees from its licensees, which is a decrease of $16.3 million from the FY 2015 final rule.

    Table V shows the rebaselined fees for FY 2016 for a representative list of categories of licensees. The FY 2015 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

    Table V—Rebaselined Annual Fees Class/category of licenses FY 2015
  • final annual fee
  • FY 2016
  • final annual fee
  • Percentage change
    Operating Power Reactors $4,807,000 $4,659,000 −3.1 + Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning 223,000 197,000 −11.7 Total, Combined Fee 5,030,000 4,856,000 −3.5 Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning 223,000 197,000 −11.7 Research and Test Reactors (Nonpower Reactors) 83,500 81,500 −2.4 High Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility 8,473,000 7,867,000 −7.2 Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility 2,915,000 2,736,000 −6.1 UF6 Conversion and Deconversion Facility 1,731,000 1,625,000 −6.1 Conventional Mills 36,100 38,900 7.8 Typical Materials Users: Radiographers (Category 3O) 25,800 26,000 0.8 Well Loggers (Category 5A) 14,400 14,500 0.7 Gauge Users (Category 3P) 8,000 7,900 −1.3 Broad Scope Medical (Category 7B) 37,500 37,400 −0.3

    The work papers (ADAMS Accession No. ML16161A886) that support this final rule show in detail how the NRC allocated the budgeted resources for each class of licenses and how the fees are calculated. The work papers are available as indicated in Section XIV, “Availability of Documents.”

    Paragraphs a. through h. of this section describe budgetary resources allocated to each class of licensees and the calculations of the rebaselined fees. For more information about detailed fee calculations for each class, please consult the accompanying work papers.

    a. Fuel Facilities

    The NRC will collect $31.6 million in annual fees from the fuel facility class.

    Table VI—Annual Fee Summary Calculations for Fuel Facilities [Dollars in millions] Summary fee calculations FY 2015
  • final
  • FY 2016
  • final
  • Percentage change
    Total budgeted resources $42.8 $40.5 −5.4 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts −11.5 −11.7 1.7 Net 10 CFR part 171 resources 31.3 28.8 −8.0 Allocated generic transportation 0.8 1.1 37.5 Fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge 2.1 1.7 −19.1 Billing adjustments −0.3 0.0 −100.0 Total remaining required annual fee recovery 33.9 31.6 −6.8

    In FY 2016, the fuel facilities budgetary resources decreased due to continued construction delays at multiple sites, which caused delays in NRC operational readiness reviews and NRC inspections. These delays further caused the estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings for FY 2016 to remain stable compared to FY 2015. Specifically, significant construction delays are noted for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, the International Isotopes facility, and the AREVA NC facility.

    As for the annual fees, the NRC allocates annual fees to individual fuel facility licensees based on the effort/fee determination matrix developed in the FY 1999 final fee rule (64 FR 31447; June 10, 1999). To briefly recap, that matrix groups licensees into various categories. The NRC's fuel facility project managers determine the effort levels associated with regulating each category. This is done by assigning separate effort factors for the safety and safeguards activities associated with each category (for more information about this matrix, see the work papers). These effort levels are reflected in Table VII.

    Table VII—Effort Factors for Fuel Facilities, FY 2016 Facility type
  • (fee category)
  • Number of
  • facilities
  • Effort factors (percent of total) Safety Safeguards
    High-Enriched Uranium Fuel (1.A.(1)(a)) 2 88 (44.0) 96 (56.5) Low-Enriched Uranium Fuel (1.A.(1)(b)) 3 70 (35.0) 26 (15.3) Limited Operations (1.A.(2)(a)) 0 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Demonstration (1.A.(2)(b)) 1 3 (1.5) 15 (8.8) Hot Cell (1.A.(2)(c)) 1 6 (3.0) 3 (1.8) Uranium Enrichment (1.E.) 1 21 (10.5) 23 (13.5) UF6 Conversion and Deconversion (2.A.(1)) 1 12 (6.0) 7 (4.1)

    For FY 2016, the total budgeted resources for safety activities are $16.2 million. To calculate the annual fee, the NRC allocates this amount to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for safety activities. Similarly, the NRC allocates the budgeted resources for safeguards activities ($13.7 million) to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for safeguards activities. Finally, the fuel facility fee class' portion of the fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge—$1.7 million—is allocated to each fee category based on its percent of the total regulatory effort for both safety and safeguards activities. The annual fee per licensee is then calculated by dividing the total allocated budgeted resources for the fee category by the number of licensees in that fee category. The fee for each facility is summarized in Table VIII.

    Table VIII—Annual Fees for Fuel Facilities Facility type
  • (fee category)
  • FY 2015 final annual fee FY 2016 final annual fee Percentage change
    High-Enriched Uranium Fuel (1.A.(1)(a)) $8,473,000 $7,867,000 −7.2 Low-Enriched Uranium Fuel (1.A.(1)(b)) 2,915,000 2,736,000 −6.1 Limited Operations (1.A(2)(a)) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Demonstration (1.A.(2)(b)) 1,640,000 1,539,000 −6.2 Hot Cell (and others) (1.A.(2)(c)) 820,000 770,000 −6.1 Uranium Enrichment (1.E.) 4,009,000 3,762,000 −6.2 UF6 Conversion and Deconversion (2.A.(1)) 1,731,000 1,625,000 −6.1
    b. Uranium Recovery Facilities

    The NRC will collect $0.9 million in annual fees from the uranium recovery facilities fee class, a small decrease from FY 2015.

    Table IX—Annual Fee Summary Calculations for Uranium Recovery Facilities [Dollars in millions] Summary fee calculations FY 2015 final FY 2016 final Percentage change Total budgeted resources $11.3 $12.3 8.9 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts −10.1 −11.4 12.9 Net 10 CFR part 171 resources 1.2 0.9 −19.8 Allocated generic transportation N/A N/A N/A Fee-relief adjustment 0.0 0.0 0.0 Billing adjustments −0.1 0.0 −100.0 Total required annual fee recovery 1.1 0.9 −18.2

    The budgetary resources for uranium recovery increased due to additional work expected for the Uranerz Energy-Jane Doe and Strata Energy-Kenderick expansions, increased inspection activities for Strata Energy-Ross (a new licensee to fleet), and increased hearing activities. Although—in comparison to FY 2015—the total required amount for annual fee recovery decreased, annual fees for this fee class increased because there are less licensees paying annual fees in FY 2016 (two licensees, Moore Ranch and Crownpoint, were not included in the calculation for annual fees because they were licensed but not constructed and, per current NRC policy, are not required to pay annual fees).

    The NRC computes the annual fee for the uranium recovery fee class by dividing the total annual fee recovery amount among DOE and the other licensees in this fee class. The annual fee increase for fee categories 2.A.(2)(a-c), 2.A.(4), and 2.A.(5) is mainly due to the increase in budgetary resources for increased hearing activities and a reduction in the number of licensees over which to spread the budget. The NRC regulates DOE's Title I and Title II activities under UMTRCA.1 The annual fee assesses to DOE the costs specifically budgeted for the NRC's UMTRCA Title I and II activities, as well as 10 percent of the remaining budgeted costs for this fee class. The DOE's UMTRCA annual fee decreased because of an increase in estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings for DOE's UMTRCA site at Monument Valley. This decrease caused the total overall fee recovery amount to decrease for this fee class. The NRC assesses the remaining 90 percent of its budgeted costs to the rest of the licensees in this fee class, as described in the work papers. This is reflected in Table X as follows:

    1 The Congress established the two programs, Title I and Title II, under UMTRCA to protect the public and the environment from uranium milling. The UMTRCA Title I program is for remedial action at abandoned mill tailings sites where tailings resulted largely from production of uranium for the weapons program. The NRC also regulates DOE's UMTRCA Title II program, which is directed toward uranium mill sites licensed by the NRC or Agreement States in or after 1978.

    Table X—Costs Recovered Through Annual Fees; Uranium Recovery Fee Class Summary of costs FY 2015 final annual fee FY 2016 final annual fee Percentage change DOE Annual Fee Amount (UMTRCA Title I and Title II) General Licenses: UMTRCA Title I and Title II budgeted costs less 10 CFR part 170 receipts $622,898 $503,708 −19.1 10 percent of generic/other uranium recovery budgeted costs 41,986 41,157 −2.0 10 percent of uranium recovery fee-relief adjustment 1,251 −94 −107.5 Total Annual Fee Amount for DOE (rounded) 666,000 545,000 −18.2 Annual Fee Amount for Other Uranium Recovery Licenses: 90 percent of generic/other uranium recovery budgeted costs less the amounts specifically budgeted for Title I and Title II activities 377,874 370,415 −2.0 90 percent of uranium recovery fee-relief adjustment 11,255 −844 −272.4 Total Annual Fee Amount for Other Uranium Recovery Licenses 389,129 369,571 −18.3

    Further, for the non-DOE licensees, the NRC continues to use a matrix to determine the effort levels associated with conducting the generic regulatory actions for the different (non-DOE) licensees in this fee class; this is similar to NRC's approach for fuel facilities, described previously.

    The matrix methodology for uranium recovery licensees first identifies the licensee categories included within this fee class (excluding DOE). These categories are: Conventional uranium mills and heap leach facilities; uranium In Situ Recovery (ISR) and resin ISR facilities; mill tailings disposal facilities; and uranium water treatment facilities. The matrix identifies the types of operating activities that support and benefit these licensees, along with each activity's relative weight (for more information, see the work papers). Table XI displays the benefit factors per licensee and per fee category, for each of the non-DOE fee categories included in the uranium recovery fee class as follows:

    Table XI—Benefit Factors for Uranium Recovery Licenses Fee category Number of
  • licensees
  • Benefit factor per licensee Total value Benefit factor percent total
    Conventional and Heap Leach mills (2.A.(2)(a)) 1 150 150 11 Basic In Situ Recovery facilities (2.A.(2)(b)) 5 190 950 67 Expanded In Situ Recovery facilities (2.A.(2)(c)) 1 215 215 15 11e.(2) disposal incidental to existing tailings sites (2.A.(4)) 1 85 85 6 Uranium water treatment (2.A.(5)) 1 25 25 2 Total 9 665 1,425 100

    Applying these factors to the approximately $369,571 in budgeted costs to be recovered from non-DOE uranium recovery licensees results in the total annual fees for each fee category. The annual fee per licensee is calculated by dividing the total allocated budgeted resources for the fee category by the number of licensees in that fee category, as summarized in Table XII.

    Table XII—Annual Fees for Uranium Recovery Licensees [Other than DOE] Facility type
  • (fee category)
  • FYy 2015 final annual fee FY 2016 final annual fee Percentage change
    Conventional and Heap Leach mills (2.A.(2)(a)) $36,100 $38,900 7.8 Basic In Situ Recovery facilities (2.A.(2)(b)) 45,800 49,300 7.6 Expanded In Situ Recovery facilities (2.A.(2)(c)) 51,800 55,800 7.7 11e.(2) disposal incidental to existing tailings sites (2.A.(4)) 20,500 22,000 7.3 Uranium water treatment (2.A.(5)) 6,000 6,500 8.3
    c. Operating Power Reactors

    The NRC will collect $465.9 million in annual fees from the power reactor fee class in FY 2016, as shown in Table XIII. The FY 2015 values and percentage change are shown for comparison.

    Table XIII—Annual Fee Summary Calculations for Operating Power Reactors [Dollars in millions] Summary fee calculations FY 2015 final FY 2016 final Percentage change Total budgeted resources $762.1 $750.4 −1.5 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts −284.1 −287.8 1.3 Net 10 CFR part 171 resources 478.0 462.6 −3.2 Allocated generic transportation 1.7 1.8 5.9 Fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge 2.1 1.0 −52.4 Billing adjustment −5.9 0.6 −110.2 Total required annual fee recovery 475.9 465.9 −2.0

    In comparison to FY 2015, the operating power reactors budgetary resources decreased in FY 2016 due to a decrease in the budgeted activities for new-reactor activities. This decrease is attributable to delays in application submittals and a slowdown in requests for design certification renewal and construction permits. Accordingly, the FY 2016 operating power reactor annual fee decreased. In addition to decreased budgetary resources, an additional licensee (Watts Bar) was added to the operating fleet. This increases the number of licensees paying this annual fee, which also, in turn, lowers annual fees compared to FY 2015.

    Compared with FY 2015, 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings increased due to the design certification work for APR1400 Korea Hydro.

    The recoverable budgeted costs are divided equally among the 100 licensed power reactors resulting in an annual fee of $4,659,000 per reactor. Additionally, each licensed power reactor is assessed the FY 2016 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee of $197,000 (see the discussion that follows). The combined FY 2016 annual fee for power reactors is, therefore, $4,856,000.

    d. Spent Fuel Storage/Reactors in Decommissioning

    The NRC will collect $24.0 million in annual fees from 10 CFR part 50 power reactors and 10 CFR part 72 licensees who do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license to collect the budgeted costs for spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning.

    Table XIV—Annual Fee Summary Calculations for the Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor in Decommissioning Fee Class [Dollars in millions] Summary fee calculations FY 2015 final FY 2016 final Percentage change Total budgeted resources $32.4 $30.5 −5.9 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts −5.9 −7.5 27.1 Net 10 CFR part 171 resources 26.5 23.0 −13.2 Allocated generic transportation costs 1.0 1.0 −3.3 Fee-relief adjustment 0.0 0.0 −106.5 Billing adjustments −0.3 0.0 −109.7 Total required annual fee recovery 27.2 24.0 −11.8

    In comparison to FY 2015, the annual fee decreased due to a decline in budgetary resources for rulemaking security guidance and waste research. This decrease is partially offset by the slight increase in 10 CFR part 170 billings, due to work on the consolidated storage facility with Waste Control Specialist and renewal work with Transnuclear. The required annual fee recovery amount is divided equally among 122 licensees, resulting in an FY 2016 annual fee of $197,000 per licensee.

    e. Research and Test Reactors (Nonpower Reactors)

    The NRC will collect $0.326 million in annual fees from the research and test reactor licensee class.

    Table XV—Annual Fee Summary Calculations for Research and Test Reactors [Dollars in millions] Summary fee calculations FY 2015 final FY 2016 final Percentage change Total budgeted resources $2.510 $3.799 51.4 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts −2.190 −3.510 60.3 Net 10 CFR part 171 resources 0.320 0.289 −9.6 Allocated generic transportation 0.032 0.034 6.3 Fee-relief adjustment 0.002 0.000 −100.0 Billing adjustments −0.019 0.003 −84.2 Total required annual fee recovery 0.334 0.326 −2.3

    In FY 2016, the annual fees decreased due to a decline in contract support for the non-power reactors and an increase in estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings for non-power production and utilization facility applications to produce molybdenum-99. The required annual fee-recovery amount is divided equally among the four research and test reactors subject to annual fees and results in an FY 2016 annual fee of $81,500 for each licensee.

    f. Rare Earth

    The agency received an application for a rare-earth facility in FY 2015. The NRC has allocated approximately $460,000 in budgeted resources to this fee class. But, because all of these budgetary resources will be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees, the NRC will not collect an annual fee in FY 2016 for this fee class.

    g. Materials Users

    The NRC will collect $35.0 million in annual fees from materials users licensed under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70.

    Table XVI—Annual Fee Summary Calculations for Materials Users [Dollars in millions] Summary fee calculations FY 2015 final FY 2016 final Percentage change Total budgeted resources for licensees not regulated by Agreement States $34.1 $33.2 −2.6 Less estimated 10 CFR part 170 receipts −1.0 −1.1 10.0 Net 10 CFR part 171 resources 33.1 32.1 −3.0 Allocated generic transportation 2.2 2.4 9.1 Fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge 0.6 0.5 −16.7 Billing adjustments −0.2 0.0 −110.3 Total required annual fee recovery 35.7 35.0 −2.0

    To equitably and fairly allocate the $35.0 million in FY 2016 budgeted costs among approximately 2,900 diverse materials users licensees, the NRC continues to calculate the annual fees for each fee category within this class based on the 10 CFR part 170 application fees and estimated inspection costs for each fee category. Because the application fees and inspection costs are indicative of the complexity of the license, this approach provides a proxy for allocating the generic and other regulatory costs to the diverse categories of licenses based on the NRC's cost to regulate each category. This fee-calculation method also considers the inspection frequency (priority), which is indicative of the safety risk and resulting regulatory costs associated with the categories of licenses.

    The annual fee for these categories of materials users' licenses is developed as follows:

    Annual fee = Constant × [Application Fee + (Average Inspection Cost/Inspection Priority)] + Inspection Multiplier × (Average Inspection Cost/Inspection Priority) + Unique Category Costs.

    For FY 2016, the constant multiplier necessary to recover approximately $25.3 million in general costs (including allocated generic transportation costs) is 1.52. The average inspection cost is the average inspection hours for each fee category multiplied by the hourly rate of $265. The inspection priority is the interval between routine inspections, expressed in years. The inspection multiplier is the multiple necessary to recover approximately $8.9 million in inspection costs, and is 1.78 for FY 2016. The unique category costs are any special costs that the NRC has budgeted for a specific category of licenses. For FY 2016, approximately $249,000 in budgeted costs for the implementation of revised 10 CFR part 35, “Medical Use of Byproduct Material (unique costs),” has been allocated to holders of NRC human-use licenses.

    The annual fee assessed to each licensee also includes a share of the fee-relief assessment of approximately −$2,000 allocated to the materials users fee class (see Table IV, “Allocation of Fee-Relief Adjustment and LLW Surcharge, FY 2016,” in Section III, “Discussion,” of this document), and for certain categories of these licensees, a share of the approximately $525,200 LLW surcharge costs allocated to the fee class. The annual fee for each fee category is shown in § 171.16(d).

    h. Transportation

    The NRC will collect $7.8 million in annual fees to recover generic transportation budgeted resources. The FY 2015 values are shown for comparison.

    Table XVII—Annual Fee Summary Calculations for Transportation [Dollars in millions] Summary fee calculations FY 2015 final FY 2016 final Percentage change Total Budgeted Resources $10.0 $11.3 13.0 Less Estimated 10 CFR part 170 Receipts −2.6 −3.5 11.5 Net 10 CFR part 171 Resources 7.4 7.8 5.4 Fee-relief adjustment/LLW surcharge 0.0 0.0 0.0 Billing adjustments 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total required annual fee recovery 7.4 7.8 5.4

    In comparison to FY 2015, the total budgetary resources for generic transportation activities increased due to the rulemaking activities involving 10 CFR part 71 Compatibility with IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Transportation Standards and Improvements, which is offset by the increase in part 170 estimated billings for licensing review work involving Holtec International, EnergySolutions and Areva Federal Services.

    Consistent with the policy established in the NRC's FY 2006 final fee rule (71 FR 30721; May 30, 2006), the NRC recovers generic transportation costs unrelated to DOE as part of existing annual fees for license fee classes. The NRC continues to assess a separate annual fee under § 171.16, fee category 18.A. for DOE transportation activities. The amount of the allocated generic resources is calculated by multiplying the percentage of total Certificates of Compliance (CoCs) used by each fee class (and DOE) by the total generic transportation resources to be recovered. The DOE annual fee decrease is mainly due to 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustments.

    This resource distribution to the licensee fee classes and DOE is shown in Table XVIII. Specifically, for the research and test reactors fee class the NRC allocates the distribution to only the licensees that are subject to annual fees. Three CoCs benefit the entire research and test reactor class, but only 4 out of 31 research and test reactors are subject to annual fees. The number of CoCs used to determine the proportion of generic transportation resources allocated to research and test reactors annual fees is adjusted to 0.4 so that the licensees subject to annual fees are charged a fair and equitable portion of the total. For more information see the final rule work papers.

    Table XVIII—Distribution of Generic Transportation Resources, FY 2016 [Dollars in millions] License fee class/DOE Number of CoCs
  • benefiting fee
  • class or DOE
  • Percentage
  • of total
  • CoCs
  • Allocated
  • generic
  • transportation
  • resources
  • DOE 18.0 20.4 1.6 Operating Power Reactors 20.0 22.6 1.8 Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning 11.0 12.5 1.0 Research and Test Reactors 0.4 0.4 0.0 Fuel Facilities 12.0 13.6 1.0 Materials Users 27.0 30.5 2.4 Total 88.4 100.0 7.8

    The NRC assessed an annual fee to DOE based on the 10 CFR part 71 CoCs it holds. The NRC, therefore, does not allocate these DOE-related resources to other licensees' annual fees because these resources specifically support DOE.

    FY 2016—Fee Policy Change

    The NRC makes one policy change:

    Charging User Fees for NRC Work Spent on Responding to Touhy Requests  2

    2 The name “Touhy” is derived from the leading Supreme Court case in this area, United States ex rel Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951).

    The NRC's Touhy regulations—found at 10 CFR 9.200 through 9.204—govern the manner in which the NRC responds to third-party subpoenas or demands for official information served on agency employees. Those third-party subpoenas seek NRC employees to produce documents, to testify, or to do both, in outside litigation in which neither the NRC nor the United States is a named party.

    Currently, NRC regulations do not authorize the NRC to collect user fees for the work it performs either collecting and providing documents or providing oral testimony in depositions or before an administrative or judicial tribunal. Yet, NRC work on some Touhy requests can be quite substantial. Without an existing regulation authorizing the NRC to collect user fees, the costs of this work must be recovered through annual fees under 10 CFR part 171. Therefore, the NRC amends its regulations to begin assessing 10 CFR part 170 user fees to recover the NRC staff's costs when responding to significant Touhy requests once NRC work on a request exceeds 50 hours.

    The authority for assessing these fees comes from the same statute that provides the authority for the NRC's 10 CFR part 170 fee schedule. That statute—the IOAA—sets forth Congressional policy that “each service or thing of value provided by an agency . . . to a person . . . is to be self-sustaining to the extent possible.” 3 Here, when the NRC complies with a third-party demand for information, the NRC is bestowing a benefit on a private litigant because the NRC is aiding that private litigant in its litigation by providing the information. That benefit is not shared by other members of society. The NRC's work on substantial Touhy requests should, therefore, be recovered under 10 CFR part 170 rather than the current process, which bins those costs to 10 CFR part 171. This full-cost recovery under 10 CFR part 170 would apply to both requests for documents and requests for oral testimony.4

    3 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    4 “Oral testimony” in the Touhy context includes requests for both testimony during administrative and judicial proceedings, as well as depositions.

    Additionally, the NRC has created a fifty hour de minimis fee exception to ensure that 10 CFR part 170 fees are assessed for only significant Touhy requests.5 This is because the NRC believes that non-corporate Touhy requests for a limited set of documents should not be subject to fees. Once NRC work on a Touhy exceeds fifty hours, however, the Touhy requester will be billed for the full amount of work—this provides an incentive for Touhy requesters to keep their requests from becoming overly burdensome.6

    5 The NRC chose fifty hours because past experience shows that fifty hours provides a demarcation point between significant and insignificant Touhy requests. As an illustrative example, a common type of Touhy request involves a request for documents in a divorce proceeding, where one of the ex-spouses works at the NRC, and the other ex-spouse needs access to certain personnel files (such as that NRC employee's work schedule) for purposes of addressing custody, etc. These cases involve simple requests for discrete and non-deliberative documents, require limited processing time, and thus should not be subject to user fees.

    6 Even if the Touhy request exceeds fifty hours, that Touhy requester would still be able to seek a fee exemption under § 170.11(b) if the facts are such that granting a fee exemption would be “in the public interest.”

    FY 2016—Administrative Changes

    The NRC also makes three administrative changes:

    1. Increase Direct Hours per Full-Time Equivalent in the Hourly Rate Calculation

    The hourly rate in 10 CFR part 170 is calculated by dividing the cost per direct FTE by the number of direct hours per direct FTE in a year. “Direct hours” are hours charged to mission-direct activities in the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program and Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program. The FY 2015 final fee rule used 1,420 hours per direct FTE in the hourly rate calculations. During the FY 2016 budget formulation process, the NRC staff reviewed and analyzed time and labor data from FY 2014 through FY 2015 to determine whether it should revise the direct hours per FTE. Between FY 2014 and FY 2015, the total direct hours charged by direct employees increased. The increase in direct hours was apparent in all mission business lines. To reflect this increase in productivity as demonstrated by the time and labor data, the NRC staff determined that the number of direct hours per FTE should increase to 1,440 hours for FY 2016.

    2. Amend Language Under 10 CFR 170.11 To Clarify Exemption Requirements

    The NRC amends the language under 10 CFR 170.11(a)(1) to clarify when stakeholders can receive a fee exemption after submitting a report to the NRC for review. The NRC removed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and instead will rely on the related criteria in exemptions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) for the distinct criteria that stakeholders can use to receive a fee exemption after NRC review of a “special project that is a request/report submitted to the NRC.” The NRC also moved the requirements in current paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(C) that require stakeholders to submit their fee exemption requests in writing to the Chief Financial Officer to a new paragraph (a)(13). These requirements will now apply to all fee exemption criteria, not just special projects.

    3. Change Small Entity Fees

    In accordance with NRC policy, the NRC staff conducted a biennial review in 2015 of small entity fees to determine whether the NRC should change those fees. The NRC staff used the fee methodology developed in FY 2009 that applies a fixed percentage of 39 percent to the prior 2-year weighted average of materials users' fees when performing its biennial review. As a result of the NRC staff's review, the upper tier small entity fee increased from $2,800 to $4,000 and the lower-tier fee increased from $600 to $900. This constituted a 43-percent and 50-percent increase, respectively. Implementing this increase would have had a disproportionate impact upon the NRC's small licensees compared to other licensees, and so the NRC staff revised the increase to 21 percent for the upper-tier fee. The NRC staff chose 21 percent based on the average percentage increase for the prior two biennial reviews of small entity fees. Because of a technical oversight, the change was not included in the FY 2015 final fee rule. Accordingly, the NRC staff now amends the upper-tier small entity fee to $3,400 and amends the lower-tier small entity fee to $700 for FY 2016. The NRC staff believes these fees are reasonable and provide relief to small entities while at the same time recovering from those licensees some of the NRC's costs for activities that benefit them.

    FY 2016—Billing

    The FY 2016 fee rule is a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808). Therefore, the NRC's fee schedules for FY 2016 will become effective 60 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Upon publication of the final rule, the NRC will send an invoice for the amount of the annual fees to reactor licensees, 10 CFR part 72 licensees, major fuel cycle facilities, and other licensees with annual fees of $100,000 or more. For these licensees, payment is due 30 days after the effective date of the FY 2016 final rule. Because these licensees are billed quarterly, the payment amount due is the total FY 2016 annual fee less payments made in the first three quarters of the fiscal year.

    Materials licensees with annual fees of less than $100,000 are billed annually. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date during FY 2016 falls before the effective date of the FY 2016 final rule will be billed for the annual fee during the anniversary month of the license at the FY 2015 annual fee rate. Those materials licensees whose license anniversary date falls on or after the effective date of the FY 2016 final rule will be billed for the annual fee at the FY 2016 annual fee rate during the anniversary month of the license, and payment will be due on the date of the invoice.

    III. Opportunities for Public Participation

    The NRC published the FY 2016 proposed fee rule in the Federal Register on March 23, 2016 (81 FR 15457), for a 30-day public comment period. The rule proposed to amend the licensing, inspection, special project, and annual fees charged to the NRC's applicants and licensees and, for the first time, proposed to recover the NRC's costs when it responds to third-party demands for information in litigation where the United States is not a party (“Touhy requests”). These proposed amendments were necessary to implement OBRA-90, as amended, which requires the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its annual budget through fees. The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on April 22, 2016.

    The NRC also held a public meeting on April 13, 2016, to provide more transparency regarding fees in relation to the budget process and fulfill its commitment to external stakeholders to address NRC program processes and inefficiencies mentioned in the comments submitted for the FY 2015 proposed fee rule. During the public meeting, the NRC received no comments on the FY 2016 proposed fee rule. The public meeting transcript is available as indicated in Section XIV, Availability of Documents, of this document.

    IV. Public Comment Analysis Overview of Public Comments

    The NRC received seven written comment submissions for the proposed rule. A comment submission for the purpose of this rule is defined as a communication or document submitted to the NRC by an individual or entity, with one or more distinct comments addressing a subject or an issue. A comment, on the other hand, refers to a statement made in the submission addressing a subject or issue. In general, the commenters were supportive of the specific proposed regulatory changes, although most commenters expressed concerns about broader fee-policy issues related to transparency and fairness.

    The commenters are listed in Table XXII, and are classified as follows: Three members of the uranium industry (Kennecott Uranium Company, Wyoming Mining Association (WMA), and Uranerz Energy Corporation); one nuclear materials licensee (Rendezvous Engineering); one nuclear medicine materials licensee (anonymous); one nuclear power plant (Southern Nuclear Operating Company); and one industry trade group (Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)).

    Table XIX—FY 2016 Proposed Fee Rule Commenter Submissions Commenter Affiliation ADAMS
  • Accession No.
  • Acronym
    Anonymous Bell Hospital ML16113A270 Jonathan Downing Wyoming Mining Association ML16113A271 WMA Anthony R. Pietrangelo Nuclear Energy Institute ML16113A272 NEI Oscar Paulson Kennecott Uranium Company ML16113A273 N/A C.R. Pierce Southern Nuclear Operating Company ML16116A030 SNC William P. Goranson Uranerz Energy Corporation ML16117A254 N/A Matthew Ostdiek Rendezvous Engineering, P.C ML16126A366 N/A

    Information about obtaining the complete text of the comment submissions is available in Section XIV, “Availability of Documents,” of this document.

    Public Comments and NRC Responses

    The NRC has carefully considered the public comments received. The comments have been organized by topic followed by the NRC response.

    A. Hourly Rate

    Comment: The hourly rate—despite the decrease from $268 to $266—remains high in comparison to the hourly rates of consultants working in the uranium recovery industry. (Kennecott Uranium Company, Wyoming Mining Association, and Uranerz Energy Corporation)

    Response: To the extent the commenter believes that the NRC's hourly rate should be comparable to the hourly rate for uranium-recovery consultants, the NRC disagrees with this comment. All fees assessed to licensees and applicants by the NRC must conform to OBRA-90 and IOAA requirements, in contrast to industry consultants working for the uranium recovery industry. Under the IOAA, the NRC must recover its full costs of providing specific regulatory benefits to identifiable applicants and licensees. In so doing, the NRC establishes an hourly rate for its work. Consistent with the IOAA, the NRC determines its hourly rate by dividing the sum of recoverable budgeted resources for: (1) Mission-direct program salaries and benefits; (2) mission-indirect program support; and (3) agency support—which includes corporate support, office support (FY 2015 only), and the IG. The mission-direct FTE hours are the product of the mission-direct FTE multiplied by the hours per direct FTE. The only budgeted resources excluded from the hourly rate are those for contract activities related to mission-direct and fee-relief activities.

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

    Comment: The hourly rate calculation identifies $362.9 million in mission-direct program activities, which represents only 41 percent of the total adjusted amount that the NRC must recover through fees ($883.9 million). This shows that the budget portion allocated to “corporate support” (which is a key factor in the hourly rate calculation) is disproportionally large in comparison to those resources allocated for mission-direct and mission-indirect activities. Further, the NRC's reclassification of “office support” activities into either “corporate support” or “mission-indirect support” gives the appearance of a greater reduction in corporate support activities than actually took place. The NRC needs to reduce these non-mission direct activities. (NEI)

    Response: The NRC disagrees that the budget portion allocated to corporate support is disproportionate to resources allocated to mission activities. First, in calculating the percentage of mission-direct program activities, the commenter does not take into account all mission-direct resources contained in the total budget authority presented in the FY 2016 proposed fee rule. The $362.9 million referenced by the commenter includes only mission-direct salaries and benefits—it does not include the mission-direct amount for contract support, which is an additional $154.9 million. Although not included within the hourly rate, mission-direct contract support is a significant component of the direct costs within the agency's total budget authority. Total mission-direct program activities—including salaries, benefits, and contract support—equals $517.8 million. Further, the $138.7 million that the NRC budgeted for mission-indirect program support brings the NRC's total budgeted mission costs to $656.5 million.

    Second, the NRC disagrees that reclassification of office support activities into either “corporate support” or “mission-indirect support” gives the appearance of a greater reduction in corporate support than actually took place. During the 5-year period when the agency used the office support budget structure, mission-indirect resources—including supervisory FTE in the agency's program offices and regions, and other programmatic support resources—were identified as agency corporate support in the annual fee rule, thus making the portion of the budget allocated to corporate support appear larger than it actually was. The reclassification of office support returns mission-indirect resources to their location in the budget prior to FY 2011; in so doing, these resources are now once again properly represented in the annual fee rule as program costs rather than corporate costs. Although the budget structure change results in a more appropriate categorization of agency support resources, it does not affect the treatment of mission-indirect resources in the final fee rule calculations. Even when budgeted as office support, mission-indirect costs were recovered in the hourly rate, and they continue to be recovered through the hourly rate after re-categorization.

    The NRC has taken a hard look at overhead resources, reducing both FTE and contract support dollars through streamlining initiatives. Final FY 2016 resources for agency support reflect reductions in the corporate support portion of the budget, as compared to the FY 2016 Congressional Budget Justification. The NRC will implement further reductions to corporate support and mission-indirect resources in FY 2017.

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

    B. Fairness of Fees

    Comment: As the number of NRC licensees decline, the fact that the NRC's budget has not correspondingly declined means that the remaining licensees must pay higher annual fees. For example, in situ recovery facilities fees have increased 71 percent since FY 2012. And, as more power reactors leave the fleet, the current fee structure will require the remaining licensees to bear an even higher annual fee burden. (NEI)

    Response: The fees assessed to licensees and applicants by the NRC must conform to OBRA-90, which requires the NRC to collect approximately 90 percent of its annual budget authority (less certain excluded items) through both user fees and annual fees. The NRC can assess these annual fees only to licensees or certificate holders, and the annual fee schedule must be fair and must equitably allocate annual fees among the NRC's many licensees. To ensure optimal compliance with OBRA-90, the NRC makes continual organizational improvements to align its resources needed to support its regulatory activities. This should help mitigate licensees leaving a fee class by helping the NRC develop budgets that account for regulating a fee class with a declining number of licensees. The NRC is also conducting a separate effort to obtain public comment on a number of broader issues related to NRC fees. For information on the issues and comments received, please see http://regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2016-0056.

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

    C. Uranium Recovery

    Comment: The NRC proposed to increase uranium recovery annual fees by over 10 percent for each uranium recovery fee category. The NRC has not justified this increase and must provide a detailed explanation as to why annual fees are increasing by this much. Specifically, to the extent that annual fees are increasing due to increased inspection activities and other additional work, then that work should be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 hourly charges rather than 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Also, based on invoices received by Kennecott Uranium Company, it appears that uranium recovery licensees are adequately supporting the NRC's uranium recovery program through the payment of hourly charges. (Kennecott Uranium Company, Wyoming Mining Association, and Uranerz Energy Corporation)

    Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenter's argument that the NRC has not justified the increase in uranium recovery annual fees. The primary reason for the increase was a decrease in the number of licensees that were required to pay annual fees. Two licensees, Moore Ranch and Crownpoint, were not included in the calculation for annual fees because they were licensed but not constructed; per current NRC policy, therefore, those licensees are not required to pay annual fees. Further, in FY 2016, activities that cannot be billed under the hourly charges in 10 CFR part 170 continued. An example of these activities include hearings associated with four application reviews: (i) The Crow Butte license renewal; (ii) the Crow Butte Marsland new license review; (iii) the Powertech Dewey Burdock new license review; and (iv) the Strata Ross new license. In these hearings, the NRC's technical staff supports the Office of the General Counsel by providing expert testimony on areas such as groundwater, the National Environmental Policy Act, Tribal consultation, seismology, and geochemistry. Other examples of part 171 activities include NRC staff support for non-licensing tasks (such as responding to inquiries, meetings with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding their draft 40 CFR part 192 Rule, regulatory guidance development, and Tribal outreach).

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

    Comment: More uranium recovery activities should be paid out of the congressional 10-percent appropriation to lower fees for uranium recovery licensees. (Uranerz Energy Corporation)

    Response: The NRC disagrees that more uranium recovery activities should be paid out of the congressional 10-percent appropriation. The NRC accounts for its 10-percent congressional appropriation by budgeting for “fee-relief” activities. These typically include activities that are not attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensee. Or they include activities for which the NRC cannot collect fees under existing law. Historically, the NRC has not designated uranium recovery activities as fee-relief activities because uranium activities are attributable to a discrete class of licensees, and the NRC can lawfully assess fees to uranium recovery licensees under OBRA-90 and the IOAA. Here, the commenter has not explained why the NRC should allocate a portion of uranium recovery activities to fee relief given the fact that the NRC can identify uranium recovery licensees and can lawfully assess fees to those licensees.

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

    Comment: There is an error in the FY 2016 proposed work papers in Section III.A. Specifically, under the table for “Mission-Direct Budgeted Resources,” there is no description for line 5, and line 12 does not properly sum from lines 5, 8, 10, and 11. (Uranerz Energy Corporation)

    Response: The NRC disagrees that there is an error in the FY 2016 proposed work papers in Section III.A. relating to the table for “Mission-Direct Budgeted Resources” because such a table is not included in this section of the work papers. But, the NRC agrees that within the work papers—specifically section III.B.2.b—the description for line 5 “Net Part 171 Allocations—with allocated transportation,” was unintentionally omitted by the NRC. The NRC also understands that reconciling the amounts illustrated in the summary for the annual fee lines 5, 8, 10 and 11 could be clearer due to the dissimilar decimal points used for rounding. The NRC will correct the final fee rule work papers to include the omitted line description and reuse decimal placement for consistency.

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment (but a change was made to the work papers).

    D. Touhy Fees

    Comment: For the first time, the NRC is proposing to recover costs associated with processing third-party demands for information in litigation where the United States is not a party. How will the NRC ensure that these costs are actually directly billed to the third party so that they are not passed on to other licensees through annual fees? (Kennecott Uranium Company and Wyoming Mining Association)

    Response: Touhy requests are sent directly to the Office of the General Counsel in the form of a subpoena or other demand for information. The Offices of the General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer have developed internal controls to capture and track all NRC staff time spent on Touhy requests by using unique Cost Activity Codes. When the Office of the General Counsel receives a subpoena, it will validate the request, identify the billable party, and request a Cost Activity Code that is unique to the subpoena for billing purposes under 10 CFR part 170. This process will further use a mechanism to identify when the de minimis threshold (50 hours) is reached to ensure only those requests exceeding fifty hours are billed under 10 CFR part 170.

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

    E. Miscellaneous

    Comment: How is this proposed rule going to affect the licensing fees for Bell Hospital in Ishpeming, Michigan? Is this hospital listed as a small entity? (Anonymous)

    Response: Bell Hospital in Ishpeming, Michigan, currently holds a license for Medical Institution—Limited Scope—Written Directive Required (program code 02120; fee category 7.C.) and Source Material Shielding (program code 11210; fee category 2.B.). Per the FY 2015 final fee rule and the FY 2016 proposed fee rule, the annual fee for fee category 7.C. is unchanged at $13,300; therefore, the FY 2016 final fee rule will not affect the fee for this portion of the license. Further, licensees that pay fees under fee category 7.C. are not subject to fees under fee category 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license. Therefore, the FY 2016 final fee rule will not have any impact to the fees Bell Hospital is currently paying. Finally, Bell Hospital is not currently considered a small entity by the NRC.

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

    Comment: The proposed fee rule identified $12.6 million for international assistance activities as a fee-relief activity. Yet, there are no other listed budgeted costs related to other international activities in the proposed rule. The work papers do list total funding for international activities as being $23.2 million, which leaves approximately $10.6 million in international activities that were rolled into the fee base. To the extent this additional $10 million was also spent on international cooperation or international assistance activities, then it is not clear what direct benefit the domestic regulated community is receiving through these activities. (NEI)

    Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the amount of international assistance activities that the NRC allocated to international fee relief is $12.6 million. The amount not included under international fee relief activities represents international resources that the NRC assigned to each mission-direct fee class. Specifically, these resources represent international cooperation activities (rather than international assistance activities). These cooperation activities do, in fact, benefit a group of NRC licensees. For example, international cooperative activities involve sharing information, knowledge, and technical expertise with the NRC's international regulatory counterparts. This enhances the NRC's regulatory programs by providing direct input into the NRC's regulation and oversight of its licensees. International cooperation activities also provide other benefits to NRC licensees, such as collaborative research that is relevant to the NRC's regulatory programs. The NRC continuously assesses and, where relevant, incorporates international operating experience and research insights into the NRC's domestic regulatory program. For example, power reactor licensees may benefit from international efforts to exchange information on regulatory experience and expertise on construction, startup, and the operation of nuclear power plants.

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

    Comment: In the FY 2015 final fee rule, the NRC revised its methodology for charging overhead time for project managers and resident inspectors under 10 CFR part 170. Specifically, the NRC started to allocate overhead costs to each licensee based on direct time to each docket to ensure that a licensee's overhead costs were proportional to the regulatory services rendered by the NRC. This has led, in some cases, to licensees being double- or triple-charged for project manager time. For example, some licensees have received invoices for project manager time being charged through the 6-percent project manager allocation, project management TACs, and directly technical TACs. The NRC should be more consistent and try to avoid multiple billings for the same work. (NEI)

    Response: To the extent the commenter believes that the NRC is double- and triple- billing licensees, the NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC staff charges to direct billable cost activity codes (CACs) only when that work benefits a single, identifiable licensee. The project manager (PM)/resident inspector (RI) allocation recovers the costs for all PMs and senior resident inspectors (SRIs) that are not directly attributable to a single licensee, but rather benefit the entire class of licensees (e.g., indirect activities such as PM technical support to the regional offices, PM training and attendance at conferences, PM participation in working groups). When a PM or SRI supports work under this allocation, the PM is not directly billing a licensee. This activity is pooled and distributed to all licensees as 6 percent of the direct labor charges provided by agency staff. Because these activities ultimately benefit all licensees, the agency has instituted average cost recovery to recover from all licensees for these activities.

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

    Comment: Regarding small entity size standards, the NRC should consider establishing lower licensing fees by creating one or more additional steps between the $520,000 to $7,500,000 range. A fee rate schedule with more steps for small businesses would help reduce the license fee burden on the smaller entities. (Rendezvous Engineering, P.C.)

    Response: To reduce the burden of the NRC's annual fees on small entities, the NRC established the maximum small entity fee in 1991. In FY 1992, the NRC introduced a second lower tier to the small entity fee. Because the NRC's methodology for small entity size standards has been approved by the Small Business Administration, the NRC did not modify its current methodology for this rulemaking. The NRC is currently reviewing its small business size standards to determine if a change is needed to the number of fee steps in order to fairly and equitably access fees for all licensees.

    No change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.

    E. Comments on Matters Not Related to This Rulemaking

    Some comments suggested that the NRC implement a number of recommendations to streamline the regulatory process, prepare more detailed invoices, examine staffing and the NRC's budget structure, increase travel funds to allow for the audits of topical reports, etc. Other commenters expressed their belief that uranium recovery sites should require the least amount of NRC regulatory oversight because they are the lowest risk sector of the nuclear fuel cycle.

    All of these matters are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The primary purpose of the NRC's annual fee recovery rulemaking is to update the NRC's fee schedules to recover approximately 90 percent of the appropriations that the NRC received for the current fiscal year, and to make other necessary corrections or appropriate changes to specific aspects of the NRC's fee regulations in order to ensure compliance with OBRA-90, as amended.

    The NRC takes very seriously the importance of examining and improving the efficiency of its operations and the prioritization of its regulatory activities. Recognizing the importance of continuous reexamination and improvement of the way the agency does business, the NRC has undertaken, and continues to undertake, a number of significant initiatives aimed at improving the efficiency of NRC operations and enhancing the agency's approach to regulating. For example the NRC published a request for information on March 22, 2016, 81 FR 15352. This request asked for input from the stakeholders regarding the general communications the NRC provides about its fees and the public's understanding of the NRC's fee setting process. Though comments addressing these issues may not be within the scope of this fee rulemaking, the NRC will consider this input in its future program operations.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,7 the NRC has prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) relating to this final rule. The RFA is available as indicated in Section XIV, Availability of Documents, of this document.

    7 5 U.S.C. 603. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).

    VI. Regulatory Analysis

    Under OBRA-90 and the AEA, the NRC is required to recover 90 percent of its budget authority, or total appropriations of $1,002.1 million, in FY 2016. The NRC established fee methodology guidelines for 10 CFR part 170 in 1978, and established additional fee methodology guidelines for 10 CFR part 171 in 1986. In subsequent rulemakings, the NRC has adjusted its fees without changing the underlying principles of its fee policy to ensure that the NRC continues to comply with the statutory requirements for cost recovery in OBRA-90 and the AEA.

    In this rulemaking, the NRC continues this long-standing approach. Therefore, the NRC did not identify any alternatives to the current fee structure guidelines and did not prepare a regulatory analysis for this rulemaking.

    VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

    The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule and that a backfit analysis is not required. A backfit analysis is not required because these amendments do not require the modification of, or addition to, systems, structures, components, or the design of a facility, or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility, or the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility.

    VIII. Plain Writing

    The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

    IX. National Environmental Policy Act

    The NRC has determined that this rule is the type of action described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

    X. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    XI. Congressional Review Act

    In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the NRC has determined that this action is a major rule and has verified the determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.

    XII. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC proposes to amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its licensees and applicants, as necessary, to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in FY 2016, as required by OBRA-90, as amended. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

    XIII. Availability of Guidance

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires all Federal agencies to prepare a written compliance guide for each rule for which the agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 604 to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The NRC, in compliance with the law, prepared the “Small Entity Compliance Guide” for the FY 2015 final fee rule. This document, which has been relabeled for FY 2016, is available as indicated in Section XV, Availability of Documents, of this document. The next compliance guide will be developed when the NRC completes the next small entity biennial review in FY 2017.

    XIV. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

    Document ADAMS Accession No./Web link/Federal Register citation FY 2016 Final Rule Work Papers ML16161A886. FY 2016 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ML16144A548. FY 2016 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Small Entity Compliance Guide ML16043A334. NUREG-1100, Volume 31, “Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2016” (February 2, 2015) NRC: Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2016 (NUREG-1100, Volume 31). NRC Form 526, Certification of Small Entity Status for the Purposes of Annual Fees Imposed under 10 CFR Part 171 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/forms/nrc526.pdf. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029/text. SECY-05-0164, “Annual Fee Calculation Method,” September 15, 2005 ML052580332. FY 2016 Proposed Fee Rule Comment Submissions ML16138A011. Transcript of Public Meeting on Fees, April 13, 2016 ML16105A045. OMB's Circular A-25, “User Charges” https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_default. FY 2016 Proposed Fee Rule ML16048A188. FY 2016 Proposed Rule Work Papers ML16056A437. Meeting Summary Notes for the Public Meeting on the FY 2016 Proposed Fee Rule held on April 13, 2016 ML16113A109. List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 9

    Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Criminal penalties, Freedom of information, Government employees, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sunshine Act.

    10 CFR Part 170

    Byproduct material, Import and export licenses, Intergovernmental relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.

    10 CFR Part 171

    Annual charges, Byproduct material, Holders of certificates, registrations, approvals, Intergovernmental relations, Nonpayment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 9, 170, and 171.

    PART 9—PUBLIC RECORDS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Atomic Energy Act of 1954, sec. 161 (42 U.S.C. 2201); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

    Subpart A also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    2. Revise § 9.201 to read as follows:
    § 9.201 Production or disclosure prohibited unless approved by appropriate NRC official.

    (a) No employee of the NRC shall, in response to a demand of a court or other judicial or quasi-judicial authority, produce any material contained in the files of the NRC or disclose, through testimony or other means, any information relating to material contained in the files of the NRC, or disclose any information or produce any material acquired as part of the performance of that employee's official duties or official status without prior approval of the appropriate NRC official. When the demand is for material contained in the files of the Office of the Inspector General or for information acquired by an employee of that Office, the Inspector General is the appropriate NRC official. In all other cases, the General Counsel is the appropriate NRC official.

    (b) Any NRC response to a demand of a court or other judicial or quasi-judicial authority that requires an employee of the NRC to expend more than 50 hours of official time shall be subject to hourly fees in accordance with 10 CFR 170.12(d).

    PART 170—FEES FOR FACILITIES, MATERIALS IMPORT AND EXPORT LICENSES AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED 3. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w) (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w)); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2214; 31 U.S.C. 901, 902, 9701; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

    4. Revise § 170.1 to read as follows:
    § 170.1 Purpose.

    The regulations in this part set out fees charged for licensing services, inspection services, and special projects rendered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as authorized under title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (31 U.S.C. 9701(a)).

    5. In § 170.2, add paragraph (u) to read as follows:
    § 170.2 Scope.

    (u) Submitting a Touhy request, pursuant to 10 CFR 9.200 through 9.204, as defined in § 170.3.

    6. In § 170.3, add, in alphabetical order, the definition for Touhy request, to read as follows:
    § 170.3 Definitions.

    Touhy request means a request for NRC records or NRC testimony that is made pursuant to the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 9.200 through 9.204.

    7. In § 170.11, revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii), remove paragraph (a)(1)(iii), and add paragraph (a)(13) to read as follows:
    § 170.11 Exemptions.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) When the NRC, at the time the request/report is submitted, plans to use the information in response to an NRC request from the Office Director level or above to resolve an identified safety, safeguards, or environmental issue, or to assist the NRC in generic regulatory improvements or efforts (e.g., rules, regulatory guides, regulations, policy statements, generic letters, or bulletins).

    (13) All fee exemption requests must be submitted in writing to the Chief Financial Officer in accordance with § 170.5, and the Chief Financial Officer will grant or deny such requests in writing.

    8. In § 170.12, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(v) and (vi) and add paragraph (d)(1)(vii) to read as follows:
    § 170.12 Payment of fees.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (v) 10 CFR 50.71 final safety analysis reports;

    (vi) Contested hearings on licensing actions directly involving U.S Government national security initiatives, as determined by the NRC; and

    (vii) Responses to Touhy requests that require the NRC staff to expend more than 50 hours of official time. Fees for Touhy requests will be billed at the appropriate hourly rate established in § 170.20.

    9. Revise § 170.20 to read as follows:
    § 170.20 Average cost per professional staff-hour.

    Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special projects, 10 CFR part 55 re-qualification and replacement examinations and tests, other required reviews, approvals, and inspections under §§ 170.21 and 170.31 will be calculated using the professional staff-hour rate of $265 per hour.

    10. In § 170.21, in the table, revise fee categories J. and K. and add footnote 5 to read as follows:
    § 170.21 Schedule of fees for production or utilization facilities, review of standard referenced design approvals, special projects, inspections, and import and export licenses. Schedule of Facility Fees [See footnotes at end of table] Facility categories and type of fees Fees 12 *         *         *         *         *         *         * J. Special Projects: Approvals and preapplication/licensing activities Full Cost. Inspections 3 Full Cost. Contested hearings on licensing actions directly related to U.S. Government national security initiatives Full Cost. Touhy requests 5 Full Cost. K. Import and export licenses: Licenses for the import and export only of production or utilization facilities or the export only of components for production or utilization facilities issued under 10 CFR part 110. 1. Application for import or export of production or utilization facilities 4 (including reactors and other facilities) and exports of components requiring Commission and Executive Branch review, for example, actions under 10 CFR 110.40(b) Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $17,200. 2. Application for export of reactor and other components requiring Executive Branch review, for example, those actions under 10 CFR 110.41(a) Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $9,300. 3. Application for export of components requiring the assistance of the Executive Branch to obtain foreign government assurances Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $4,200. 4. Application for export of facility components and equipment not requiring Commission or Executive Branch review, or obtaining foreign government assurances Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $4,800. 5. Minor amendment of any active export or import license, for example, to extend the expiration date, change domestic information, or make other revisions which do not involve any substantive changes to license terms or conditions or to the type of facility or component authorized for export and, therefore, do not require in-depth analysis or review or consultation with the Executive Branch, U.S. host state, or foreign government authorities Minor amendment to license $2,700. 1 Fees will not be charged for orders related to civil penalties or other civil sanctions issued by the Commission under § 2.202 of this chapter or for amendments resulting specifically from the requirements of these orders. For orders unrelated to civil penalties or other civil sanctions, fees will be charged for any resulting licensee-specific activities not otherwise exempted from fees under this chapter. Fees will be charged for approvals issued under a specific exemption provision of the Commission's regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 73.5) and any other sections in effect now or in the future, regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form. 2 Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended. For applications currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of the final rule will be determined at the professional rates in effect when the service was provided. 3 Inspections covered by this schedule are both routine and non-routine safety and safeguards inspections performed by the NRC for the purpose of review or follow-up of a licensed program. Inspections are performed through the full term of the license to ensure that the authorized activities are being conducted in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, other legislation, Commission regulations or orders, and the terms or conditions of the license. Non-routine inspections that result from third-party allegations will not be subject to fees. 4 Imports only of major components for end-use at NRC-licensed reactors are authorized under NRC general import license in 10 CFR 110.27. 5 Full cost fees will be assessed once NRC work on a Touhy request exceeds 50 hours, in accordance with § 170.12(d).
    11. In § 170.31, revise the table to read as follows:
    § 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services, including inspections, and import and export licenses. Schedule of Materials Fees [See footnotes at end of table] Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 23 1. Special nuclear material: A. (1) Licenses for possession and use of U-235 or plutonium for fuel fabrication activities (a) Strategic Special Nuclear Material (High Enriched Uranium) [Program Code(s): 21130] Full Cost. (b) Low Enriched Uranium in Dispersible Form Used for Fabrication of Power Reactor Fuel [Program Code(s): 21210] Full Cost. (2) All other special nuclear materials licenses not included in Category 1.A.(1) which are licensed for fuel cycle activities (a) Facilities with limited operations [Program Code(s): 21310, 21320] Full Cost. (b) Gas centrifuge enrichment demonstration facilities Full Cost. (c) Others, including hot cell facilities Full Cost. B. Licenses for receipt and storage of spent fuel and reactor-related Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) [Program Code(s): 23200] Full Cost. C. Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material of less than a critical mass as defined in § 70.4 in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers.4 Application [Program Code(s): 22140] $1,200. D. All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear material in sealed or unsealed form in combination that would constitute a critical mass, as defined in § 70.4 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees as those under Category 1.A.4 Application [Program Code(s): 22110, 22111, 22120, 22131, 22136, 22150, 22151, 22161, 22170, 23100, 23300, 23310] $2,500. E. Licenses or certificates for construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility [Program Code(s): 21200] Full Cost. F. For special nuclear materials licenses in sealed or unsealed form of greater than a critical mass as defined in § 70.4 of this chapter.4 [Program Code(s): 22155] Full Cost. 2. Source material: A. (1) Licenses for possession and use of source material for refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride or for deconverting uranium hexafluoride in the production of uranium oxides for disposal. [Program Code(s): 11400] Full Cost. (2) Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ recovery, heap-leaching, ore buying stations, ion-exchange facilities, and in processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses authorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode (a) Conventional and Heap Leach facilities [Program Code(s): 11100] Full Cost. (b) Basic In Situ Recovery facilities [Program Code(s): 11500] Full Cost. (c) Expanded In Situ Recovery facilities [Program Code(s): 11510] Full Cost. (d) In Situ Recovery Resin facilities [Program Code(s): 11550] Full Cost. (e) Resin Toll Milling facilities [Program Code(s): 11555] Full Cost. (f) Other facilities [Program Code(s): 11700] Full Cost. (3) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from other persons for possession and disposal, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(2) or Category 2.A.(4) [Program Code(s): 11600, 12000] Full Cost. (4) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from other persons for possession and disposal incidental to the disposal of the uranium waste tailings generated by the licensee's milling operations, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(2) [Program Code(s): 12010] Full Cost. (5) Licenses that authorize the possession of source material related to removal of contaminants (source material) from drinking water [Program Code(s): 11820] Full Cost. B. Licenses which authorize the possession, use, and/or installation of source material for shielding.678 Application [Program Code(s): 11210] $1,170. C. Licenses to distribute items containing source material to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 40 of this chapter Application [Program Code(s): 11240] $2,700. D. Licenses to distribute source material to persons generally licensed under part 40 of this chapter Application [Program Codes(s): 11230, 11231] $2,600. E. Licenses for possession and use of source material for processing or manufacturing of products or materials containing source material for commercial distribution Application [Program Code(s): 11710] $2,500. F. All other source material licenses Application [Program Code(s): 11200, 11220, 11221, 11300, 11800, 11810] $2,500. 3. Byproduct material: A. Licenses of broad scope for the possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution Application [Program Code(s): 03211, 03212, 03213] $12,400. B. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution Application [Program Code(s): 03214, 03215, 22135, 22162] $3,400. C. Licenses issued under §§ 32.72 and/or 32.74 of this chapter that authorize the processing or manufacturing and distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits, and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material. This category does not apply to licenses issued to nonprofit educational institutions whose processing or manufacturing is exempt under § 170.11(a)(4) Application [Program Code(s): 02500, 02511, 02513] $5,000. D. [Reserved] N/A. E. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units) Application [Program Code(s): 03510, 03520] $3,100. F. Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials where the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes Application [Program Code(s): 03511] $6,200. G. Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials where the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes Application [Program Code(s): 03521] $59,200. H. Licenses issued under Subpart A of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter. The category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter Application [Program Code(s): 03254, 03255, 03257] $6,300. I. Licenses issued under Subpart A of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter. This category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter Application [Program Code(s): 03250, 03251, 03252, 03253, 03256] $10,500. J. Licenses issued under Subpart B of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter. This category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter Application [Program Code(s): 03240, 03241, 03243] $1,900. K. Licenses issued under Subpart B of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter. This category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter Application [Program Code(s): 03242, 03244] $1,100. L. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: 1-5 (1) Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: 6-20 (2) Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: more than 20 Application [Program Code(s): 01100, 01110, 01120, 03610, 03611, 03612, 03613, 04610, 04611, 04612, 04613, 04614, 04615, 04616, 04617, 04618, 04619, 04620, 04621, 04622, 04623] $5,200. M. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 30 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution Application [Program Code(s): 03620] $4,800. N. Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except: (1) Licenses that authorize only calibration and/or leak testing services are subject to the fees specified in fee Category 3.P.; and (2) Licenses that authorize waste disposal services are subject to the fees specified in fee Categories 4.A., 4.B., and 4.C Application [Program Code(s): 03219, 03225, 03226] $6,100. O. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations Application [Program Code(s): 03310, 03320] $3,000. P. All other specific byproduct material licenses, except those in Categories 4.A. through 9.D.9 Application [Program Code(s): 02400, 02410, 03120, 03121, 03122, 03123, 03124, 03130, 03140, 03220, 03221, 03222, 03800, 03810, 22130] $2,500. Q. Registration of a device(s) generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter Registration $600. R. Possession of items or products containing radium-226 identified in 10 CFR 31.12 which exceed the number of items or limits specified in that section.5 1. Possession of quantities exceeding the number of items or limits in 10 CFR 31.12(a)(4), or (5) but less than or equal to 10 times the number of items or limits specified Application [Program Code(s): 02700] $2,400. 2. Possession of quantities exceeding 10 times the number of items or limits specified in 10 CFR 31.12(a)(4), or (5) Application [Program Code(s): 02710] $2,400. S. Licenses for production of accelerator-produced radionuclides Application [Program Code(s): 03210] $13,600. 4. Waste disposal and processing: A. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of contingency storage or commercial land disposal by the licensee; or licenses authorizing contingency storage of low-level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for receipt of waste from other persons for incineration or other treatment, packaging of resulting waste and residues, and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material. [Program Code(s): 03231, 03233, 03235, 03236, 06100, 06101] Full Cost. B. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the material. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material Application [Program Code(s): 03234] $6,600. C. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material Application [Program Code(s): 03232] $4,800. 5. Well logging: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well logging, well surveys, and tracer studies other than field flooding tracer studies Application [Program Code(s): 03110, 03111, 03112] $4,400. B. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies Licensing [Program Code(s): 03113] Full Cost. 6. Nuclear laundries: A. Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material Application [Program Code(s): 03218] $21,100. 7. Medical licenses: A. Licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units, teletherapy devices, or similar beam therapy devices Application [Program Code(s): 02300, 02310] $10,600. B. Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians under parts 30, 33, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, including human use of byproduct material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license.10 Application [Program Code(s): 02110] $8,300. C. Other licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices Application [Program Code(s): 02120, 02121, 02200, 02201, 02210, 02220, 02230, 02231, 02240, 22160] $4,300. 8. Civil defense: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities Application [Program Code(s): 03710] $2,400. 9. Device, product, or sealed source safety evaluation: A. Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for commercial distribution Application—each device $5,200. B. Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices Application—each device $8,600. C. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for commercial distribution Application—each source $5,000. D. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel Application—each source $1,010. 10. Transportation of radioactive material: A. Evaluation of casks, packages, and shipping containers 1. Spent Fuel, High-Level Waste, and plutonium air packages Full Cost. 2. Other Casks Full Cost. B. Quality assurance program approvals issued under part 71 of this chapter 1. Users and Fabricators Application $4,000. Inspections Full Cost. 2. Users Application $4,000. Inspections Full Cost. C. Evaluation of security plans, route approvals, route surveys, and transportation security devices (including immobilization devices) Full Cost. 11. Review of standardized spent fuel facilities Full Cost. 12. Special projects: Including approvals, pre-application/licensing activities, and inspections Application [Program Code: 25110] Full Cost. 13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance Full Cost. B. Inspections related to storage of spent fuel under § 72.210 of this chapter Full Cost. 14. A. Byproduct, source, or special nuclear material licenses and other approvals authorizing decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation, or site restoration activities under parts 30, 40, 70, 72, and 76 of this chapter, including MMLs. Application [Program Code(s): 3900, 11900, 21135, 21215, 21240, 21325, 22200] Full Cost. B. Site-specific decommissioning activities associated with unlicensed sites, including MMLs, regardless of whether or not the sites have been previously licensed Full Cost. 15. Import and Export licenses: Licenses issued under part 110 of this chapter for the import and export only of special nuclear material, source material, tritium and other byproduct material, and the export only of heavy water, or nuclear grade graphite (fee categories 15.A. through 15.E.). A. Application for export or import of nuclear materials, including radioactive waste requiring Commission and Executive Branch review, for example, those actions under 10 CFR 110.40(b) Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $17,200. B. Application for export or import of nuclear material, including radioactive waste, requiring Executive Branch review, but not Commission review. This category includes applications for the export and import of radioactive waste and requires NRC to consult with domestic host state authorities (i.e., Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, etc.) Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $9,300. C. Application for export of nuclear material, for example, routine reloads of low enriched uranium reactor fuel and/or natural uranium source material requiring the assistance of the Executive Branch to obtain foreign government assurances Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $4,200. D. Application for export or import of nuclear material not requiring Commission or Executive Branch review, or obtaining foreign government assurances Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $4,800. E. Minor amendment of any active export or import license, for example, to extend the expiration date, change domestic information, or make other revisions which do not involve any substantive changes to license terms and conditions or to the type/quantity/chemical composition of the material authorized for export and, therefore, do not require in-depth analysis, review, or consultations with other Executive Branch, U.S. host state, or foreign government authorities Minor amendment $1,300. Licenses issued under part 110 of this chapter for the import and export only of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material listed in Appendix P to part 110 of this chapter (fee categories 15.F. through 15.R.) Category 1 (Appendix P, 10 CFR Part 110) Exports: F. Application for export of Appendix P Category 1 materials requiring Commission review (e.g., exceptional circumstance review under 10 CFR 110.42(e)(4)) and to obtain government-to-government consent for this process. For additional consent see 15.I.) Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $14,600. G. Application for export of Appendix P Category 1 materials requiring Executive Branch review and to obtain government-to-government consent for this process. For additional consents see 15.I Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $8,000. H. Application for export of Appendix P Category 1 materials and to obtain one government-to-government consent for this process. For additional consents see 15.I Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $5,300. I. Requests for each additional government-to-government consent in support of an export license application or active export license Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $270. Category 2 (Appendix P, 10 CFR Part 110) Exports: J. Application for export of Appendix P Category 2 materials requiring Commission review (e.g., exceptional circumstance review under 10 CFR 110.42(e)(4)) Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $14,600. K. Applications for export of Appendix P Category 2 materials requiring Executive Branch review Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $8,000. L. Application for the export of Category 2 materials Application—new license, or amendment; or license exemption request $4,000. M. [Reserved] N/A. N. [Reserved] N/A. O. [Reserved] N/A. P. [Reserved] N/A. Q. [Reserved] N/A. Minor Amendments (Category 1 and 2, Appendix P, 10 CFR Part 110, Export): R. Minor amendment of any active export license, for example, to extend the expiration date, change domestic information, or make other revisions which do not involve any substantive changes to license terms and conditions or to the type/quantity/chemical composition of the material authorized for export and, therefore, do not require in-depth analysis, review, or consultations with other Executive Branch, U.S. host state, or foreign authorities Minor amendment $1,300. 16. Reciprocity: Agreement State licensees who conduct activities under the reciprocity provisions of 10 CFR 150.20 Application $1,900. 17. Master materials licenses of broad scope issued to Government agencies. Application [Program Code(s): 03614] Full Cost. 18. Department of Energy. A. Certificates of Compliance. Evaluation of casks, packages, and shipping containers (including spent fuel, high-level waste, and other casks, and plutonium air packages) Full Cost. B. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) activities Full Cost. 1Types of fees—Separate charges, as shown in the schedule, will be assessed for pre-application consultations and reviews; applications for new licenses, approvals, or license terminations; possession-only licenses; issuances of new licenses and approvals; certain amendments and renewals to existing licenses and approvals; safety evaluations of sealed sources and devices; generally licensed device registrations; and certain inspections. The following guidelines apply to these charges: (a) Application and registration fees. Applications for new materials licenses and export and import licenses; applications to reinstate expired, terminated, or inactive licenses, except those subject to fees assessed at full costs; applications filed by Agreement State licensees to register under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 150.20; and applications for amendments to materials licenses that would place the license in a higher fee category or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for each category. (1) Applications for licenses covering more than one fee category of special nuclear material or source material must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the highest fee category. (2) Applications for new licenses that cover both byproduct material and special nuclear material in sealed sources for use in gauging devices will pay the appropriate application fee for fee category 1.C. only. (b) Licensing fees. Fees for reviews of applications for new licenses, renewals, and amendments to existing licenses, pre-application consultations and other documents submitted to the NRC for review, and project manager time for fee categories subject to full cost fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with § 170.12(b). (c) Amendment fees. Applications for amendments to export and import licenses must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for each license affected. An application for an amendment to an export or import license or approval classified in more than one fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category affected by the amendment, unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee categories, in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply. (d) Inspection fees. Inspections resulting from investigations conducted by the Office of Investigations and nonroutine inspections that result from third-party allegations are not subject to fees. Inspection fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with § 170.12(c). (e) Generally licensed device registrations under 10 CFR 31.5. Submittals of registration information must be accompanied by the prescribed fee. 2 Fees will not be charged for orders related to civil penalties or other civil sanctions issued by the Commission under 10 CFR 2.202 or for amendments resulting specifically from the requirements of these orders. For orders unrelated to civil penalties or other civil sanctions, fees will be charged for any resulting licensee-specific activities not otherwise exempted from fees under this chapter. Fees will be charged for approvals issued under a specific exemption provision of the Commission's regulations under title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 30.11, 40.14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other sections in effect now or in the future), regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form. In addition to the fee shown, an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for sealed source and device evaluations as shown in fee categories 9.A. through 9.D. 3 Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time multiplied by the appropriate professional hourly rate established in § 170.20 in effect when the service is provided, and the appropriate contractual support services expended. 4 Licensees paying fees under categories 1.A., 1.B., and 1.E. are not subject to fees under categories 1.C., 1.D., and 1.F. for sealed sources authorized in the same license, except for an application that deals only with the sealed sources authorized by the license. 5 Persons who possess radium sources that are used for operational purposes in another fee category are not also subject to the fees in this category. (This exception does not apply if the radium sources are possessed for storage only.) 6 Licensees subject to fees under fee categories 1.A., 1.B., 1.E., or 2.A. must pay the largest applicable fee and are not subject to additional fees listed in this table. 7 Licensees paying fees under 3.C. are not subject to fees under 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license. 8 Licensees paying fees under 7.C. are not subject to fees under 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license. 9 Licensees paying fees under 3.N. are not subject to paying fees under 3.P. for calibration or leak testing services authorized on the same license. 10 Licensees paying fees under 7.B. are not subject to paying fees under 7.C. for broad scope license licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices authorized on the same license.
    PART 171—ANNUAL FEES FOR REACTOR LICENSES AND FUEL CYCLE LICENSES AND MATERIALS LICENSES, INCLUDING HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, REGISTRATIONS, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVALS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY THE NRC 12. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w), 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w), 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2214; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

    13. In § 171.15, revise paragraph (b)(1), the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), paragraph (c)(1), the introductory text of paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(1), and paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3), and revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 171.15 Annual fees: Reactor licenses and independent spent fuel storage licenses.

    (b)(1) The FY 2016 annual fee for each operating power reactor which must be collected by September 30, 2016, is $4,856,000.

    (2) The FY 2016 annual fees are comprised of a base annual fee for power reactors licensed to operate, a base spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee, and associated additional charges (fee-relief adjustment). The activities comprising the spent storage/reactor decommissioning base annual fee are shown in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2016 fee-relief adjustment are shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2016 base annual fee for operating power reactors are as follows:

    (c)(1) The FY 2016 annual fee for each power reactor holding a 10 CFR part 50 license that is in a decommissioning or possession-only status and has spent fuel onsite, and for each independent spent fuel storage 10 CFR part 72 licensee who does not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license, is $197,000.

    (2) The FY 2016 annual fee is comprised of a base spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee (which is also included in the operating power reactor annual fee shown in paragraph (b) of this section) and a fee-relief adjustment. The activities comprising the FY 2016 fee-relief adjustment are shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2016 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning rebaselined annual fee are:

    (d)(1) The fee-relief adjustment allocated to annual fees includes a surcharge for the activities listed in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, plus the amount remaining after total budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section are reduced by the appropriations the NRC receives for these types of activities. If the NRC's appropriations for these types of activities are greater than the budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section for a given fiscal year, annual fees will be reduced. The activities comprising the FY 2016 fee-relief adjustment are as follows:

    (2) The total FY 2016 fee-relief adjustment and LLW surcharge allocated to the operating power reactor class of licenses is a $960,300 fee-relief adjustment and LLW surcharge, not including the amount allocated to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning class. The FY 2016 operating power reactor fee-relief adjustment to be assessed to each operating power reactor is approximately a $9,603 fee-relief adjustment and LLW surcharge. This amount is calculated by dividing the total operating power reactor fee-relief adjustment and LLW surcharge, $960,300, by the number of operating power reactors (100).

    (3) The FY 2016 fee-relief adjustment allocated to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning class of licenses is a −$2,400 fee-relief assessment. The FY 2016 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee-relief adjustment to be assessed to each operating power reactor, each power reactor in decommissioning or possession-only status that has spent fuel onsite, and to each independent spent fuel storage 10 CFR part 72 licensee who does not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license, is a −$20 fee-relief assessment. This amount is calculated by dividing the total fee-relief adjustment costs allocated to this class by the total number of power reactor licenses, except those that permanently ceased operations and have no fuel onsite, and 10 CFR part 72 licensees who do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license.

    (f) The FY 2016 annual fees for licensees authorized to operate a research or test (nonpower) reactor licensed under 10 CFR part 50, unless the reactor is exempted from fees under § 171.11(a), are as follows:

    Research reactor $81,500 Test reactor 81,500
    14. In § 171.16, revise paragraphs (c) and (d) and the introductory text of paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 171.16 Annual fees: Materials licensees, holders of certificates of compliance, holders of sealed source and device registrations, holders of quality assurance program approvals, and government agencies licensed by the NRC.

    (c) A licensee who is required to pay an annual fee under this section, in addition to 10 CFR part 72 licenses, may qualify as a small entity. If a licensee qualifies as a small entity and provides the Commission with the proper certification along with its annual fee payment, the licensee may pay reduced annual fees as shown in the following table. Failure to file a small entity certification in a timely manner could result in the receipt of a delinquent invoice requesting the outstanding balance due and/or denial of any refund that might otherwise be due. The small entity fees are as follows:

    Maximum
  • annual fee
  • per licensed
  • category
  • Small Businesses Not Engaged in Manufacturing (Average gross receipts over last 3 completed fiscal years): $485,000 to $7 million $3,400 Less than $485,000 700 Small Not-For-Profit Organizations (Annual Gross Receipts): $485,000 to $7 million 3,400 Less than $485,000 700 Manufacturing Entities that Have An Average of 500 Employees or Fewer: 35 to 500 employees 3,400 Fewer than 35 employees 700 Small Governmental Jurisdictions (Including publicly supported educational institutions) (Population): 20,000 to 49,999 3,400 Fewer than 20,000 700 Educational Institutions that are not State or Publicly Supported, and have 500 Employees or Fewer: 35 to 500 employees 3,400 Fewer than 35 employees 700

    (d) The FY 2016 annual fees are comprised of a base annual fee and an allocation for fee-relief adjustment. The activities comprising the FY 2016 fee-relief adjustment are shown for convenience in paragraph (e) of this section. The FY 2016 annual fees for materials licensees and holders of certificates, registrations, or approvals subject to fees under this section are shown in the following table:

    Schedule of Materials Annual fees and Fees for Government Agencies Licensed by NRC [See footnotes at end of table] Category of materials licenses Annual fees 123 1. Special nuclear material: A. (1) Licenses for possession and use of U-235 or plutonium for fuel fabrication activities. (a) Strategic Special Nuclear Material (High Enriched Uranium) [Program Code(s): 21130] $7,867,000 (b) Low Enriched Uranium in Dispersible Form Used for Fabrication of Power Reactor Fuel [Program Code(s): 21210] $2,736,000 (2) All other special nuclear materials licenses not included in Category 1.A.(1) which are licensed for fuel cycle activities. (a) Facilities with limited operations [Program Code(s): 21310, 21320] $0 (b) Gas centrifuge enrichment demonstration facilities $1,539,000 (c) Others, including hot cell facilities $770,000 B. Licenses for receipt and storage of spent fuel and reactor-related Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) [Program Code(s): 23200] N/A11 C. Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material of less than a critical mass, as defined in § 70.4 of this chapter, in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers.15 [Program Code(s): 22140] $3,100 D. All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear material in sealed or unsealed form in combination that would constitute a critical mass, as defined in § 70.4 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees as those under Category 1.A.15 [Program Code(s): 22110, 22111, 22120, 22131, 22136, 22150, 22151, 22161, 22170, 23100, 23300, 23310] $8,100 E. Licenses or certificates for the operation of a uranium enrichment facility [Program Code(s): 21200] $3,762,000 F. For special nuclear materials licenses in sealed or unsealed form of greater than a critical mass as defined in § 70.4 of this chapter.15 [Program Code: 22155] $6,800 2. Source material: A. (1) Licenses for possession and use of source material for refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride or for deconverting uranium hexafluoride in the production of uranium oxides for disposal. [Program Code: 11400] $1,625,000 (2) Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ recovery, heap-leaching, ore buying stations, ion-exchange facilities and in-processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses authorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode. (a) Conventional and Heap Leach facilities [Program Code(s): 11100] $38,900 (b) Basic In Situ Recovery facilities [Program Code(s): 11500] $49,300 (c) Expanded In Situ Recovery facilities [Program Code(s): 11510] $55,800 (d) In Situ Recovery Resin facilities [Program Code(s): 11550] N/A5 (e) Resin Toll Milling facilities [Program Code(s): 11555] N/A5 (3) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from other persons for possession and disposal, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(2) or Category 2.A.(4) [Program Code(s): 11600, 12000] N/A5 (4) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from other persons for possession and disposal incidental to the disposal of the uranium waste tailings generated by the licensee's milling operations, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(2) [Program Code(s): 12010] $22,000 (5) Licenses that authorize the possession of source material related to removal of contaminants (source material) from drinking water [Program Code(s): 11820] $6,500 B. Licenses that authorize possession, use, and/or installation of source material for shielding.161718 [Program Code: 11210] $3,600 C. Licenses to distribute items containing source material to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 40 of this chapter [Program Code: 11240] $6,800 D. Licenses to distribute source material to persons generally licensed under part 40 of this chapter [Program Code(s): 11230 and 11231] $6,600 E. Licenses for possession and use of source material for processing or manufacturing of products or materials containing source material for commercial distribution [Program Code: 11710] $8,300 F. All other source material licenses [Program Code(s): 11200, 11220, 11221, 11300, 11800, 11810] $7,700 3. Byproduct material: A. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution [Program Code(s): 03211, 03212, 03213] $30,500 B. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution [Program Code(s): 03214, 03215, 22135, 22162] $12,800 C. Licenses issued under §§ 32.72 and/or 32.74 of this chapter authorizing the processing or manufacturing and distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits, and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding authorized under part 40 of this chapter when included on the same license. This category does not apply to licenses issued to nonprofit educational institutions whose processing or manufacturing is exempt under § 171.11(a)(1). [Program Code(s): 02500, 02511, 02513] $13,500 D. [Reserved] N/A.5 E. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units) [Program Code(s): 03510, 03520] $10,000 F. Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials in which the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes [Program Code(s): 03511] $12,200 G. Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials in which the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes [Program Code(s): 03521] $107,900 H. Licenses issued under subpart A of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter [Program Code(s): 03254, 03255] $12,300 I. Licenses issued under subpart A of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter, except for specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of part 30 of this chapter [Program Code(s): 03250, 03251, 03252, 03253, 03256] $18,200 J. Licenses issued under subpart B of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter [Program Code(s): 03240, 03241, 03243] $4,700 K. Licenses issued under subpart B of part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter [Program Code(s): 03242, 03244] $3,500 L. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: 1-5. [Program Code(s): 01100, 01110, 01120, 03610, 03611, 03612, 03613] $17,700 (1) Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of product material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: 6-20. [Program Code(s): 04610, 04612, 04614, 04616, 04618, 04620, 04622] $23,800 (2) Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution. Number of locations of use: More than 20. [Program Code(s): 04611, 04613, 04615, 04617, 04619, 04621, 04623] $29,700 M. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 30 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution [Program Code(s): 03620] $12,300 N. Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except: (1) Licenses that authorize only calibration and/or leak testing services are subject to the fees specified in fee Category 3.P.; and (2) Licenses that authorize waste disposal services are subject to the fees specified in fee categories 4.A., 4.B., and 4.C. [Program Code(s): 03219, 03225, 03226] $21,100 O. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding authorized under part 40 of this chapter when authorized on the same license [Program Code(s): 03310, 03320] $26,000 P. All other specific byproduct material licenses, except those in Categories 4.A. through 9.D.19 [Program Code(s): 02400, 02410, 03120, 03121, 03122, 03123, 03124, 03140, 03130, 03220, 03221, 03222, 03800, 03810, 22130] $7,900 Q. Registration of devices generally licensed under part 31 of this chapter N/A.13 R. Possession of items or products containing radium-226 identified in 10 CFR 31.12 which exceed the number of items or limits specified in that section: 14 1. Possession of quantities exceeding the number of items or limits in 10 CFR 31.12(a)(4), or (5) but less than or equal to 10 times the number of items or limits specified [Program Code(s): 02700] $7,900 2. Possession of quantities exceeding 10 times the number of items or limits specified in 10 CFR 31.12(a)(4) or (5) [Program Code(s): 02710] $8,400 S. Licenses for production of accelerator-produced radionuclides [Program Code(s): 03210] $30,800 4. Waste disposal and processing: A. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of contingency storage or commercial land disposal by the licensee; or licenses authorizing contingency storage of low-level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for receipt of waste from other persons for incineration or other treatment, packaging of resulting waste and residues, and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material [Program Code(s): 03231, 03233, 03235, 03236, 06100, 06101] N/A5 B. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the material. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material [Program Code(s): 03234] $21,900 C. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material [Program Code(s): 03232] $14,800 5. Well logging: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well logging, well surveys, and tracer studies other than field flooding tracer studies [Program Code(s): 03110, 03111, 03112] $14,500 B. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies. [Program Code(s): 03113] N/A5 6. Nuclear laundries: A. Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material [Program Code(s): 03218] $0 7. Medical licenses: A. Licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units, teletherapy devices, or similar beam therapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license. [Program Code(s): 02300, 02310] $24,700 B. Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians under parts 30, 33, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, including human use of byproduct material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license.9 [Program Code(s): 02110] $37,400 C. Other licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license.920 [Program Code(s): 02120, 02121, 02200, 02201, 02210, 02220, 02230, 02231, 02240, 22160] $13,200 8. Civil defense: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities [Program Code(s): 03710] $7,900 9. Device, product, or sealed source safety evaluation: A. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for commercial distribution $7,900 B. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices $13,000 C. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for commercial distribution $7,600 D. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel $1,500 10. Transportation of radioactive material: A. Certificates of Compliance or other package approvals issued for design of casks, packages, and shipping containers. 1. Spent Fuel, High-Level Waste, and plutonium air packages N/A6 2. Other Casks N/A6 B. Quality assurance program approvals issued under part 71 of this chapter. 1. Users and Fabricators N/A6 2. Users N/A6 C. Evaluation of security plans, route approvals, route surveys, and transportation security devices (including immobilization devices) N/A6 11. Standardized spent fuel facilities N/A.6 12. Special Projects [Program Code(s): 25110] N/A6 13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance N/A6 B. General licenses for storage of spent fuel under 10 CFR 72.210 N/A12 14. Decommissioning/Reclamation: A. Byproduct, source, or special nuclear material licenses and other approvals authorizing decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation, or site restoration activities under parts 30, 40, 70, 72, and 76 of this chapter, including master materials licenses (MMLs) [Program Code(s): 3900, 11900, 21135, 21215, 21240, 21325, 22200] N/A7 B. Site-specific decommissioning activities associated with unlicensed sites, including MMLs, whether or not the sites have been previously licensed N/A7 15. Import and Export licenses N/A8 16. Reciprocity N/A 8 17. Master materials licenses of broad scope issued to Government agencies [Program Code(s): 03614] $343,000 18. Department of Energy: A. Certificates of Compliance $1,366,00010 B. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) activities $545,000 1 Annual fees will be assessed based on whether a licensee held a valid license with the NRC authorizing possession and use of radioactive material during the current FY. The annual fee is waived for those materials licenses and holders of certificates, registrations, and approvals who either filed for termination of their licenses or approvals or filed for possession only/storage licenses before October 1, 2015, and permanently ceased licensed activities entirely before this date. Annual fees for licensees who filed for termination of a license, downgrade of a license, or for a possession-only license during the FY and for new licenses issued during the FY will be prorated in accordance with the provisions of § 171.17. If a person holds more than one license, certificate, registration, or approval, the annual fee(s) will be assessed for each license, certificate, registration, or approval held by that person. For licenses that authorize more than one activity on a single license (e.g., human use and irradiator activities), annual fees will be assessed for each category applicable to the license. 2 Payment of the prescribed annual fee does not automatically renew the license, certificate, registration, or approval for which the fee is paid. Renewal applications must be filed in accordance with the requirements of parts 30, 40, 70, 71, 72, or 76 of this chapter. 3 Each FY, fees for these materials licenses will be calculated and assessed in accordance with § 171.13 and will be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment. 4 Other facilities include licenses for extraction of metals, heavy metals, and rare earths. 5 There are no existing NRC licenses in these fee categories. If NRC issues a license for these categories, the Commission will consider establishing an annual fee for this type of license. 6 Standardized spent fuel facilities, 10 CFR parts 71 and 72 Certificates of Compliance and related Quality Assurance program approvals, and special reviews, such as topical reports, are not assessed an annual fee because the generic costs of regulating these activities are primarily attributable to users of the designs, certificates, and topical reports. 7Licensees in this category are not assessed an annual fee because they are charged an annual fee in other categories while they are licensed to operate. 8 No annual fee is charged because it is not practical to administer due to the relatively short life or temporary nature of the license. 9 Separate annual fees will not be assessed for pacemaker licenses issued to medical institutions that also hold nuclear medicine licenses under fee categories 7.B. or 7.C. 10 This includes Certificates of Compliance issued to the U.S. Department of Energy that are not funded from the Nuclear Waste Fund. 11 See § 171.15(c). 12 See § 171.15(c). 13 No annual fee is charged for this category because the cost of the general license registration program applicable to licenses in this category will be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees. 14 Persons who possess radium sources that are used for operational purposes in another fee category are not also subject to the fees in this category. (This exception does not apply if the radium sources are possessed for storage only.) 15 Licensees paying annual fees under category 1.A., 1.B., and 1.E. are not subject to the annual fees for categories 1.C., 1.D., and 1.F. for sealed sources authorized in the license. 16Licensees subject to fees under categories 1.A., 1.B., 1.E., or 2.A. must pay the largest applicable fee and are not subject to additional fees listed in this table. 17 Licensees paying fees under 3.C. are not subject to fees under 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license. 18 Licensees paying fees under 7.C. are not subject to fees under 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license. 19 Licensees paying fees under 3.N. are not subject to paying fees under 3.P. for calibration or leak testing services authorized on the same license. 20 Licensees paying fees under 7.B. are not subject to paying fees under 7.C. for broad scope license licenses issued under parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices authorized on the same license.

    (e) The fee-relief adjustment allocated to annual fees includes the budgeted resources for the activities listed in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, plus the total budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section, as reduced by the appropriations the NRC receives for these types of activities. If the NRC's appropriations for these types of activities are greater than the budgeted resources for the activities included in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section for a given fiscal year, a negative fee-relief adjustment (or annual fee reduction) will be allocated to annual fees. The activities comprising the FY 2016 fee-relief adjustment are as follows:

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Maureen E. Wylie, Chief Financial Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14490 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Part 111 [Docket No. 2016-04] Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rules.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, the Federal Election Commission is adopting interim final rules to adjust for inflation the civil monetary penalties established under the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. The civil monetary penalties being adjusted are those negotiated by the Commission or imposed by a court for certain statutory violations; and those imposed by the Commission for late filing of or failure to file certain reports required by the Federal Election Campaign Act. The adjusted civil monetary penalties are calculated according to a statutory formula and the adjusted amounts will apply to penalties assessed after the effective date of these rules.

    DATES:

    The interim final rules are effective on August 1, 2016. Comments must be submitted on or before July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All comments must be in writing. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically via the Commission's Web site at http://www.fec.gov/fosers, reference REG 2016-02, or by email to [email protected]. Alternatively, commenters may submit comments in paper form, addressed to the Federal Election Commission, Attn.: Neven F. Stipanovic, Acting Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463.

    Each commenter must provide, at a minimum, his or her first name, last name, city, state, and zip code. All properly submitted comments, including attachments, will become part of the public record, and the Commission will make comments available for public viewing on the Commission's Web site and in the Commission's Public Records Office. Accordingly, commenters should not provide in their comments any information that they do not wish to make public, such as a home street address, personal email address, date of birth, phone number, social security number, or driver's license number, or any information that is restricted from disclosure, such as trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, Acting Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Esther D. Gyory, Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the “2015 Act”) 1 amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the “Inflation Adjustment Act”) 2 to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. Prior to the 2015 Act, the Inflation Adjustment Act required federal agencies, including the Commission, to adjust for inflation the civil monetary penalties within their jurisdiction at least once every four years according to detailed formulas. The Commission last adjusted its civil monetary penalties for inflation in 2013. Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments, 78 FR 44419 (July 24, 2013). As amended by the 2015 Act, the Inflation Adjustment Act now requires federal agencies to make a one-time “catch-up” adjustment to civil monetary penalties, which must take effect no later than August 1, 2016, and to adjust civil monetary penalties annually thereafter using newly prescribed formulas.3

    1 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599.

    2 Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, sec. 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1321, 1373; Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1998, Public Law 105-362, sec. 1301, 112 Stat. 3280.

    3 Inflation Adjustment Act secs. 4(b), 5.

    The Inflation Adjustment Act defines a civil monetary penalty as “any penalty, fine, or other sanction” that (1) “is for a specific amount” or “has a maximum amount” under federal law; and (2) that a federal agency assesses or enforces “pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action” in federal court.4 Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30101-46 (“FECA”), the Commission may assess and enforce civil monetary penalties for violations of FECA, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. 9001-13, and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. 9031-42. As required by the Inflation Adjustment Act, and pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget,5 the Commission is now making a one-time catch-up adjustment to the civil monetary penalties within its jurisdiction, according to the prescribed formulas. The Commission will implement annual inflation adjustments beginning in January 2017.

    4 Inflation Adjustment Act sec. 3(2).

    5See Inflation Adjustment Act sec. 7(a) (requiring OMB to “issue guidance to agencies on implementing the inflation adjustments required under this Act”); see also Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget, to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, M-16-06 at 3 (Feb. 24, 2016) (“OMB Memorandum”), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-06.pdf.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    As required by the 2015 Act, the Commission is issuing these rules as interim final rules. The interim final rules will take effect on August 1, 2016, the date by which Congress mandated that agencies make their catch-up adjustment effective.

    The Administrative Procedure Act's (“APA's”) notice-and-comment requirement does not apply here because Congress specifically directed agencies to make adjustments to civil monetary penalties through an interim final rule.6 Nonetheless, the public may comment on these interim final rules, and the Commission may address any comments received in a later rulemaking document. Furthermore, because the inflation adjustments made through the interim final rules are required by Congress and involve no Commission discretion or policy judgments, these rules do not need to be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. Moreover, because the APA's notice-and-comment procedures do not apply to these interim final rules, the Commission is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603 or 604. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 604(a). Nor is the Commission required to submit these revisions for congressional review under FECA. See 5 U.S.C. 30111(d)(1), (4) (providing for congressional review when Commission “prescribe[s]” a “rule of law”). The new penalty amounts will apply to civil monetary penalties that are assessed after the date the increase takes effect, even if the associated violation predated the increase.7

    6See, e.g., Asiana Airlines v. FAA, 134 F.3d 393, 396-99 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (finding APA “notice and comment” requirement not applicable where Congress clearly expressed intent to depart from normal APA procedures); see also Inflation Adjustment Act sec. 4(a), (b)(1) (requiring federal agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties “through an interim final rulemaking”).

    7 Inflation Adjustment Act sec. 6.

    Explanation and Justification

    Under the Inflation Adjustment Act, the Commission now must adjust each civil monetary penalty for inflation by applying a cost-of-living-adjustment (“COLA”) ratio. The COLA ratio is the percentage that the consumer price index (“CPI”) 8 for October 2015 exceeds the CPI for October of the “baseline year,” which is the calendar year when the civil monetary penalty was first established, or when it was most recently adjusted under a provision of law other than the Inflation Adjustment Act.9 To calculate the adjusted penalty, the Commission must multiply the civil monetary penalty amount in the baseline year by the COLA ratio.10 The civil monetary penalty, however, may not be increased by more than 150% of the civil monetary penalty amount in effect on November 2, 2015.11

    8 The Inflation Adjustment Act uses the CPI “for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor.” Id. sec. 3.

    9Id. sec. 5(b)(2)(A).

    10Id. sec. 5(b)(2)(B).

    11Id. sec. 5(b)(2)(C).

    The Commission assesses two types of civil monetary penalties that now must be adjusted for inflation. First are those penalties that are either negotiated by the Commission or imposed by a court for violations of FECA, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. These civil monetary penalties are set forth at 11 CFR 111.24. Second are the civil monetary penalties assessed through the Commission's Administrative Fines Program for late filing or non-filing of certain reports required by FECA. See 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C) (authorizing Administrative Fines Program), 30104(a) (requiring political committee treasurers to report receipts and disbursements within certain time periods). The penalty schedules for these civil monetary penalties are set out at 11 CFR 111.43 and 111.44.

    1. 11 CFR 111.24—Civil Penalties

    FECA established the civil monetary penalties for violations of FECA and the other statutes within the Commission's jurisdiction. See 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(5), (6), (12). Commission regulations in 11 CFR 111.24 provide the current inflation-adjusted amount for each such civil monetary penalty. To calculate the catch-up adjustment for each of the five civil monetary penalties in 11 CFR 111.24, the Commission must first identify the later of: The year the civil monetary penalty was first established, or the year it was last adjusted by law other than under the Inflation Adjustment Act. The Commission then must apply the COLA ratio to the amount of the civil monetary penalty in effect in the baseline year.12

    12 The COLA ratios are provided in the OMB Memorandum, M-16-06 at 6.

    The civil monetary penalties at 11 CFR 111.24(a)(1) and 11 CFR 24(a)(2)(i) were established by statute in 1976.13 The civil monetary penalty at 11 CFR 111.24(a)(2)(ii) was established in 2002.14 The civil monetary penalties at 11 CFR 111.24(b) were established in 1980.15 None of these penalties has been adjusted since its establishment, other than for inflation. Accordingly, as described above, the Commission determines the adjusted penalty amount by multiplying the amount of the penalty in the baseline year by the COLA ratio for that year and rounding that figure to the nearest dollar. But the Commission may not increase the civil monetary penalty amount by more than 150% of the amount that was in effect for that civil monetary penalty on November 2, 2015. Thus, for example, in section 111.24(a)(1), the 2015 civil monetary penalty amount was $7,500. The maximum the new civil monetary penalty can increase by is 150% of that amount, which would be an increase of $11,250, for a maximum penalty of $18,750. Because applying the COLA ratio to the originally established penalty amount would lead to an adjusted penalty of approximately $20,500, which exceeds the 150% cap amount, the new civil monetary penalty for section 111.24(a)(1) is $18,750. The actual adjustment to each civil monetary penalty is shown in the chart below.

    13 Public Law 94-283, sec. 109, 90 Stat. 475 (codified at 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(5)(A)-(B)); see also Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments, 78 FR 44419 (July 24, 2013) (“2013 Adjustment); Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments, 74 FR 31345, 31346 (July 1, 2009), amended by Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments, 74 FR 37161 (July 28, 2009) (collectively, “2009 Adjustment”); Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary Penalties, 70 FR 34633, 34634 (June 15, 2005) (“2005 Adjustment”); Adjustments to Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts, 62 FR 11316 (Mar. 12, 1997) (“1997 Adjustment”).

    14 Public Law 107-155, sec. 312(a), 116 Stat. 81 (codified at 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(5)(B)); see also 2013 Adjustment, 78 FR at 44420; 2009 Adjustment, 74 FR at 31346, 74 FR 37161; 2005 Adjustment, 70 FR at 34634.

    15 Public Law 96-187, sec. 108, 93 Stat. 1339 (codified at 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(12)); see also 2013 Adjustment, 78 FR at 44420; 2009 Adjustment, 74 FR at 31346, 74 FR 37161; 2005 Adjustment, 70 FR at 34635; 1997 Adjustment, 62 FR at 11316-17.

    Section Baseline year Civil penalty
  • in year est.
  • COLA
  • Ratio 16
  • Adjusted
  • penalty
  • (rounded)
  • 2015
  • Penalty amt.
  • 150% Cap
  • (rounded)
  • New
  • civil
  • penalty
  • 11 CFR 111.24(a)(1) 1976 $5,000 4.10774 $20,539 $7,500 $18,750 $18,750 11 CFR 111.24(a)(2)(i) 1976 10,000 4.10774 41,077 16,000 40,000 40,000 11 CFR 111.24(a)(2)(ii) 2002 50,000 1.31185 65,593 65,000 162,500 65,593 11 CFR 111.24(b) 1980 2,000 2.80469 5,609 3,200 8,000 5,609 11 CFR 111.24(b) 1980 5,000 2.80469 14,023 7,500 18,750 14,023
    2. 11 CFR 111.43, 111.44—Administrative Fines

    16 OMB Memorandum, Table A.

    FECA authorizes the Commission to assess civil monetary penalties for violations of the reporting requirements of 52 U.S.C. 30104(a) according to the penalty schedules “established and published by the Commission.” 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C)(i). The Commission has established two such schedules: The schedule in 11 CFR 111.43(a) applies to reports that are not election sensitive, and the schedule in 11 CFR 111.43(b) applies to reports that are election sensitive.17 Each schedule contains two columns of penalties, one for late-filed reports and one for non-filed reports, with penalties based on the level of financial activity in the report and its lateness (where applicable).18 In addition, 11 CFR 111.43(c) establishes a civil monetary penalty for situations in which a committee fails to file a report and the Commission cannot calculate the relevant level of activity. Finally, 11 CFR 111.44 establishes a civil monetary penalty for failure to file timely reports of contributions received less than 20 days, but more than 48 hours, before an election. See 52 U.S.C. 30104(a)(6).

    17 Election sensitive reports are certain reports due shortly before an election. See 11 CFR 111.43(d)(1).

    18 A report is considered to be “not filed” if it is never filed or is filed more than a certain number of days after its due date. See 11 CFR 111.43(e).

    The Commission established the penalty schedules in 11 CFR 111.43(a) and (b) in 2000, when the Commission promulgated its Administrative Fines program. Administrative Fines, 65 FR 31787, 31796-97 (May 19, 2000) (“2000 Administrative Fines”). In 2003, the Commission adjusted these schedules to reduce certain penalties for political committees with low levels of financial activity. Administrative Fines, 68 FR 12572, 12573 (Mar. 17, 2003) (“2003 Administrative Fines”) (establishing “new schedules that reduce civil money penalties for . . . committees with less than $50,000 in activity”). Other than for inflation, these penalty schedules have not been adjusted since 2003.19 The civil monetary penalties in 11 CFR 111.43(c) and 111.44 were established in 2000 and, except for inflation, have not been adjusted since.20

    19See 2013 Adjustment, 78 FR at 44420; 2009 Adjustment, 74 FR at 31346-47; 2005 Adjustment, 70 FR at 34635.

    20 2000 Administrative Fines, 65 FR at 31797-98; see also 2013 Adjustment, 78 FR at 44420; 2009 Adjustment, 74 FR at 31347; 2005 Adjustment, 70 FR at 34635.

    As described above, to determine the adjusted penalty amount, the Commission first multiplies the amount of the penalty in the baseline year by the COLA ratio for that year and rounds that figure to the nearest dollar. For certain penalties assessed at low levels of financial activity (up to $49,999.99) the baseline year is 2003. 2003 Administrative Fines, 68 FR at 12573-75. For all other penalties, the baseline year is 2000. 2000 Administrative Fines, 65 FR at 31792-98. The adjusted civil monetary penalty for each level of activity is the baseline year penalty amount multiplied by the COLA ratio that is provided in the OMB Memorandum. None of these adjusted civil monetary penalties exceeds the 150% cap. The new civil monetary penalties are shown in the schedules in the revised rule text, below.

    List of Subjects in 11 CFR Part 111

    Administrative practice and procedures, Elections, Law enforcement, Penalties.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission amends subchapter A of chapter I of title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 111—COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE (52 U.S.C. 30109, 30107(a)) 1. The authority citation for part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    52 U.S.C. 30102(i), 30109, 30107(a), 30111(a)(8); 28 U.S.C. 2461 nt.; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 3711, 3716-3719, and 3820A, as amended; 31 CFR parts 285 and 900-904.

    § 111.24 [Amended]
    2. Section 111.24 is amended as follows:

    In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, remove the number indicated in the middle column, and add in its place the number indicated in the right column.

    Section Remove Add 111.24(a)(1) $7,500 $18,750 111.24(a)(2)(i) 16,000 40,000 111.24(a)(2)(ii) 65,000 65,593 111.24(b) 3,200 5,609 111.24(b) 7,500 14,023
    3. Section 111.43 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
    § 111.43 What are the schedules of penalties?

    (a) The civil money penalty for all reports that are filed late or not filed, except election sensitive reports and pre-election reports under 11 CFR 104.5, shall be calculated in accordance with the following schedule of penalties:

    If the level of activity in the report was: And the report was filed late, the civil money penalty is: Or the report was not filed, the civil money penalty is: $1-4,999.99  a [$32 + ($6 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $321 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $5,000-9,999.99 [$64 + ($6 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $386 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $10,000-24,999.99 [$137 + ($6 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $643 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $25,000-49,999.99 [$273 + ($26 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $1,157 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $50,000-74,999.99 [$410 + ($103 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $3,691 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $75,000-99,999.99 [$547 + ($137 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $4,784 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $100,000-149,999.99 [$820 + ($171 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $6,151 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $150,000-199,999.99 [$1,094 + ($205 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $7,518 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $200,000-249,999.99 [$1,367 + ($239 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $8,885 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $250,000-349,999.99 [$2,050 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $10,935 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $350,000-449,999.99 [$2,734 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $12,302 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $450,000-549,999.99 [$3,417 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $12,985 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $550,000-649,999.99 [$4,101 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $13,669 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $650,000-749,999.99 [$4,784 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $14,352 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $750,000-849,999.99 [$5,468 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $15,036 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $850,000-949,999.99 [$6,151 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $15,719 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $950,000 or over [$6,834 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $16,403 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. a The civil money penalty for a respondent who does not have any previous violations will not exceed the level of activity in the report.

    (b) The civil money penalty for election sensitive reports that are filed late or not filed shall be calculated in accordance with the following schedule of penalties:

    If the level of activity in the report was: And the report was filed late, the civil money penalty is: Or the report was not filed, the civil money penalty is: $1-$4,999.99 a [$64 + ($13 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $643 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $5,000-$9,999.99 [$129 + ($13 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $771 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $10,000-24,999.99 [$193 + ($13 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $1,157 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $25,000-49,999.99 [$410 + ($32 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $1,800 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $50,000-74,999.99 [$615 + ($103 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $4,101 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $75,000-99,999.99 [$820 + ($137 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $5,468 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $100,000-149,999.99 [$1,230 + ($171 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $6,834 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $150,000-199,999.99 [$1,640 + ($205 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $8,201 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $200,000-249,999.99 [$2,050 + ($239 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $10,252 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $250,000-349,999.99 [$3,076 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $12,302 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $350,000-449,999.99 [$4,101+ ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $13,669 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $450,000-549,999.99 [$5,126 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $15,036 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $550,000-649,999.99 [$6,151 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $16,403 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $650,000-749,999.99 [$7,176 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $17,770 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $750,000-849,999.99 [$8,201 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $19,136 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $850,000-949,999.99 [$9,227 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $20,503 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. $950,000 or over [$10,252 + ($273 × Number of days late)] × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)] $21,870 × [1 + (.25 × Number of previous violations)]. a The civil money penalty for a respondent who does not have any previous violations will not exceed the level of activity in the report.

    (c) If the respondent fails to file a required report and the Commission cannot calculate the level of activity under paragraph (d) of this section, then the civil money penalty shall be $7,518.

    § 111.44 [Amended]
    4. In § 111.44, paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing “$110” and adding in its place “$137”.
    Dated: June 16, 2016.

    On behalf of the Commission.

    Matthew S. Petersen, Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14877 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 25, 121, and 129 [Docket No.: FAA-2014-0500; Amdt. Nos. 25-142, 21-376, and 129-53] RIN 2120-AK30 Fuel Tank Vent Fire Protection AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA is amending certain airworthiness regulations for transport category airplanes to require fuel tank designs that prevent a fuel tank explosion caused by the propagation of flames, from external fires, through the fuel tank vents. This final rule requires a delay of two minutes and thirty seconds between exposure of external fuel tank vents to ignition sources and explosions caused by propagation of flames into the fuel tank, thus increasing the time available for passenger evacuation and emergency response. These amendments apply to applications for new type certificates and certain applications for amended or supplemental type certificates. The amendments also require certain airplanes produced in the future and operated by air carriers to meet the new standards.

    DATES:

    Effective August 23, 2016. The compliance date for the requirements in § 25.975 is August 23, 2016. The compliance date for the requirements in §§ 121.1119 and 129.119 is August 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How to Obtain Additional Information” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questions concerning this action, contact Mike Dostert, Propulsion and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2132; facsimile (425) 227-1149; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General Requirements.” Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards, for the design and performance of aircraft, that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority. It prescribes new safety standards for the design and operation of transport category airplanes.

    I. Overview of Final Rule A. General

    The FAA is amending title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 25, 121, and 129 as described below. The intent of this rule is to prevent fuel tank explosions caused by ignition from external ignition sources of fuel vapor either contained in vapor spaces 1 or exiting from vapor spaces through the fuel tank vent outlets. Potential external ignition sources include, but are not limited to, ground handling equipment, fuel fires that result from refueling spills, or ground fires that follow a survivable crash landing in which the fuel tank and the vent system remain intact. Means to prevent or delay the propagation of flame 2 from external sources into the fuel tank through the fuel tank vent system 3 would also prevent or delay fuel tank explosions following certain accidents. These means include flame arrestors or fuel tank inerting. This prevention or delay would provide additional time for the safe evacuation of passengers from the airplane and for emergency personnel to provide assistance.

    1 A vapor space is any portion of the airplane fuel tanks and the fuel tank vent system that, if such tanks and system held any fuel, could contain fuel vapor.

    2 Flame propagation is the spread of a flame in a combustible environment outward from the point at which the combustion started.

    3 A fuel tank vent system is a system that ventilates fuel vapor from the airplane fuel tanks to the atmosphere. A fuel tank vent system ensures that the air and fuel pressure within the fuel tank stay within structural limits required by § 25.975 (a).

    This rule applies to applications for new type certificates and applications for amended or supplemental type certificates on significant product-level change projects in which § 25.975, “Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents,” is applicable to a changed area. Additionally, a new operating requirement in both 14 CFR part 121, “Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations,” and 14 CFR part 129, “Operations: Foreign Air Carriers and Foreign Operators of U.S.-Registered Aircraft Engaged in Common Carriage,” applies to airplanes that are issued an original airworthiness certificate after a specified date. The FAA is not requiring retrofit of the existing fleet.

    Concurrent with the publication of this rule, the FAA is publishing Advisory Circular (AC) 25.975-1 that provides guidance concerning means of compliance with the revised § 25.975.4

    4 AC 25.975-1 is available on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/.

    II. Background A. Statement of the Problem

    This rulemaking addresses the problem of fuel tank explosions caused by flame propagation from fires outside the airplane reaching the fuel tank through the fuel tank vents. Fires outside of the airplane fuel tanks can be caused by ignition of fuel spilled during refueling, fuel and oil spillage from engines that separate from the airplane following an accident, or fuel leaking from damaged airplane fuel tanks. In some cases, external fires have ignited fuel vapors that have exited the fuel tank vents, resulting in flames traveling back through the vent lines into the fuel tank and causing fuel tank explosions. These explosions have caused passenger fatalities and prevented emergency personnel from assisting survivors.

    Existing requirements address some ignition sources. Airworthiness standards in § 25.981 for preventing fuel system explosions include requirements to prevent ignition sources inside the fuel tanks caused by failures of airplane components or external heating of the fuel tank walls. The fuel tank venting standards in § 25.975 include requirements to ensure fuel tank structural integrity following failures of the refueling system that could result in overfilling of the fuel tanks, or clogging of the vents due to ice. Section 25.954, “Fuel system lightning protection,” requires that fuel tank vents be designed and arranged to prevent the ignition of fuel vapor within the system by lightning strikes. These regulations, however, do not address the risk posed by flame from external ignition sources entering the fuel tank through the fuel vents.

    Most new type designs and transport category airplanes currently in production include flame arrestors or other means to prevent flame propagation through the fuel vent lines into the fuel tanks. However, some models of newly manufactured airplanes produced under older type certificates and introduced into the U.S. fleet do not have a means of preventing fuel tank explosions caused by external ignition sources. In addition, lack of a specific part 25 regulation to address this has resulted in some applicants completing initial airplane designs and applying for a U.S. type certificate without having accounted for the risk of flame propagation through fuel vent lines.

    B. History

    These amendments stem from an industry study of potential post-crash survivability and FAA airworthiness actions in response to accidents that involved fuel tank explosions. The FAA has issued airworthiness directives (ADs) that require flame arrestors, or verification of their functionality, on several airplane models. In 1999, following a review of fuel tank explosions on older designs, the FAA issued an AD 5 mandating incorporation of flame arrestors on Boeing Model 737 airplanes. That AD action eliminated the risk of fuel tank explosions from flames entering the fuel tanks through the fuel tank vents on early models of the Boeing 737. More recently, in 2008, the FAA issued an AD requiring installation of flame arrestors on the Lockheed Model 382.6

    5 AD 99-03-04 BOEING: Amendment 39-11018; Docket 98-NM-50-AD (effective March 9, 1999).

    6 AD 2011-15-02 LOCKHEED: Amendment 39-16749; Docket No. FAA-2010-1305 (effective August 19, 2011).

    The Special Aviation Fire and Explosion Reduction (SAFER) Advisory Committee 7 examined transport category airplane post-crash fires and determined that four fuel tank explosions resulting from post-crash fires could have been avoided if flame arrestors or surge tank explosion suppression systems 8 had been installed in the airplane fuel tank vents.9 The SAFER Committee examined methods of preventing fuel tank explosions following impact in survivable accidents, including controlling the fuel tank flammability using nitrogen inerting systems, using fire suppression systems, and installation of flame arrestors.

    7 Special Aviation Fire and Explosion Reduction (SAFER) Advisory Committee Final Report, Volume 1, FAA-ASF-80-4, dated June 26, 1978, through June 26, 1980. A copy of this report has been placed in the docket of this proceeding.

    8 Boeing developed surge tank explosion suppression systems that were installed on some Boeing airplanes to prevent a lightning strike from igniting fuel vapor in the fuel tank vent system. These systems used light sensors that activated the discharge of fire suppression agent into the vent surge tank to prevent the fire from traveling through the vents into the airplane fuel tanks.

    9 SAFER Report, page 49, Figure 3.

    The SAFER Committee determined the most practical means of preventing post-crash fuel tank explosions was the use of flame arrestors. Flame arrestors stop the flame from traveling through the fuel tank vents by quenching the flame. Flame arrestors are typically made of numerous small stainless steel passages that remove heat from the flame so it dies out before passing into the fuel tank. This delays propagation of ground fires into the fuel tank and subsequent explosions, providing additional time for the safe evacuation of passengers. The two flame arrestors installed on a typical transport airplane weigh approximately 2 to 4 pounds each.

    In 1995, based on the SAFER Committee report, the FAA issued an NPRM entitled, “Fuel System Vent Fire Protection,” (60 FR 6632), dated February 2, 1995. That NPRM proposed to require 5 minutes of fuel tank vent fire protection in new type designs for transport category airplanes, and amend certain operating rules to require retrofit of the existing fleet of transport category airplanes. The FAA received comments on the NPRM that questioned the proposed 5-minute standard and the accuracy of the economic analysis related to the proposed retrofit requirement. Comments also suggested that the FAA should develop additional guidance, in the form of an AC, to provide an acceptable method of qualifying flame arrestors as a means of meeting the proposed requirement.

    To address those 1995 comments, the FAA obtained additional cost information from component suppliers, and drafted an AC that included a means of demonstrating compliance. That means of compliance was the installation of fuel tank vent flame arrestors that would prevent propagation of flames through the fuel tank vents into the fuel tanks for a minimum of 2 minutes and 30 seconds. In 2001, the FAA tasked its Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to review a draft final rule, including the FAA's proposed disposition of public comments, and the draft AC. In 2002, due to the ARAC tasking, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of withdrawal of the NPRM that had been published in 1995. Because of industry resource issues and FAA rulemaking prioritization activities, however, no work was done on these ARAC taskings. The FAA published a withdrawal of the tasks on June 21, 2004.

    As an alternative, the FAA developed a strategy for a number of rulemaking projects that had been tasked to the ARAC. In 2005, the FAA issued a letter 10 to the head of the Transport Airplane and Engine Issues Group describing the agency's intent to use the process under 14 CFR 21.21 of finding an unsafe design feature to address the need to prevent flame propagation through fuel tank vents. Since 2005, the FAA has used issue papers applicable to specific certification projects, which have resulted in the inclusion of flame arrestors in the design of new type certificated airplanes.

    10 John Hickey, Director, Aircraft Certification Service, to Craig Bolt, Assistant Chair, Transport Airplane and Engine Issues Group, 14 June 2005.

    Prior to the FAA's issuance of the 2005 letter, however, many manufacturers had followed industry recommendations and voluntarily introduced flame arrestors into their new type designs.

    However, some business jets and smaller transport category airplanes do not incorporate flame arrestors or other means to prevent flame propagation into the fuel tanks. Also, some airplanes operating under 14 CFR part 121 do not have such means, including older models like the DC-9 and MD-80, and all DHC-8 turboprops and Canadair Regional Jets, both of which are still in production. This amendment addresses those airplanes.

    As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA based the 2 minute and 30 seconds, in part, on previous Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) comments to the NPRM the FAA published in 1995 that proposed a 5-minute standard. AIA stated that flame arrestors in production at that time could not meet the proposed 5-minute standard and that 5 minutes was overly conservative. Based on those comments, the FAA reviewed the capability and the service experience of in-production designs, as well as the conservatism of the flame-holding test methods used for evaluating flame arrestor performance. In 1996, the FAA determined that a 2 minute and 30 second capability allowed flame arrestors in production at that time to provide adequate evacuation and emergency response time. Since that time, under §§ 21.21(b)(2) and 25.601, the FAA has applied issue papers to new type certification projects that approved applicants' proposals to reduce the risk of fuel tank explosions by incorporating flame arrestors with a 2 minute and 30 second delay capability.

    The FAA also reviewed other rules related to passenger safety when selecting the delay of 2 minute and 30 seconds for a fuel tank vent protection standard. Section 25.803, “Emergency evacuation,” sets a performance-based standard that, under specified conditions, the airplane must be capable of being evacuated within 90 seconds. The conditions assume the availability of a minimum number of exits and that all passengers are uninjured and physically capable of departing the airplane. However, experience has shown that this is not always the case after an accident, so additional time is needed for passenger evacuation and emergency response.

    Section 25.856, “Thermal/Acoustic insulation materials,” sets minimum standards for preventing penetration of a fuel fire through the airplane fuselage, including testing requirements in appendix F of part 25 that require 5 minutes as the minimum burn-through time.11 Studies of past accidents 12 13 show the greatest benefits in evacuating passengers and allowing emergency crews time to arrive are provided with a minimum burn-through time of 5 minutes. However, flame arrestors that meet a 5-minute standard would need to be significantly larger and heavier than a flame arrestor meeting the 2 minute and 30 second standard. Such arrestors could also require changes to the fuel system vent lines in order to meet airplane refueling performance requirements, resulting in additional cost. Therefore, a minimum standard of 2 minutes and 30 seconds is appropriate for preventing the propagation of flames from outside the tank through the fuel tank vents into fuel tank vapor spaces.

    11 This time includes 1 minute for a fire to penetrate the fuselage skin and an additional 4 minutes for the fire to burn through the insulation.

    12 DOT/FAA/AR-99/57, “Fuselage Burnthrough Protection for Increased Postcrash Occupant Survivability: Safety Benefit Analysis Based on Past Accidents,” September 1999.

    13 DOT/FAA/AR-09/18, “Determination of Evacuation and Firefighting Times Based on an Analysis of Aircraft Accident Fire Survivability Data,” May 2009.

    C. Summary of the NPRM

    On August 1, 2014, the FAA issued an NPRM proposing to amend §§ 25.975, 121.1119, and 129.119. The Federal Register published that NPRM as Notice No. 14-07, Docket No. FAA-2014-0500, on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48098). In that NPRM, the FAA proposed to require that fuel tank designs prevent fuel tank explosions, for a minimum of 2 minutes and 30 seconds, caused by propagation of flames from outside the tank through the fuel tank vents into vapor spaces when any vent is continuously exposed to flame.

    The comment period closed on September 29, 2014.

    D. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received 19 comments from 10 commenters representing airplane manufacturers, regulators, a pilots association, and individuals. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and three individuals provided general comments in support of the amendments. The other commenters generally supported the proposed changes; however, some commenters suggested changes.

    The FAA received comments on the following areas of the proposal:

    • Minimum time for preventing flame propagation;

    • Applicability of new §§ 121.1119 and 129.119;

    • Applicability and compliance time for newly manufactured airplanes; and

    • Economic evaluation.

    III. Discussion of the Final Rule and Public Comments A. “Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents” (§ 25.975)

    With some modification from what the FAA proposed in the NPRM, this final rule adds a new paragraph, (a)(7), to § 25.975 to require fuel tank vent systems be designed to prevent the propagation of flames from outside the tank through the fuel tank vents into fuel tank vapor spaces for a period of 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The intent of this new requirement is to prevent or delay fuel tank explosions to allow safe evacuation of passengers and crew, and to allow emergency personnel time to reach an accident and provide assistance.

    Boeing recommended replacing the proposed minimum time requirement of 2 minutes and 30 seconds with 90 seconds. Boeing commented that, to meet the proposed requirement, current Boeing airplanes may need to be redesigned, and current flame arrestor installations would have to be redesigned and recertified, both at significant cost. Boeing also commented that 90 seconds would allow sufficient time to evacuate passengers safely and be consistent with other evacuation time limits in § 25.803.

    When considering Boeing's comment that its designs would not meet the proposed 2 minute and 30 second delay, the FAA requested certification data for in-production Boeing designs and confirmed that existing Boeing flame arrestors meet the 2 minute and 30 second standard. Boeing's own data, from its approved flame arrestor installations, do not support its suggested standard of only 90 seconds. Also, as previously discussed, research data from accidents used to develop the requirements in § 25.856 do not support Boeing's position that a 90-second standard would provide adequate safety.

    Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company and Embraer commented their currently approved flame arrestor systems may not comply with the standard and would necessitate redesign of the systems for new production airplanes.

    While the FAA determined that most 14 of these systems would not require redesign, the FAA has concluded that it would not be cost-effective to require redesign of any existing systems that do not meet the new standard. Therefore, we have revised the provisions of §§ 121.1119 and 129.119 to prohibit operation of new production airplanes unless an FAA-approved means to prevent fuel tank explosions caused by propagation of flames from outside the fuel tanks is installed and operational. Both of these regulations permit the continued installation and operational use of previously approved means to prevent such fuel tank explosions. For those airplanes that do not currently have such approved means, the design approval holder would be required to show compliance with the new standard to obtain approval.

    14 The previously approved Lockheed 328 and Embraer flame arrestors would not have met the 2 minute and 30 second requirement.

    Lockheed requested a reduction of the minimum time requirement to 120 seconds for airplanes approved for cargo-only operations due to shorter evacuation times needed for fewer occupants in the airplane. In addition, Lockheed contends that the FAA has previously accepted designs on cargo airplanes that did not meet the 2 minute and 30 second standard.

    Lockheed raised a valid point regarding the Lockheed 382 cargo airplanes equipped with flame arrestors. In considering this request, the FAA reviewed past certification data and supporting documentation submitted by Lockheed. Lockheed amended the design of the Lockheed 382 to include fuel tank vent flame arrestors in 2008. At that time, there was no regulatory requirement for a 2 minute and 30 second capability for the fuel tank vent flame arrestors. Therefore, based on retrofit of flame arrestors into an existing design and the operation of the airplane for cargo use only, the FAA approved a 2-minute capability for the flame arrestor installation on those airplanes.

    Since 2008, however, the FAA has determined that cargo operations should not be a basis for a fuel vent protection regulatory requirement. Cargo airplanes are commonly modified and operated in various configurations that may allow carriage of supernumeraries and passengers. Providing longer fuel tank vent protection time may also prevent a fuel tank explosion that endangers ground support or emergency response personnel. Therefore, the FAA does not agree with Lockheed that a 2-minute standard should be adopted as the standard for all cargo transport airplanes, and the FAA is adopting § 25.975(a)(7) as proposed.

    Embraer requested the rule be limited to preventing fuel tank explosions following a crash landing. Embraer supported its request by inferring that § 25.979, “Pressure fueling system,” and associated refueling procedures included in aircraft maintenance manuals address explosions during refueling and other ground operating conditions.

    The FAA does not agree that the regulation should only apply to post-crash scenarios. In addition to fuel and oil spillage following survivable accidents, fires outside of the airplane fuel tanks have been caused by fuel spilled during refueling and leaking airplane fuel tanks. These external fires may ignite fuel vapors that exit the fuel tank vents, resulting in flames traveling back through the vent lines into the fuel tank, causing fuel tank explosions. Therefore, this amendment addresses any event that could result in fire outside the fuel tanks, including refueling operations. Additionally, it is not redundant of § 25.979 because that section only addresses the design of the fueling system, which would not address or prevent situations of spillage from improper fueling practices or leakage from malfunctioning fueling systems.

    The FAA made minor editorial changes to new paragraph (a)(7) in § 25.975 from what was proposed in the NPRM. The edits are for clarity and do not change the effect of the regulation.

    B. Amendment to §§ 121.1119 and 129.119, “Fuel tank vent explosion protection”

    With minor modifications from what was proposed in the NPRM, the FAA is adding new operations rules requiring operators of certain transport category, turbine powered airplanes produced more than 2 years after the effective date of this rule to have FAA-approved fuel tank vent fire protection means to prevent fuel tank vent explosions. This requirement is added to 14 CFR part 121, “Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations,” and 14 CFR part 129, “Operations: Foreign Air Carriers and Foreign Operators of U.S.-Registered Aircraft Engaged in Common Carriage.” As discussed above, the FAA is not requiring manufacturers with currently approved flame arrestors to redesign their systems in order to comply with §§ 121.1119 and 129.119.

    This amendment applies to subject airplanes that are issued an original airworthiness certificate beginning 24 months after the effective date of this final rule. The FAA based the 24-month compliance period on time estimates needed to design and develop fuel tank vent protection means for existing airplane models that do not have previously approved flame arrestors. Flame arrestor technology is currently available. Adaptation of this technology, and the certification and incorporation of the design into airplanes currently in production should be achievable within the two-year compliance time.

    Bombardier recommended withdrawal of the proposed changes to parts 121 and 129, citing a lack of demonstrated safety improvement and the added cost of flame arrestors.

    The FAA accounted for the cost to Bombardier products in the economic evaluation for the NPRM and found safety benefits based on industry recommendations and the risks documented in the ADs issued on certain airplane models. In addition to the 737 AD discussed in paragraph IIB, the FAA has issued other ADs to either require flame arrestors or verify their functionality on the Lockheed Model 1649A piston airplane,15 Boeing Models 707 and 720,16 the Beech Model 400A,17 and the Lockheed Model 382.18 The FAA has found that there is a safety benefit and economic justification to include a requirement in this amendment to bring all newly produced airplanes that are subject to this rulemaking that will operate under the requirements of § 121.1119 or § 129.119 up to the level of safety established for the airplanes that are subject to these referenced ADs. Therefore, the FAA did not make any changes as a result of this comment.

    15 AD 59-20-02 LOCKHEED: Effective October 15, 1959, for items (1) and (2) and December 1, 1959, for item (3).

    16 AD 67-23-02 BOEING: Amendment 39-462. Effective September 10, 1967.

    17 AD 92-16-14 BEECH: Amendment 39-8323; Docket No. 92-NM-95-AD; effective September 1, 1992.

    18 AD 2011-15-02 LOCKHEED: Amendment 39-16749; Docket No. FAA-2010-1305; effective August 19, 2011.

    Embraer stated that it believes that the FAA's intent is to address specifically those higher capacity airplanes operating in scheduled airline service, and to prevent operators from escaping compliance by reducing the passenger or payload capacity to below the specified limits; and it believes that the FAA's intent is not to also require compliance for certain business jets that happen to be on a type certificate. Embraer noted that these smaller airplanes do not operate in part 121, but there are foreign-based charter operators who operate airplanes leased from U.S. owners who have FAA operating certificates issued under § 129.1(b). Embraer noted that if these operators were U.S. based, they would be part 135 air taxi operations that would not be subject to the requirements proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, Embraer suggested that the proposed § 129.119 be revised to except the Bombardier CL-600-2B16 and the Embraer EMB-135BJ.

    The FAA does not concur with the request to exclude specific models from coverage under § 129.119. As proposed, this section would exclude airplanes with capacities below the specified thresholds. However, as Embraer recognizes, the proposed § 129.119(a) included the following qualifier: “as a result of original type certification or later increase in capacity.” The proposed § 121.1119(a) contained this same language. Embraer correctly points out that, for certain Embraer and Bombardier models, this would have the unintended effect of applying the requirements to business jets that are included on the same type certificates as larger air carrier airplanes, even though the business jets have capacities below those specified in §§ 129.119 and 121.1119. To prevent the requirement from applying to these smaller airplanes, the FAA has eliminated the quoted qualifier in both identified sections in this final rule. In the future, if either Embraer or Bombardier choose to amend the type certificates to increase the capacity of these airplanes above the specified thresholds, §§ 129.119 and 121.1119 would apply to those newly produced airplanes.

    C. Comments on the Economic Evaluation

    EASA supported the proposal but commented that the regulatory economic evaluation should be revised to include the ATR42 and ATR 72 (ATR42/72). EASA noted these airplane models do not have flame arrestors in the fuel tank vents and would be affected by the flame arrestor requirement for newly manufactured airplanes entering U.S. service under parts 121 and 129.

    The FAA does not agree. Certification costs incurred by foreign manufacturers are not included in cost analyses of proposed U.S. regulations. Costs incurred by U.S. operators of foreign-produced airplanes are included in such analyses. For this final rule, however, the FAA estimates these costs to be minimal for newly produced ATR42/72 airplanes, since the FAA expects the annual number of ATR42/72 deliveries to be few, if any. The FAA has determined that there are no planned deliveries of ATR42/72 airplanes to U.S. airline operators after 2018 when the final rule will take effect. Therefore, the FAA is not revising the economic analysis to include the ATR42/72.

    Embraer also commented that the cost of the rule should be revised to include modification of an additional airplane model. One of its airplane models is designed to open a secondary refueling valve when the airplane being refueled does not have a flame arrestor. The primary vent outlets located near the wing tips have previously approved flame arrestors that meet the rule. The only affected airplane model with the open secondary vent design is the EMB145. Embraer currently has no orders or forecast deliveries for EMB145 airplanes with the unique secondary refueling vent.

    In addition, even if future sales of this model occur, costs incurred by foreign manufacturers are not included in the costs of compliance, as costs directly attributable to foreign entities are not included in the cost-benefit analysis of U.S. regulations. Therefore, the FAA did not change the economic evaluation in response to this comment.

    D. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

    The FAA is adopting these rules as proposed in the NPRM with modifications as discussed above. Specifically, the FAA is revising §§ 121.1119 and 129.119 to remove the qualifying statement “as a result of original type certification or later increase in capacity,” and to require only that fuel tank vent system explosion prevention means for new production airplanes be FAA-approved.

    IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of the final rule. The FAA suggests readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which is in the docket for this rulemaking.

    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below.

    Total Costs and Benefits of This Final Rule

    The FAA finds the final rule to be cost-beneficial because the costs of the rule are low enough that the benefits of preventing just two fatalities outweigh the expected costs ($4.9 million in present value benefits versus $4.4 million in present value costs). If this action is not taken, a hazard will continue to exist even though effective and low-cost means are available to minimize or eliminate it.

    Who is potentially affected by this Rule?

    This rule applies to applicants for new type certificates, amended and supplemental type certificates involving significant product-level changes, and manufacturers and operators of currently certificated airplanes produced two or more years after the effective date of this rule. This rule does not require retrofit of the existing fleet.

    Principal Assumptions and Sources of Information

    • Discount rate is 7 percent (Office of Management & Budget, Circular A-94, “Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs,” October 29, 1992, p. 8).

    • Value of statistical life (VSL) begins at $9.2 million in 2013, and increases thereafter by an annual growth factor of 1.0107. Memorandum: Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in Department Analyses—2014 Adjustment, June 13, 2014. United States, Office of the Secretary of Transportation.

    • For small part 25 manufacturers: An FAA study anticipates two U.S. airplane certifications in next 10-year period, twenty-one annual U.S. deliveries per U.S. certification; three foreign airplane certifications in next 10-year period, eleven annual U.S. deliveries per foreign certification, 15-year airplane production run; 30-year retirement age. Internal FAA study.

    • Current airplane models that could be affected by production cut-in requirement: Bombardier Dash 8, CJ-700, and CJ-900. FAA 2013 Fleet Forecast, Fleet Forecast Sheet “FAA U.S. Airlines 2013-2013 1-18-2103,” “Totals & FAA Tables.”

    • The period of analysis for new certifications is 45 years to account for a complete product life cycle determined by a 15-year production period and a 30-year service period.

    • Certification cost estimates for part 25 airplanes—Small U.S. part 25 airplane manufacturers.

    • Maintenance cost per airplane (every four years) for Bombardier CJ-700/CJ-900 regional jets (subject to production cut-in)—$240. This estimate is much lower than the U.S. estimate because it is for passenger airplane models while the U.S. estimate is for business jet models. Since business jets are more prone to sit for extended periods of time, their flame arrestors can more easily be clogged by ice, mud daubers, or other debris, thus requiring more frequent and longer maintenance.

    • Minimal fuel costs as flame arrestors weigh between 2 and 4 pounds each.

    Costs of This Final Rule

    The costs of the final rule are engineering, production, and maintenance compliance costs for newly certificated part 25 airplanes and for the production cut-in of part 25 airplanes used in part 121 operations. The FAA first estimates compliance costs for new certifications and then for the production cut-in.

    For newly certificated airplanes, compliance costs consist of engineering and production costs of U.S. manufactured airplanes delivered to U.S. operators and maintenance costs of both U.S. and foreign airplanes delivered to U.S. operators. U.S. part 25 manufacturers directly incur the engineering and production costs while U.S. operators directly incur the maintenance costs. Engineering and production costs incurred by foreign manufacturers are not included in the costs of compliance, as costs directly attributable to foreign entities are not included in the U.S. social cost and benefit analysis of U.S. regulations.

    To calculate the cost of new U.S. certifications, the FAA assumes that all new certifications will be approved one year after the effective date of the rule, with production beginning one year later. Using an airplane life cycle model, the FAA estimates the economic impact for two new certificates, production of 21 airplanes/certificate/year, production runs of 15 years and an airplane retirement age of 30 years. Compliance costs per year are calculated over an airplane life cycle of 45 years.

    Cost estimates were solicited from small part 25 manufacturers because large airplane manufacturers (Boeing and Airbus) are already compliant with the final rule. These cost estimates are shown in the table below.

    Industry Cost Estimates Using Flame Arrestors To Comply With Final Rule ($ 2013) Cost category Cost Notes Nonrecurring Engineering Costs $ 142,000 per model. Recurring Cost (Hardware & Installation) 3,000 per model (two flame arrestors @$1,500 each). Maintenance Cost (U.S. manufactured airplanes) 415 per airplane annually. Maintenance Cost (Bombardier manufactured airplanes) 240 per airplane every 4 years.

    The basic cost estimates consist of nonrecurring (one-time) engineering costs, production costs for two flame arrestors per airplane (one per fuel tank) and maintenance costs per airplane per year. The Bombardier maintenance cost estimate is used for estimating production cut-in costs of compliance.

    Incorporating the industry cost estimates into the airplane life cycle model, the FAA finds total costs for new certification airplanes to be $16.2 million with present value of $4.2 million. $2.2 million of these costs (present value $1.2 million) are directly incurred by U.S. manufacturers, and $14.0 million (present value $2.1 million) are directly incurred by U.S. operators.19 For details, see the full regulatory evaluation in the docket.

    19 Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

    In addition to the requirement applying to new certifications, the final rule will also require a production cut-in for currently produced part 25 airplanes used in part 121 operations.20 To calculate this cost, the FAA first notes that the only currently produced and U.S.-operated airplane models not already in compliance are the Bombardier Dash 8 turboprops and Bombardier CRJ-700/CRJ-900 regional jets. The final rule will apply to these Bombardier models produced beginning in 2018. Since the FAA forecasts no Dash 8 deliveries to U.S. airline operators after 2017, the FAA expects no Dash 8 compliance cost for those operators.

    20 We do not estimate costs for the analogous part 129 requirement as these costs are directly incurred by foreign operators.

    The FAA does forecast the delivery of 338 CRJ-700 and 161 CRJ-900 model airplanes to U.S. airline operators over the period 2018-2033. The engineering and production compliance costs for these airplanes are not included in our cost estimates because, as noted above, costs directly incurred by foreign entities are not included in the cost and benefit analysis of U.S. regulations. Accordingly, for these airplanes the FAA assesses the impact on U.S. operators only, using Bombardier's maintenance cost estimate of $240 every four years. Allocating this cost as $60 annually and assuming a production period of 16 years, the FAA calculates the maintenance costs for these airplanes from the first year of service to the retirement year of the last airplanes produced, using a procedure analogous to that used for new certification airplanes. The FAA finds these costs to operators to be $898,200 with present value $178,439.

    Production cut-in costs of $898,200 (present value $178,439) added to new certification airplane costs of $16.2 million (present value $4.2 million) yield total rule costs of $17.1 million (present value $4.4 million).

    Benefits of This Final Rule

    Notwithstanding the absence of post-crash fuel tank explosions in recent years and lacking other sufficient bases upon which to estimate future risks, the merits of the final rule can be assessed by considering the number of fatalities that would need to be prevented to offset the costs of the rule.

    The FAA estimates the breakeven benefits of the rule by estimating the number of averted fatalities necessary to offset the $4.4 million present value costs of the rule. The FAA finds that just two averted fatalities would offset these estimated costs. For details see the full regulatory evaluation in the docket.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

    All small U.S. manufacturers affected by this rule are wholly owned subsidiaries of large companies, who have more than 1,500 employees (the small business criterion for aircraft manufacturing) and, therefore, are not classified as small entities by the Small Business Administration. Part 121 operators will be directly affected by the average $415 annual maintenance cost per airplane. These costs are minimal, especially compared to the high cost of new part 25 airplanes. The FAA received no comments on this same finding in the NPRM.

    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

    The FAA has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to ensure the safety of U.S. civil aviation. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.

    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.

    G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

    V. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    VI. How To Obtain Additional Information A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet—

    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or

    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

    B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

    List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    14 CFR Part 129

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends parts 25, 121, and 129 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES 1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.

    2. Amend § 25.975 by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) and adding paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:
    § 25.975 Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents.

    (a) * * *

    (5) There may be no point in any vent line where moisture can accumulate with the airplane in the ground attitude or the level flight attitude, unless drainage is provided;

    (6) No vent or drainage provision may end at any point—

    (i) Where the discharge of fuel from the vent outlet would constitute a fire hazard; or

    (ii) From which fumes could enter personnel compartments; and

    (7) Each fuel tank vent system must prevent explosions, for a minimum of 2 minutes and 30 seconds, caused by propagation of flames from outside the tank through the fuel tank vents into fuel tank vapor spaces when any fuel tank vent is continuously exposed to flame.

    PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 3. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119, 41706, 42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).

    4. Add § 121.1119 to subpart AA to read as follows:
    § 121.1119 Fuel tank vent explosion protection.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to transport category, turbine-powered airplanes with a type certificate issued after January 1, 1958, that have:

    (1) A maximum type-certificated passenger capacity of 30 or more; or

    (2) A maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or more.

    (b) New production airplanes. No certificate holder may operate an airplane for which the State of Manufacture issued the original certificate of airworthiness or export airworthiness approval after August 23, 2018 unless means, approved by the Administrator, to prevent fuel tank explosions caused by propagation of flames from outside the fuel tank vents into the fuel tank vapor spaces are installed and operational.

    PART 129—OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE 5. The authority citation for part 129 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1372, 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901-44904, 44906, 44912, 46105, Pub. L. 107-71 sec. 104.

    6. Add § 129.119 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 129.119 Fuel tank vent explosion protection.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to transport category, turbine-powered airplanes with a type certificate issued after January 1, 1958, that have:

    (1) A maximum type-certificated passenger capacity of 30 or more; or

    (2) A maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or more.

    (b) New production airplanes. No certificate holder may operate an airplane for which the State of Manufacture issued the original certificate of airworthiness or export airworthiness approval after August 23, 2018 unless means, approved by the Administrator, to prevent fuel tank explosions caused by propagation of flames from outside the fuel tank vents into the fuel tank vapor spaces are installed and operational.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a) in Washington, DC, on June 7, 2016. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14454 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7491; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-39-AD; Amendment 39-18569; AD 2016-13-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, GE90-77B, GE90-85B, GE90-90B, and GE90-94B turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of the high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 8-10 spool, leading to an airplane fire. This AD requires eddy current inspection (ECI) or ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the HPC stage 8-10 spool and removing from service those parts that fail inspection. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    See the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7491; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all GE GE90-76B, GE90-77B, GE90-85B, GE90-90B, and GE90-94B turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1582). The NPRM was prompted by an uncontained failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, leading to an airplane fire. The NPRM proposed to require ECIs or USIs of the HPC stage 8-10 spool and removing from service those parts that fail inspection. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (81 FR 1582, January 13, 2016) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Support for the NPRM (81 FR 1582, January 13, 2016)

    The Air Line Pilots Association expressed support for the NPRM (81 FR 1582, January 13, 2016).

    Request To Change Applicability

    British Airways, United Airlines, and The Boeing Company commented that HPC stage 8-10 spool, part numbers (P/Ns) 1844M90G01 and 1844M90G02 are not required in the Applicability paragraph of this AD. They noted that the associated AD 2015-27-01, (81 FR 1291, January 12, 2016) and the precipitating event involved only HPC stage 8-10 spool, P/N 1694M80G04.

    We disagree. HPC stage 8-10 spool P/Ns 1844M90G01 and 1844M90G02 are susceptible to the same failure mode as HPC stage 8-10 spool, P/N 1694M80G04. However, we acknowledge that the one-time inspection is not needed for the majority of HPC stage 8-10 spool P/Ns 1844M90G01 and 1844M90G02. Therefore, we revised paragraph (e)(1) of this AD to apply to only specific serial numbers (S/Ns) of P/Ns 1844M90G01 and 1844M90G02 for the one-time inspection.

    Request To Change Compliance Time

    British Airways requested that we clarify if a repetitive on-wing inspection is required. They reasoned that the service information lists the on-wing inspection as one time only.

    We disagree. Paragraph (e)(1) of this AD mandates that specific parts be inspected prior to a cycle limit. This initial inspection may be performed on wing using USI or at shop visit using ECI. Repetitive inspections prior to shop visit are not mandated, however we acknowledge that GE has commented that they should be performed. We did not change this AD.

    Request To Change Terminating Action

    GE requested that we remove the repetitive shop visit inspection from the Compliance section of this AD and instead mandate that the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the engine manual include the repetitive inspections. They also requested that the Summary section and Related Information section of this AD be revised to reflect this change. They reasoned that this will allow a terminating action for this AD.

    We disagree. At this time we do not feel that a change to the ALS is appropriate as root cause has not been determined. We did not change this AD.

    Request To Change Installation Prohibition

    GE requested that we clarify that the installation prohibition does not apply to new parts. They stated that new parts do not need to be inspected prior to installation. The inspections are only applicable to parts that have been used in service.

    We agree. We revised paragraph (f) of this AD to specify that inspections are only required for parts that have been used in service.

    Request To Change Service Information

    GE and British Airways requested that we revise the Related Service Information paragraph of this AD to remove the reference to Engine Manual, Chapter 72-00-31, Special Procedure 007 and add a reference to GE GE90 SB 72-1146. They reasoned that the Special Procedure is considered an additional inspection technique and the other inspection procedures listed provide full detection capability of defects in the area of concern.

    We disagree. The service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD and was previously included for information purposes only. However, to preclude any confusion on this point, we removed all service information from the Related Information section of this AD.

    Request To Change Applicability

    GE requested that we reduce the applicability for the initial inspection. GE has determined that an older manufacturing process may be a contributor to part failure and that all parts manufactured using this process should be inspected prior to shop visit.

    We agree. We revised the applicability of the initial inspection to include all HPC stage 8-10 spool, P/N 1694M80G04, and specific S/Ns of HPC stage 8-10 spool, P/Ns 1844M90G01 and 1844M90G02, that were manufactured using the older process.

    Request To Change Compliance Time

    GE has requested that the initial USI compliance time be reduced and to add repetitive inspections every 500 cycles until shop visit ECI for the parts manufactured using the older manufacturing process noted above. GE has determined that the smallest detectable flaw using USI with the compressor blades installed is larger than what was used in the prior analysis.

    We partially agree. We agree that the USI inspection is not as capable as what was used in the prior analysis. We also agree that a reduced threshold for initial inspection is appropriate. So, we reduced the initial inspection threshold in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD from 10,500 cycles to 9,000 cycles and removed USI as an option for the inspections in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD. We disagree with including the 500 cycle repetitive inspections; however, repetitive inspections would be a consideration for additional rulemaking.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 1582, January 13, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 1582, January 13, 2016).

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Interim Action

    GE is determining the root cause for the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once a root cause is identified, we will consider additional rulemaking.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 54 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 7 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate one part will fail inspection at a cost of $780,000. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $812,130.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-13-05 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-18569; Docket No. FAA-2015-7491; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-39-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, GE90-77B, GE90-85B, GE90-90B, and GE90-94B turbofan engines with a high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 8-10 spool, part numbers (P/Ns) 1694M80G04, 1844M90G01, or 1844M90G02, installed.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (1) For HPC stage 8-10 spool, P/N 1694M80G04, all serial numbers (S/Ns), or HPC stage 8-10 spool, P/N 1844M90G01 or 1844M90G02, with a S/N listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD; perform an eddy current inspection (ECI) or ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the stage 8 aft web upper face, after reaching 8,000 cycles since new (CSN), but, before exceeding 9,000 CSN, or within 500 cycles in service after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (e)—HPC Stage 8-10 Spool S/Ns Part Nos. Serial Nos. 1844M90G01 GWN005MF GWNBK753 GWNBS077 GWNBS497 GWNBS724 GWN005MG GWNBK754 GWNBS078 GWNBS499 GWNBS794 GWN0087M GWNBK841 GWNBS079 GWNBS500 GWNBS810 GWN0087N GWNBK842 GWNBS080 GWNBS501 GWNBS811 GWN00DGK GWNBK843 GWNBS081 GWNBS502 GWNBS812 GWN00DGL GWNBK844 GWNBS157 GWNBS609 GWNBS813 GWNBJ992 GWNBK952 GWNBS158 GWNBS610 GWNBS814 GWNBK667 GWNBK953 GWNBS159 GWNBS611 GWNBS910 GWNBK674 GWNBK954 GWNBS160 GWNBS612 GWNBS911 GWNBK675 GWNBK955 GWNBS266 GWNBS613 GWNBS912 GWNBK743 GWNBK956 GWNBS267 GWNBS614 GWNBS914 GWNBK744 GWNBK957 GWNBS268 GWNBS721 GWNBS915 GWNBK751 GWNBK958 GWNBS269 GWNBS722 GWNBS982 GWNBK752 GWNBK959 GWNBS270 GWNBS723 GWNBS983 1844M90G02 GWN00C2T GWN01C5N GWN02N8D GWN03RTM GWN04E21 GWN00C2V GWN01GE2 GWN02T3R GWN03RTP GWN04GHT GWN00G2N GWN01GE3 GWN02WGM GWN040RL GWN04GHW GWN00G2P GWN01GE4 GWN0311K GWN040RM GWN04GJ0 GWN00PFP GWN01GE6 GWN035PP GWN040RN GWN04JW6 GWN00PFR GWN01WH1 GWN038TD GWN040RP GWN04JW7 GWN00T2N GWN02688 GWN039TG GWN04202 GWN04JW8 GWN00YHV GWN02689 GWN03G2R GWN0435W GWN04L7K GWN0125G GWN0268A GWN03G2W GWN04360 GWN04L7L GWN0125H GWN02DP2 GWN03G30 GWN04361 GWN04MT7 GWN0166K GWN02DP3 GWN03JPC GWN04362 GWN04MT8 GWN01C5K GWN02F9F GWN03JPD GWN04ATG GWNBS984 GWN01C5L GWN02F9G GWN03N8P GWN04ATH GWN01C5M GWN02L9T GWN03N8R GWN04E20

    (2) For all HPC stage 8-10 spools, P/N 1694M80G04, 1844M90G01, or 1844M90G02, perform an ECI of the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC stage 8-10 spool at each shop visit.

    (3) Remove from service any HPC stage 8-10 spool that fails the inspection required by paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD, and replace with a spool eligible for installation.

    (f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not re-install into any engine, any HPC stage 8-10 spool, P/Ns 1694M80G04, 1844M90G01, or 1844M90G02, unless the spool has passed an ECI of the stage 8 aft web upper face as specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD.

    (g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an engine shop visit is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance during which the compressor discharge pressure seal face is exposed.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 15, 2016. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14474 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8304; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-15] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Charlottesville, VA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Charlottesville, VA, as the Azalea Park Non-Directional Radio Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned requiring airspace reconfiguration at the airport. Also, the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part time status is removed from this airspace. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the above airport and the University of Virginia Medical Center Heliport in Class D and E airspace listed in this final rule. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in the area.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, September 15, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and Class E airspace at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Charlottesville, VA.

    History

    On March 28, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D airspace, Class E Surface Area Airspace, Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Charlottesville, VA (81 FR 17118). The Azalea Park NDB has been decommissioned requiring airspace reconfiguration at the airport. This action also to updates the geographic coordinates of the airport and University of Virginia Medical Center Heliport, and eliminates the NOTAM information that reads, “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory” from the regulatory text of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Charlottesville, VA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class D airspace, Class E Surface Area Airspace, Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Charlottesville, VA. The Azalea Park NDB has been decommissioned requiring airspace reconfiguration at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport and University of Virginia Medical Center Heliport, and eliminates the NOTAM information that reads, “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory” from the regulatory text of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Charlottesville, VA.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AEA VA D Charlottesville, VA [Amended] Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA (Lat. 38°08′23″ N., long 78°27′08″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,100 MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. AEA VA E2 Charlottesville, VA [Amended] Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA (Lat. 38°08′23″ N., long 78°27′08″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AEA VA E4 Charlottesville, VA [Amended] Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA (Lat. 38°08′23″ N., long 78°27′08″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.2 miles each side of the 202° bearing from Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 6-miles southwest of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA VA E5 Charlottesville, VA [Amended] Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA (Lat. 38°08′23″ N., long 78°27′08″ W.) University of Virginia Medical Center Heliport (Lat. 38°01′52″ N., long 78°29′54″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, and within a 6-mile radius of the University of Virginia Medical Center Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 16, 2016. Debra L. Hogan, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14881 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-5800; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-21] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lisbon, ND AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E airspace in Lisbon, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Lisbon Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, September 15, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: (817) 222-5874.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Lisbon Municipal Airport, Lisbon, ND.

    History

    On February 17, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E Airspace in the Lisbon, ND area. (81 FR 8026) Docket No. FAA-2015-5800. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Lisbon Municipal Airport, Lisbon, ND, to accommodate new RNAV standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL ND E5 Lisbon, ND [New] Lisbon Municipal Airport, ND (Lat. 46°26′49″ N., long. 097°43′42″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Lisbon Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 15, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14873 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2016-0019] RIN 0960-AI02 Extension of Effective Date for Temporary Pilot Program Setting the Time and Place for a Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge AGENCY:

    Social Security Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are extending for one year our pilot program that authorizes the agency to set the time and place for a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Extending the pilot program continues our commitment to improve the efficiency of our hearing process and to maintain a hearing process that results in accurate, high-quality decisions for claimants. The current pilot program will expire on August 12, 2016. In this final rule, we are extending the effective date to August 11, 2017. We are making no other changes.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective June 24, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maren Weight, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3260, 703-605-7100 for information about this final rule. For information on eligibility for filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

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

    When we published a final rule on July 8, 2010, authorizing the agency to set the time and place for a hearing before an ALJ, we explained that we would implement our authority as a temporary pilot program. (75 FR 39154). Therefore, we included in sections 404.936(h) and 416.1436(h) of the final rule a provision that the pilot program would end on August 9, 2013, unless we decided to either terminate the program earlier, or extend it beyond that date by publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. Most recently, on July 2, 2015, we extended the expiration date until August 12, 2016. (80 FR 37970).

    Explanation of Extension

    During the pilot program, we tracked ALJ productivity closely, working with ALJs to addresss any concerns about our hearing process. We are continuing to work with ALJs who do not promptly schedule their hearings, and we are using a variety of authorties available to correct these situations. To date, our efforts have been largely successful. We are retaining this authority in our regulations to provide us with the flexibility we need to manage the hearing process appropriately.

    During this extension of the pilot program, we will continue to monitor the productivity of ALJs and to work with our ALJs to address any concerns regarding our hearing process. Accordingly, we are extending our authority to set the time and place for a hearing before an ALJ for another year, until August 11, 2017. As before, we reserve the authority to end the program earlier, or to extend it by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register.

    Regulatory Procedures Justification for Issuing Final Rule Without Notice and Comment

    We follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 when developing regulations. (Section 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5)). Generally, the APA requires that an agency provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing a final rule. The APA provides exceptions to its notice and public comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures because they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that good cause exists for dispensing with the notice and public comment procedures for this rule. (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)). This final rule only extends the date on which the pilot program will no longer be effective. It makes no substantive changes to our rules. Our current regulations expressly provide that we may extend the expiration date of the pilot program by notice of a final rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, we have determined that opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary, and we are issuing this rule as a final rule.

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

    Executive Order 12866 as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404

    Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.

    20 CFR Part 416

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

    Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we are amending subpart J of part 404 and subpart N of part 416 of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- ) Subpart J —[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart J of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    2. In § 404.936, revise the second sentence in paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 404.936 Time and place for a hearing before an administrative law judge.

    (i) Pilot program. * * * These provisions will no longer be effective on August 11, 2017, unless we terminate them earlier or extend them beyond that date by notice of a final rule in the Federal Register.

    PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart N—[Amended] 3. The authority citation for subpart N of part 416 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    4. In § 416.1436, revise the second sentence in paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 416.1436 Time and place for a hearing before an administrative law judge.

    (i) Pilot program. * * * These provisions will no longer be effective on August 11, 2017, unless we terminate them earlier or extend them beyond that date by notice of a final rule in the Federal Register.

    [FR Doc. 2016-14974 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0580] Special Local Regulations; North Charleston Fireworks Display AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the North Charleston Fireworks Special Local Regulation from 8:45 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2016. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Fourth of July Fireworks Displays. During the enforcement period, and in accordance with previously issued special local regulations, vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulation for the City of North Charleston Fireworks under COTP Zone Charleston in 33 CFR 100.701, Table 1, will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 843-740-3184, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the North Charleston Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 100.701 Table 1 from 8:45 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    On July 4, 2016, South Carolina; The City of North Charleston is sponsoring the North Charleston Fireworks on the Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.701, all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering the regulated areas unless permission to enter has been granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or designated representatives. This action is to provide enforcement action of regulated area that will encompass portions of the navigable waterways. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated areas, but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing these regulations.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives. If the COTP Charleston determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this publication, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14986 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0185] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on the waters of the Beaufort River, Beaufort, South Carolina, during the Beaufort Water Festival on July 23, 2016. This special local regulation is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Beaufort Water Festival Air Show. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 23, 2016 from noon through 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0185 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code COTP Captain of the Port II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On March 3, 2016, the Coast Guard received a marine event application for the 2016 Beaufort Water Festival Air Show that will take place from noon to 5 p.m. on July 23, 2016. In response, on May 16, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking titled Special Local Regulation; Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SC. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this special local regulation. During the comment period that ended June 15, 2016, we received no comments.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to insure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during Beaufort Water Festival Air Show.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published May 16, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. On July 23, 2016 from noon to 5 p.m. Approximately 100 spectator vessels are expected to attend the event. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    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 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulations will be enforced for only five hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they will be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement periods; (3) persons and vessels will still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the regulated area to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    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 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.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 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 rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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 rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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 rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.

    An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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 rule.

    G. Protest Activities

    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.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100— SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233

    2. Add § 100.35T07-0185 to read as follows:
    § 100.35T07-0185 Special Local Regulations; Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SC.

    (a) Regulated area. This rule establishes a special local regulation on certain waters of the Beaufort River, Beaufort, South Carolina. The special local regulation will create a regulated area that will encompass a portion of the waterway that is 700 ft wide by 2600 ft in length on waters of the Beaufort River encompassed within the following points (all coordinates are North American Datum 1983): 32°25′ 47″ N./080°40′ 44″ W., 32°25′ 41″ N./080°40′ 14″ W., 32°25′ 35″ N./080°40′ 16″ W., 32°25′ 40″ N./080°40′ 46″ W.

    (b) Definition. As used in this section, “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels, except those participating in the Beaufort Water Festival Airshow, or serving as safety vessels, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring, or remaining within the regulated area. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843)740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced July 23, 2016 from noon until 5 p.m.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14985 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0581] Special Local Regulations; Patriots Point Fireworks Display AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the Patriots Point Fireworks Special Local Regulation from approximately 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2016. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Fourth of July fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, and in accordance with previously issued special local regulations, vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulation for the Patriot Point Fireworks under COTP Zone Charleston in 33 CFR 100.701, Table 1, will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 843-740-3184, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Patriots Point Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 100.701 Table 1 from 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    On July 4, 2016, South Carolina; Patriots Point Naval Maritime Museum is sponsoring the Patriots Point Fireworks on the navigable waters of Charleston, South Carolina.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.701, all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering the regulated areas unless permission to enter has been granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or designated representatives. This action is to provide enforcement action of regulated area that will encompass portions of the navigable waterways. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated areas, but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing these regulations.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives. If the COTP Charleston determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this publication, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14987 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0387] Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Upper Ohio Valley Italian Festival; Ohio River Mile 90.0 to 90.5; Wheeling, WV AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Upper Ohio Valley Italian Festival Fireworks on the Ohio River in Wheeling, WV from mile 90.0 to 90.5, extending the entire width of the river, on July 23, 2016. This zone is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with a land-based fireworks display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 15, will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 23, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email Jennifer.L.Haggins[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual Upper Ohio Valley Italian Festival Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 15 from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 23, 2016. This safety zone extends from mile 90.0 to 90.5 on the Ohio River in Wheeling, WV. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

    L. Mcclain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14899 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0382] Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Boston Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones in the Captain of the Port Boston Zone on the specified dates and times listed below. This action is necessary to ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with this annual recurring event. Under the provisions of our regulations, no person or vessel, except for the safety vessels assisting with the event may enter the safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or the designated on-scene representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.118 will be enforced for the safety zones identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for the dates and times specified.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Mark Cutter, Coast Guard Sector Boston Waterways Management Division, telephone 617-223-4000, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.118 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Table 1 below. This regulation was published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2013 (78 FR 67028).

    Table 1 6.3 Surfside Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display.
  • • Sponsor: Salisbury Beach Partnership and Chamber of Commerce.
  • • Date: Every Saturday from June 25, 2016 through September 3, 2016.
  • • Time: 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean near Salisbury Beach, MA, within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at position 42°50.6′ N., 070°48.4′ W. (NAD 83).
  • 6.4 Cohasset Triathlon • Event Type: Swim.
  • • Sponsor: Streamline Events.
  • • Date: June 26, 2016.
  • • Time: 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
  • • Location: All waters in the vicinity of Cohasset Harbor around Sandy Beach, within the following points (NAD 83):
  • 42°15.6′ N., 070°48.1′ W.
  • 42°15.5′ N., 070°48.1′ W.
  • 42°15.4′ N., 070°47.9′ W.
  • 42°15.4′ N., 070°47.8′ W.
  • 6.5 Hull Youth Football Carnival Fireworks • Event Type: Fireworks Display.
  • • Sponsor: Hull Youth Football.
  • • Date: June 18, 2016.
  • • Time: 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters within a 450-foot radius of the fireworks barge located approximately 500 feet of off Nantasket Beach, Hull MA located at position 42°16.6′ N., 070°51.7′ W. (NAD 83).
  • 7.18 Charles River 1-Mile Swim • Event Type: Swim.
  • • Sponsor: Charles River Swimming Club, Inc.
  • • Date: June 11th, 2016.
  • • Time: 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
  • Location: All waters of Charles River between the Longfellow Bridge and the Harvard Bridge within the following points (NAD 83):
  • 42°21.7′ N., 071°04.8′ W.
  • 42°21.7′ N., 071°04.3′ W.
  • 42°22.2′ N., 071°07.3′ W.
  • 42°22.1′ N., 070°07.4′ W.
  • This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.118 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide notification of these enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. C.C. Gelzer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14783 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0388] Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Wheeling Heritage Port Festival; Ohio River Mile 90.2 to 90.7; Wheeling, WV AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Wheeling Heritage Port Festival Fireworks on the Ohio River, in Wheeling, WV from mile 90.2 to 90.7, extending the entire width of the river on September 17, 2016. This zone is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with a barge-based fireworks display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 60, will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11:30 p.m., on September 17, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Wheeling Heritage Port Sternwheel Festival Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 60, from 10 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on September 17, 2016. This safety zone extends from mile 90.2 to 90.7 on the Ohio River in Wheeling, WV. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

    L. Mcclain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14900 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0420; FRL-9946-62] Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens Strain PTA-4838; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838 on all food commodities when applied or used as a fungicide, nematocide, or plant growth regulator. LidoChem, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 24, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 23, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0420, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected].

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

    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).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

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

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0420 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 23, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0420, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

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

    II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 26, 2015 ([80] FR 51759) (FRL-9931-74), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP [4F8317]) by LidoChem, Inc., 20 Village Ct., Hazlet, NJ 07730. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner LidoChem, Inc., which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

    III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability, and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    Bacillus amyloliquefaciens is a gram positive non-pathogenic bacterium which is commonly found in the air, water, soil, and on plants. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens is ubiquitous in the environment, especially in soils and agricultural environments all over the world.

    Bacillus amyloliquefaciens was previously classified as Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens. (Ref 1). B. subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is used to produce proteolytic enzymes for laundry detergents, is used in broiler feed as a probiotic, and produces chitinase, protease, and lipases which suppress fungi and nematodes. It has also been reported as having plant growth regulator activity. Bacillus subtilis sp. are known to cause spoilage in dough, and are rarely found to cause food poisoning (Ref. 2).

    Between 1990-1996 ten different foods have been associated with B. subtilis foodborne illness outbreaks, other infrequent cases have been reported as well (Ref. 3), but no reported foodborne illnesses have been associated with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens or Bacillus amyloliquefaciens PTA-4838. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens infections have only been associated with amylosin producing strains and presence of other pathogens isolated from indoor dust in water damaged buildings (Ref. 3), and infections have not been associated with any dietary consumption. The production of amylosin has not been reported with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens PTA-4838 strain, and the acute pulmonary toxicity pathogenicity studies show no signs of toxicity or pathogenicity for this strain. Thus, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens PTA-4838 strain is not considered a risk for infection.

    Acute oral, pulmonary, and injection toxicity/pathogenicity testing of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838 has shown that it is not toxic or pathogenic. Specific information on the studies received and other available information concerning potential effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838 can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Registration Decision for the New Active Ingredient Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838” in this docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0420. (Ref. 4).

    As no adverse effects have been observed in the available data for Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838, the Agency has not identified any points of departure for conducting a quantitative assessment of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838. Consequently, the Agency conducted a qualitative assessment.

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

    A. Dietary Exposure

    1. Food. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens is ubiquitous in the environment, especially in soils and agricultural environments, so dietary exposure to background levels of the naturally occurring microbe are already occurring. B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens are considered GRAS food additives and the FDA has estimated that dietary exposure of B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens by the U.S. population is 200 mg/day (Ref. 5). Similar Bacillus subtilis strains are used in the production of food grade products and in fermented foods in Japan and Thailand. Dietary exposure via crop residues from pesticidal uses will be much lower based on maximum application rates. Further, the product containing Bacillus amyloliquefaciens PTA-4848 is not toxic or pathogenic and is not expected to cause adverse health effects, and has not been connected to any illnesses.

    2. Drinking water exposure. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens is naturally present in soils; therefore, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens may occur in surface water and possibly groundwater. According to the World Health Organization, Bacillus species are often detected in drinking water even after going through acceptable water treatment processes, mostly because the spores are resistant to municipal water treatment measures. Should this microbial pesticide be present, no adverse effects are expected from exposure to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens through drinking water (Ref. 6), based on the results outlined in the Toxicological Profile Section.

    B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    The pesticide use of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens PTA-4838 except during application right before harvest, as proposed, does not increase in a significant way the potential for non-dietary, non-occupational exposure to its residues for the general population, including infants and children, because Bacillus amyloliquefaciens is ubiquitous in the environment and because populations have been previously exposed to background levels of the microbe. Children are not expected to have any incidental exposure at levels above what they are naturally exposed to already. Human exposure to Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens in food grade products or fermented foods have not resulted in any reports of infection. As previously mentioned Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens dietary exposure is reported as 200 mg/per person per day in the U.S. (Ref. 5). Any additional exposure to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens PTA-4838 resulting from residues from pesticidal use and residential homeowner applications will not result in additional aggregate non occupational risk, since no acute oral, pulmonary, and injection toxicity or pathogenicity hazard exists.

    V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

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

    B. amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838 does not share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, since it is not toxic via the oral, dermal, or inhalation routes of exposure. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838 does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children A. U.S. Population

    Although there is likely to be dietary and non-occupational exposure to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838, the Agency concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838 because of the lack of any toxicity, infectivity, and pathogenicity of this microbe. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.

    B. Infants and Children

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

    As discussed above, EPA has concluded that Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838 is not toxic, pathogenic, or infective to mammals, including infants and children. Because there are no threshold levels of concern to infants, children, and adults when Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838 is used according to label directions and good agricultural practices, EPA concludes that no additional margin of safety is necessary to protect infants and children.

    VII. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    VIII. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838 on all food commodities.

    IX. References 1. Priest, F., Goodfellow, M., Shute, L., and Berkeley, R. 1987. “Bacillus amyloliquefaciens sp. nom., nom. rev.” International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 37: 69-71. http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/content/37/1/69.full.pdf. 2. https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Bacillus_subtilis. 3. Apetroaie‐Constantin, C., et al. (2009). “Bacillus subtilis and B. mojavensis strains connected to food poisoning produce the heat stable toxin amylosin.” Journal of Applied Microbiology 106(6): 1976-1985. 4. Registration Decision for the New Active Ingredient Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838, http://www.regulations.gov. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0420. 5. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/042399a.txt. 6. https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-06/pdf/2011-33846.pdf, Federal Register (77 FR 745, January 6, 2012). X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    XI. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Jack E. Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. Section 180.1336 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
    § 180.1336 Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain PTA-4838 in or on all food commodities.

    [FR Doc. 2016-15006 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 271 and 272 [EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0131; FRL 9947-04-Region 8] South Dakota: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The State of South Dakota has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this direct final action. The EPA uses the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs” to provide notice of the authorization status of State programs and to incorporate by reference those provisions of State statutes and regulations that will be subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement. This rule also codifies in the regulations the approval of South Dakota's hazardous waste management program and incorporates by reference authorized provisions of the State's regulations.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 23, 2016 unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by July 25, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 23, 2016. If the EPA receives adverse comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that this authorization will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0131 by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (303) 312-6341 (prior to faxing, please notify the EPA contact listed below).

    4. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Christina Cosentini, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Courier or hand deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The public is advised to call in advance to verify business hours. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0131. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or email. The federal http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: EPA Region 8, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, contact: Christina Cosentini, phone number (303) 312-6231, or the South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Joe Foss Building, 523 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, South Dakota 57501, contact: Carrie Jacobson, phone number (605) 773-3153. The public is advised to call in advance to verify business hours.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina Cosentini, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202; phone number (303) 312-6231; Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Authorization of Revisions to South Dakota's Hazardous Waste Program A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273 and 279. When states make other changes to their regulations, it is often appropriate for the states to seek authorization for the changes.

    B. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    We conclude that South Dakota's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant South Dakota final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. South Dakota has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs), and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), for all areas within the State, except for (1) all lands located within formal Indian Reservations within or abutting the State of South Dakota, including the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation, Crow Creek Indian Reservation, Flandreau Indian Reservation, Lower Brule Indian Reservation, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, Rosebud Indian Reservation, Standing Rock Indian Reservation, Yankton Indian Reservation; (2) any land held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe; and (3) any other land, whether on or off a reservation that qualifies as “Indian country” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151. New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in South Dakota, including issuing permits, until South Dakota is authorized to do so.

    C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in South Dakota subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. South Dakota has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

    • Conduct inspections and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;

    • Enforce RCRA requirements; suspend or revoke permits; and,

    • Take enforcement actions regardless of whether South Dakota has taken its own actions.

    This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which South Dakota is being authorized by this direct action are already effective under State law and are not changed by this action.

    D. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to authorize the State program changes if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    E. What happens if EPA receives comments opposing this action?

    If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will address all public comments in a later Federal Register. You will not have another opportunity to comment, therefore, if you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

    F. For what has South Dakota previously been authorized?

    South Dakota initially received final authorization on October 19, 1984, effective November 2, 1984 (49 FR 41038) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on: April 17, 1991, effective June 17, 1991 (56 FR 15503); September 8, 1993, effective November 8, 1993 (FR 47216); January 10, 1994, effective March 11, 1994 (59 FR 1275); July 24, 1996, effective September 23, 1996 (61 FR 38392); May 9, 2000, effective June 8, 2000 (65 FR 26755); April 23, 2004, effective May 24, 2004 (69 FR 21962); March 8, 2006, effective March 8, 2006 (71 FR 11533); and August 8, 2012, effective August 8, 2012 (77 FR 47302).

    G. What changes are we authorizing with this action?

    South Dakota submitted a final complete program revision application on May 12, 2015, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that South Dakota's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant South Dakota final authorization for the following program changes:

    1. Program Revision Changes for Federal Rules

    The State of South Dakota revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Federal hazardous waste revisions promulgated from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012 (RCRA Clusters XVIII-XXII), except for the final rules published on January 2, 2008 (73 FR 57; Checklist 216), October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64668, Checklist 219); December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77954, Checklist 221); January 8, 2010 (75 FR 1236, Checklist 222); and June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33712, Checklist 224). The State requirements from its Hazardous Waste Rules, Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD), Article 74:28, effective October 10, 2013, are included in the chart below.

    Description of federal requirement Federal Register date and page Analogous state authority 1. NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) Amendments (Checklist 217) 73 FR 18970; 8/8/08 ARSD 74:28:25-01 and 74:28:27:01. 2. F019 Exemption for Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Auto Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating Processes (Checklist 218) 73 FR 31756; 6/4/08 ARSD 74:28:22:01. 3. Academic Laboratories Generator Standards (Checklist 220) 73 FR 7291; 12/1/08 ARSD 74:28:22:01 and 74:28:23:01. 4. Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications (Checklist 223) 75 FR 12989; 3/18/10 ARSD 74:28:21:02, 74:28:22:01, 74:28:23:01, 74:28:24:01, 74:28:25:01, 74:28:28:01, 74:28:27:01, 74:28:30:01, 74:28:26:01, and 74:28:23:01. 5. Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts from the Lists of Hazardous Constituents (Rule 225; No Federal checklist) 75 FR 78918; 12/17/10 ARSD 74:28:22:01 and 74:28:30:01. 6. Academic Laboratories Generator Standards Technical Corrections (Checklist 226) 75 FR 79304; 12/20/10 ARSD 74:28:23:01. 7. Revision of the Land Disposal Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes (Checklist 227) 76 FR 34147; 6/13/11 ARSD 74:28:30:01. 8. Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule (Checklist 228) 77 FR 22229; 4/13/12 ARSD 74:28:22:01 and 74:28:27:01. 2. State-Initiated Changes

    South Dakota has made amendments to its regulations that are not directly related to any of the federal rules addressed in Item G.1 above. These State-initiated changes are either conforming changes made to existing authorized provisions, or the adoption of provisions that clarify and make the State's regulations internally consistent. The State's regulations, as amended by these provisions, provide authority which remains equivalent to and no less stringent than the federal laws and regulations. These State-initiated changes are submitted under the requirements of 40 CFR 271.21(a) and include the following provisions from the Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD 74:28), as amended, effective October 10, 2013: 74:28:21:01(1), 74:28:21:01(3), 74:28:21:01(6), 74:28:21:01(8), 74:28:21:01(11), 74:28:25:03, 74:28:25:04, 74:28:25:05, 74:28:28:03, 74:28:28:04, 74:28:28:05, and 74:36:11.01.

    H. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    South Dakota incorporates the Federal regulations by reference, thus making its hazardous waste program equivalent to the federal program in all areas. The State did not make any changes that are more stringent or broader-in-scope than the federal rules in this rulemaking. In addition, South Dakota did not change any previously more stringent or broader-in-scope provisions to be equivalent to the federal rules.

    EPA will continue to implement certain federal requirements that the EPA cannot delegate to States. The requirements include: (1) Certain provisions in 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5) and 261.41 part 262, subparts E, F and H, part 263, subpart B, §§ 264.12(a)(2), 264.71(a)(3), 264.71(d), 265.12(a)(2), 265.71(a)(3), and 265.71(d) regarding governmental oversight of exports and imports of hazardous waste; (2) manifest registry functions in 40 CFR parts 262, Subpart B; (3) 268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), and 268.44(a)-(g) regarding land disposal restrictions; and (4) 279.82(b) regarding State petitions to allow use of used oil as a dust suppressant.

    I. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    South Dakota will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which were issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until South Dakota has equivalent instruments in place. We will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which South Dakota is not yet authorized.

    J. How does this action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in South Dakota?

    This determination to approve South Dakota's RCRA program revisions applies to all activities in South Dakota outside of “Indian country,” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, including:

    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian reservations located within or abutting the State of South Dakota:

    a. Cheyenne River Indian Reservation;

    b. Crow Creek Indian Reservation;

    c. Flandreau Indian Reservation;

    d. Lower Brule Indian Reservation;

    e. Pine Ridge Indian Reservation;

    f. Rosebud Indian Reservation;

    g. Standing Rock Indian Reservation;

    h. Yankton Indian Reservation;

    2. Any land held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe; and,

    3. Any other areas which are “Indian country” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151.

    Under principles of Federal Indian law, states generally do not have authority to regulate in Indian country. Ala. v. Native Vill. of Venetie Tribal Gov't., 522 U.S. 520 n.1 (1998). Accordingly, in the absence of an express grant of authority to a state from Congress, EPA typically excludes Indian country from program delegations and authorizations to states. See RCRA Authorization regulations at 40 CFR 271.1(h) (“[I]n many cases States will lack authority to regulate activities on Indian lands.”).

    Indian country is defined by federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1151, as:

    a. All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation;

    b. all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and

    c. all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.

    It is important to note that the phrase “notwithstanding the issuance of any patent” in 18 U.S.C. 1151(a) has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include fee patents (also known as land titles or land deeds) issued to Indians and non-Indians alike. See, Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U.S. 351, 358 (1962). Accordingly, fee-owned lands, whether owned by Indians or nonmembers of the relevant Indian tribe, which are within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations, are Indian country. While 18 U.S.C. 1151 on its face relates to criminal jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is also relevant for civil regulatory jurisdiction. See, DeCoteau v. Dist. County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 427 n.2 (1975).

    In addition, tribal trust lands located outside of formal reservations are also Indian country as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. For a detailed legal discussion and explanation of this interpretation of Indian country, see Letter from Jack W. McGraw, Acting Regional Administrator, United States Environmental Agency, to Steven M. Pirner, Secretary, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (April 2, 2002), printed in 67 FR 45684 through 45687 (July 10, 2002).

    II. Incorporation by Reference A. What is codification?

    Codification is the process of including the statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste management program into the CFR. Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize State hazardous waste management programs. The State regulations authorized by the EPA supplant the federal regulations concerning the same matter with the result that after authorization EPA enforces the authorized regulations. Infrequently, State statutory language which acts to regulate a matter is also authorized by the EPA with the consequence that the EPA enforces the authorized statutory provision. The EPA does not authorize State enforcement authorities and does not authorize State procedural requirements. The EPA codifies the authorized State program in 40 CFR part 272 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that make up the approved program which is federally enforceable in accordance with Sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934 and 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

    B. What is the history of the codification of South Dakota's hazardous waste management program?

    The EPA incorporated by reference South Dakota's then authorized hazardous waste program effective March 8, 2006 (71 FR 11533). In this action, the EPA is revising Subpart QQ of 40 CFR part 272 to include the authorization revision actions described in this document.

    C. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the South Dakota rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 272 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    This action codifies the EPA's authorization of South Dakota's base hazardous waste management program and its revisions to that program. The codification reflects the State program that would be in effect at the time EPA's authorized revisions to the South Dakota hazardous waste management program addressed in this direct final rule become final. This action does not reopen any decision the EPA previously made concerning the authorization of the State's hazardous waste management program. The EPA is not requesting comments on its decisions published in the Federal Register documents referenced in Section I.F of this preamble concerning revisions to the authorized program in South Dakota.

    The EPA is incorporating by reference EPA's approval of South Dakota's hazardous waste management program by amending Subpart QQ to 40 CFR part 272. The action amends section 272.2101 and incorporates by reference South Dakota's authorized hazardous waste regulations, as amended effective October 10, 2013. Section 272.2101 also references the demonstration of adequate enforcement authority, including procedural and enforcement provisions, which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program. In addition, section 272.2101 references the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statements and the Program Description, which are evaluated as part of the approval process of the hazardous waste management program in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.

    D. What is the effect of South Dakota's codification on enforcement?

    The EPA retains the authority under statutory provisions, including but not limited to, RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in all authorized states. With respect to enforcement actions, the EPA will rely on federal sanctions, federal inspection authorities, and federal procedures rather than the State analogs to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference South Dakota's inspection and enforcement authorities nor are those authorities part of South Dakota's approved State program which operates in lieu of the federal program. 40 CFR 272.2101(c)(2) lists these authorities for informational purposes, and because the EPA also considered them in determining the adequacy of South Dakota's procedural and enforcement authorities. South Dakota's authority to inspect and enforce the State's hazardous waste management program requirements continues to operate independently under State law.

    E. What State provisions are not part of the codification?

    The public is reminded that some provisions of South Dakota's hazardous waste management program are not part of the federally authorized State program. These non-authorized provisions include:

    (1) Provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program because they are “broader in scope” than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR 271.1(i));

    (2) Federal rules for which South Dakota is not authorized, but which have been incorporated into the State regulations because of the way the State adopted federal regulations by reference.

    (3) Federal rules for which South Dakota is authorized but which were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 98-1379; June 27, 2014).

    (4) State procedural and enforcement authorities which are necessary to establish the ability of the State's program to enforce compliance but which do not supplant the Federal statutory enforcement and procedural authorities.

    State provisions that are “broader in scope” than the federal program are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, the EPA lists in 40 CFR 272.2101(c)(3) the South Dakota statutory provisions which are “broader in scope” than the federal program and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. While “broader in scope” provisions are not part of the authorized program and cannot be enforced by the EPA, the State may enforce such provisions under State law.

    South Dakota has adopted but is not authorized for certain federal final rules published between June 29, 1995 and June 15, 2010. Therefore, the federal amendments to 40 CFR parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270 and 273 addressed by these Federal rules and included in South Dakota's adoption by reference at ARSD, sections 74:28:21:02, 74:28:22:01, 74:28:23:01, 74:28:24:01, 74:28:25:01, 74:28:28:01, 74:28:27:01, 74:28:30:01, 74:28:26:01 and 74:28:33:01, respectively, are not part of the State's authorized program included in this codification. The EPA has identified in 40 CFR 272.2101(c)(4) those federal regulations which, while adopted by South Dakota, are not authorized by EPA.

    F. What will be the effect of codification on Federal HSWA requirements?

    With respect to any requirement(s) pursuant to HSWA for which the State has not yet been authorized, and which the EPA has identified as taking effect immediately in States with authorized hazardous waste management programs, EPA will enforce those Federal HSWA standards until the State is authorized for those provisions.

    The codification does not affect Federal HSWA requirements for which the State is not authorized. The EPA has authority to implement HSWA requirements in all states, including states with authorized hazardous waste management programs, until the states become authorized for such requirements or prohibitions, unless the EPA has identified the HSWA requirement(s) as an optional or as a less stringent requirement of the federal program. A HSWA requirement or prohibition, unless identified by the EPA as optional or as less stringent, supersedes any less stringent or inconsistent State provision which may have been previously authorized by EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985).

    Some existing State requirements may be similar to the HSWA requirements implemented by the EPA. However, until the EPA authorizes those State requirements, EPA enforces the HSWA requirements and not the State analogs.

    III. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes and codifies State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action authorizes and codifies pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it 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). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes and codifies State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this rule authorizes pre-existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective August 23, 2016.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 272

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority at 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b), EPA is granting final authorization under 40 CFR part 271 to the State of South Dakota for revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and is amending 40 CFR part 272 as follows:

    PART 272—APPROVED STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 272 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    2. Revise § 272.2101 to read as follows:
    § 272.2101 South Dakota State-administered program: Final authorization.

    (a) Pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), South Dakota has final authorization for the following elements as submitted to EPA in South Dakota's base program application for final authorization which was approved by EPA effective on November 2, 1984. Subsequent program revision applications were approved effective on June 17, 1991, November 8, 1993, March 11, 1994, September 23, 1996, June 8, 2000, May 24, 2004, March 8, 2006, August 8, 2012 and August 23, 2016.

    (b) The State of South Dakota has primary responsibility for enforcing its hazardous waste management program. However, EPA retains the authority to exercise its inspection and enforcement authorities in accordance with sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934, 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions, as well as in accordance with other statutory and regulatory provisions.

    (c) State Statutes and Regulations. (1) The South Dakota regulations cited in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section are incorporated by reference as part of the hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. This incorporation by reference is approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain copies of the South Dakota regulations that are incorporated by reference in this paragraph from South Dakota Legislative Research Council, 3rd Floor, State Capitol, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, South Dakota 57501, (Phone: (605) 773-3251). You may inspect a copy at EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, phone number (303) 312-6231, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    (i) The Binder entitled “EPA-Approved South Dakota Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program”, dated February 2016.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (2) EPA considered the following statutes and regulations in evaluating the State program but is not incorporating them herein for enforcement purposes:

    (i) South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL), as amended, 2013 Revision, Title 1, State Affairs and Government: Chapter 1-26, Administrative Procedures and Rules, sections 1-26-1(1), 1-26-1(4), 1-26-1(8) introductory paragraph, 1-26-1(8)(a), 1-26-2, 1-26-6.6, 1-26-16 through 1-26-19, 1-26-19.1, 1-26-19.2, 1-26-21, 1-26-27, 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-30.1, 1-26-30.2, 1-26-30.4, 1-26-31, 1-26-31.1, 1-26-31.2, 1-26-31.4, 1-26-35 and 1-26-36; Chapter 1-27, Public Records and Files, sections 1-27-1, 1-27-3, 1-27-9(2) and 1-27-28, 1-27-31; Chapter 1-32, Executive Reorganization, section 1-32-1(1); Chapter 1-40, Department of Natural Resources, sections 1-40-4.1, 1-40-24, 1-40-31 and 1-40-34.

    (ii) SDCL, as amended, 2013 Revision, Title 15, Civil Procedure: Chapter 15-6, Rules of Procedure in Circuit Courts, section 15-6-24(a)-(c).

    (iii) SDCL, as amended, 2013 Revision, Title 19, Evidence: Chapter 19-13, Privileges, sections 19-13-2(1), 19-13-2(5), 19-13-3, 19-13-20 and 19-13-22.

    (iv) SDCL, as amended, 2013 Revision, Title 21, Judicial Remedies: Chapter 21-8, Injunction, section 21-8-1.

    (v) SDCL, as amended, 2013 Revision, Title 22, Crimes: Chapter 22-6, Authorized Punishments, sections 22-6-1 introductory paragraph and 22-6-1(7).

    (vi) SDCL, as amended, 2013 Revision, Title 23, Law Enforcement: Chapter 23-5, Criminal Identification, sections 23-5-1, 23-5-10(1), 23-5-10(3), 23-5-10(4) and 23-5-11 first sentence; Chapter 23-6, Criminal Statistics, section 23-6-4.

    (vii) SDCL, as amended, 2013 Revision, Title 34, Public Health and Safety: Chapter 34-21, Radiation and Uranium Resources Exposure Control, section 34-21-2(7).

    (viii) SDCL, as amended, 2013 Revision, Title 34A, Environmental Protection: Chapter 34A-6, Solid Waste Disposal, section 34A-6-1.3(17); Chapter 34A-10, Remedies for Protection of Environment, sections 34A-10-1, 34A-10-2, 34A-10-5, 34A-10-11, 34A-10-14 and 34A-10-16, Chapter 34A-11, Hazardous Waste Management, sections 34A-11-1, 34A-11-2 through 34A-11-4, 34A-11-5, 34A-11-8 through 34A-11-12, 34A-11-13 through 34A-11-16, 34A-11-17 through 34A-11-19, 34A-11-21 and 34A-11-22; Chapter 34A-12, Regulated Substance Discharges, sections 34A-12-1(8), 34A-12-4, 34A-12-6, 34A-12-8 through 34A-12-13, 34A-12-13.1 and 34A-12-14.

    (ix) SDCL, as amended, 2013 Revision, Title 37, Trade Regulation, Chapter 37-29, Uniform Trade Secrets Act, section 37-29-1(4).

    (x) Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD), Article 74:08, Administrative Fees, effective October 10, 2013: Chapter 74:08:01, Fees for Records Reproduction, sections 74:08:01:01 through 74:08:01:07.

    (3) The following statutory provisions are broader in scope than the Federal program, are not part of the authorized program, are not incorporated by reference and are not federally enforceable:

    (i) SDCL, as amended, 2013 Revision, Title 34A, Environmental Protection, Chapter 34A-11, Hazardous Waste Management, sections 34A-11-12.1, 34A-11-16.1, 34A-11-25 and 34A-11-26.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (4) Unauthorized state amendments. (i) South Dakota has adopted but is not authorized for the following federal final rules:

    (A) Removal of Legally Obsolete Rules (HSWA/non-HSWA) [60 FR 33912, 06/29/95];

    (B) Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste: Implementation of OECD Council Division (HSWA—Not delegable to States) [61 FR 16290, 04/12/96];

    (C) Clarification of Standards for Hazard Waste Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Variances (HSWA) [62 FR 64504, 12/05/97];

    (D) Hazardous Waste Combustors; Revised Standards (Non-HSWA—Vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 98-1379; June 27, 2014) [63 FR 33782, 6/19/98];

    (E) Vacatur of Organobromide Production Waste Listings (HSWA) [65 FR 14472, 03/17/00];

    (F) National Environmental Performance Track Program (Non-HSWA—terminated by EPA (74 FR 22741, 5/14/09)) [69 FR 21737, 4/22/04; as amended by 69 FR 62217, 10/25/04 and 71 FR 16862, 4/4/06];

    (G) Exclusion of Oil-Bearing Secondary Materials Processed in a Gasification System to Produce Synthesis Gas (Non-HSWA—Vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 98-1379; June 27, 2014) [73 FR 52, 1/2/08];

    (H) Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste (Non-HSWA) [73 FR 64668, 10/30/08];

    (I) OECD Requirements; Export Shipments of Spent Lead Acid Batteries (Non-HSWA—Not delegable to States) [75 FR 1236, 1/8/10]; and

    (J) Withdrawal of the Emission Comparable Fuel Exclusion (Non-HSWA—Vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 98-1379; June 27, 2014) [75 FR 33712, 6/15/10].

    (ii) Those federal rules written under RCRA provisions that predate HSWA (non-HSWA) which the State has adopted, but for which it is not authorized, are not federally enforceable. In contrast, EPA will continue to enforce the Federal HSWA standards for which South Dakota is not authorized until the State receives specific authorization from the EPA.

    (5) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region 8 and the State of South Dakota, signed by the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Natural Resources on December 14, 2015, and by the EPA Regional Administrator on February 18, 2016, although not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

    (6) Statement of legal authority. “Attorney General's Statement for Final Authorization,” signed by the Attorney General of South Dakota on May 24, 1984, and revisions, supplements and addenda to that Statement dated January 14, 1991, September 11, 1992, September 25, 1992, April 1, 1993, September 24, 1993, December 29, 1994, September 5, 1995, October 23, 1997, October 27, 1997, October 28, 1997, November 5, 1999, June 26, 2000, June 18, 2002, October 19, 2004, May 11, 2009 and May 5, 2015, although not incorporated by reference, are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

    (7) Program Description. The Program Description and any other materials submitted as supplements thereto, although not incorporated by reference, are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

    3. Appendix A to Part 272, is amended by revising the listing for “South Dakota” to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 272-State Requirements South Dakota

    The regulatory provisions include:

    Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Article 74:28, Hazardous Waste, effective October 10, 2013, sections 74:28:21:01, 74:28:21:02, 74:28:21:03, 74:28:22:01, 74:28:23:01, 74:28:24:01, 74:28:25:01 through 74:28:25:05, 74:28:26:01, 74:28:27:01, 74:28:28:01 through 74:28:28:05, 74:28:29:01, 74:28:30:01 and 74:28:33:01; Article 74:36, Air Pollution Control Program, as of June 25, 2013, section 74:36:11:01.

    Copies of the South Dakota regulations that are incorporated by reference are available from South Dakota Legislative Research Council, 3rd Floor, State Capitol, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, South Dakota 57501, (Phone: (605) 773-3251).

    [FR Doc. 2016-14298 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 271 and 272 [EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0174; FRL-9947-06-Region 8] Wyoming: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The State of Wyoming has applied to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this direct final action. The EPA uses the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs” to provide notice of the authorization status of State programs and to incorporate by reference those provisions of State statutes and regulations that will be subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement. This rule also codifies in the regulations the approval of Wyoming's hazardous waste management program and incorporates by reference authorized provisions of the State's regulations.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 23, 2016 unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by July 25, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 23, 2016. If the EPA receives adverse comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that this authorization will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0174 by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (303) 312-6341 (prior to faxing, please notify the EPA contact listed below).

    4. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Christina Cosentini, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Courier or hand deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The public is advised to call in advance to verify business hours. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0174. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or email. The Federal http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: EPA Region 8, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, contact: Christina Cosentini, phone number (303) 312-6231, or the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Solid and Hazardous Waste Division, 200 W. 17th St., 2nd Floor, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002. The public is advised to call in advance to verify business hours.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina Cosentini, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202; phone number (303) 312-6231; Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Authorization of Revisions to Wyoming's Hazardous Waste Program A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when Federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273 and 279. When states make other changes to their regulations, it is often appropriate for the states to seek authorization for the changes.

    B. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    We conclude that Wyoming's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Wyoming final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Wyoming has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs), and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), for all areas within the State, except for “Indian country” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.

    New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Wyoming, including issuing permits, until Wyoming is authorized to do so.

    C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in Wyoming subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Wyoming has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

    • Conduct inspections and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;

    • Enforce RCRA requirements; suspend or revoke permits; and,

    • Take enforcement actions regardless of whether Wyoming has taken its own actions.

    This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Wyoming is being authorized by this direct action are already effective under State law and are not changed by this action.

    D. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to authorize the State program changes if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    E. What happens if EPA receives comments opposing this action?

    If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will address all public comments in a later Federal Register. You will not have another opportunity to comment, therefore, if you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

    F. For what has Wyoming previously been authorized?

    Wyoming initially received final authorization on October 4, 1995, effective October 18, 1995 (60 FR 51925) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on February 25, 1999, effective August 6, 2001 (56 FR 15503); however, this authorization was subsequently withdrawn on April 23, 1999 (64 FR 19925) and re-issued with the initial effective date of August 6, 2001 (66 FR 40911).

    After the 2001 authorization, the State of Wyoming repealed the existing text of the State's hazardous waste regulations and replaced it with text that incorporates by reference the Federal regulations in 40 CFR part 124, subparts A, B, and G, and parts 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279 in the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Hazardous Waste Management Rules, Chapter 1, General Provisions, effective March 18, 2015.

    The incorporation by reference (IBR) format for the rules allows the State of Wyoming to provide a more concise, easy to use set of rules that details the differences between the Federal and State rules. The IBR format also shows in detail which Wyoming rules are more stringent than, or broader in scope than, the Federal hazardous waste regulations. The new rules were presented to the Wyoming Water and Waste Advisory Board (WWAB) in July 2014 and the WWAB recommended that the rules package could move forward to the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council (EQC) in September 2014. The State's new rules were presented to the EQC on January 15, 2015, and were approved unanimously by the EQC on the same day. A total of two public notices in June and July 2014 and October through December 2014 were conducted as part of the State rule-making process. The rules were finalized for the purposes of State adoption on March 31, 2015. Wyoming has adopted Federal rules promulgated through January 31, 2014 (date certain) in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), with the exceptions detailed in its Hazardous Waste Management Rules and Consolidated Checklists submitted by the State as part of its authorization application package. For detailed information regarding the regulatory transition, see the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Hazardous Waste Program, Program Description for Revision 6 Request for Reauthorization, dated May 22, 2015, as revised November 24, 2015; specifically, Attachment D: General Correspondence Between Previous State Rules, Current State IBR Rules, and Federal Rules and Attachment E: General Correspondence Between Previous State Rules, Current State IBR Rules and Federal Statutes.

    As a result of the State's adoption of the IBR format, Wyoming is seeking reauthorization for the hazardous waste regulatory program administered by the DEQ, as authorized under the Federal Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), and addressed in the following authorization Federal Register actions: 60 FR 51925 (October 4, 1995) and 66 FR 40911 (August 6, 2001). Wyoming is also seeking authorization for the Federal rule published on February 9, 1995 (60 FR 7824), as amended on April 17, 1995 (60 FR 19165) and May 12, 1995 (60 FR 25619) [Revision Checklist 140]), and specific Federal rules promulgated from March 26, 1996 through January 31, 2014. The State hazardous waste program for which authorization is sought does not include a request for authorization on Indian lands within the State.

    G. What changes are we authorizing with this action?

    Wyoming submitted a final complete program revision application on February 4, 2016, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action that Wyoming's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we grant Wyoming final authorization for the program modifications contained in the State's program revision application, which includes State regulatory changes that are no less stringent than the Federal hazardous waste regulations as they appear in the 40 CFR, revised as of January 31, 2014, except for the final rules published on May 15, 2000 (65 FR 30886; Checklist 186), April 22, 2004 (69 FR 21737, as amended on October 25, 2004 69 FR 62217; Checklist 204); April 4, 2006 (71 FR 16862; Checklist 213); October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64668; Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste; Checklist 219); and December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77954, Checklist 221). The State requirements from its Department of Environmental Quality Hazardous Waste Rules and Regulations (HWRR), effective March 18, 2015, are included in the chart below.

    Description of Federal requirement Analogous state authority 1 1. 40 CFR part 124, subpart A (except Sections 124.1, 124.4, 124.5(c), 124.5(e)-(g), 124.6(c), 124.6(d)(4)(ii)-(v), 124.8(b)(3), 124.8(b)(8), 124.9(b)(6), 124.10(a)(1)(iv)-(v), 124.10(c)(1)(iv)-(viii), 124.10(c)(2)(i), 124.10(d)(1)(vii)-(viii), 124.10(d)(2)(iv), 124.12(b), 124.15(b)(2), 124.16, 124.18(b)(5), 124.19, and 124.21); subpart B (except the fourth sentence of 124.31(a), the third sentence of 124.32(a), and the second sentence of 124.33(a)); and subpart G (except 124.204(d)(1) and (4), 124.205(a) and (h)) HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a) and 124. [More stringent provisions: 124(a)(v); 124(b)(i); 124(b)(iii) second sentence; 124(b)(iii)(A) through (C); 124(b)(iv); 124(d)(i); 124(d)(ii); and 124(e)(iii)]. 2. 40 CFR part 260, except for the following provisions: 260.2, 260.10 (definitions of “Performance Track member facility”, “remediation waste management site”, and the third part of the definition for “facility”), 260.20(d) and (e), and the October 30, 2008 Definition of Solid Waste, (73 FR 62668) Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended February 14, 1994, Chapter III;
  • HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3, 4, and 260. [More stringent provision: 260(b)(ii)].
  • Note:
  • (1) Section 2 addresses: (a) The date of the Federal regulations that Wyoming has incorporated by reference; (b) Federal rules explicitly excluded from the State's rule; (c) references to the State's more stringent and broader in scope provisions; and (d) the availability of all referenced Federal and Wyoming materials.
  • (2) Section 3 addresses the substitution of State terms for Federal terms in order to make the Federal regulations incorporated by reference specific to Wyoming. (3) Section 4 addresses Wyoming-specific definitions and provisions needed to provide additional clarity to the State's regulations. 3. 40 CFR part 261, except for the following provisions: 261.4(b)(11), 261.4(b)(16), 261.4(b)(17), subpart H, Appendix IX, the language “in the Region where the sample is collected” in 261.4(e)(3)(iii), and the changes associated with 73 FR 62668, October 30, 2008 (Definition of Solid Waste) HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a), 3(a)(x), 3(a)(xiii) and 261. [More stringent provision: 261(a)(iii) and 261(b)]. 4. 40 CFR part 262, except for the following provisions: 262.10(j) and (k), 262.34(j)-(l), subparts I and J, and the language “for the Region in which the generator is located” in 40 CFR 262.42(a)(2) and 262.42(b) HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a) and 262. [More stringent provisions: 262(a)(iii) and 262(a)(v)]. 5. 40 CFR part 263, except for the following provision: 263.20(a)(3) which addresses compliance dates for manifest form revisions for dates which have passed HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a) and 263. [More stringent provisions: 263(a)(iv)]. 6. 40 CFR part 264, except for the following provisions: 40 CFR 264.1(f), 264.1(g)(12), 264.1(j), 264.15(b)(5), 264.70(b), 264.73(b)(17), 264.101(d), 264.147(k), 264.149, 264.150, 264.195(e), 264.301(l), 264.314(e), 264.554(l)(2), 264.1030(d), 264.1050(g), and 264.1080(e) through (g) HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a) and 264(a)-(d); 264(e)(i) (except the citation “ W.S. 35-11-1607 ” and the phrase “or signed remedy agreement pursuant to W.S. 35-11-1607 ” in the first sentence of 264(e)(i); 264(e)(iii)(A) and (B); and 264(f) through 264(m). [More stringent provisions: 264(a)(iv); 264(a)(v); 264(a)(vii); 264(a)(x); 264(a)(xi); 264(h); 264(i); 264(l); and 264(m)]. [Broader-in-scope provisions: 264(e)(i) and (ii)]. 7. 40 CFR part 265, except for the following provisions: Subpart R, 40 CFR 265.1(c)(4), 265.15(b)(5), 265.15(c)(15), 265.70(b), 265.147(k), 265.149, 265.150, 265.195(d), 265.1030(c), 265.1050(f), 265.1080(e), 265.1080(f), and 265.1080(g) HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a) and 265. [More stringent provisions: 265(a)(iv) through (vi); 265(a)(ix); 265(a)(x); 265(e); and 265(f)]. 8. 40 CFR part 266 HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a) and 266. [More stringent provisions: 266(b)(i) through (b)(vi); and 266(b)(viii)]. 9. 40 CFR part 267, except 267.150 HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a) and 267. [More stringent provisions: 267(a)(ii); 267(a)(iii); and 267(b)]. 10. 40 CFR part 268, except 268.5, 268.6, 268.13, 268.42(b), 268.44(a)-(g), and 268.44(o) HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a) and 268. 11. 40 CFR part 270 except for the following provisions: 270.1(c)(1)(iii), 270.1(c)(2)(ix), 270.11(d)(2), 270.13(k)(7), 270.14(b)(18), 270.42(l), 270.42 (Appendix I, Part A, Entries 9 and 10, and Part O Entry (1)(a)-(d)), 270.51, 270.60(a), 270.64, 270.68, 270.73(a), subpart H (40 CFR 270.79-270.230), 270.260(h), and 270.290(r) HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a), 3(a)(ii), 3(a)(v), 3(a)(vi) through 3(a)(ix), and 270 (except 270(n). [More stringent provisions: 270(a)(iv); 270(a)(ix); 270(a)(x); 270(a)(xii); 270(a)(xx); 270(b) through (e); 270(h); and 270(j) through (m)]. [Broader-in-scope provision: 270(n)]. 12. 40 CFR part 273 HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a) and 273. 13. 40 CFR part 279 HWRR, Chapter 1, Sections 2(a) and 279. 1 Items described as more stringent or broader-in-scope are discussed in detail in Section H of this rule.
    H. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    1. EPA considers several Wyoming requirements to be more stringent than the Federal requirements. These requirements are part of Wyoming's authorized program and are federally enforceable. The specific more stringent provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:

    a. Permitting Program and Procedures: At 124(a)(v), 124(b)(i), 124(b)(iii) second sentence and 124(b)(iii)(A) through (C), 124(b)(iv), 124(d)(i), 124(d)(ii), 124(e)(iii), 270(a)(iv), 270(a)(ix), 270(a)(x), 270(a)(xii), 270(a)(xx), 270(b), 270(c)(i)(A), 270(c)(i)(B), 270(d)(i) introductory paragraph and (i)(A), 270(d)(i)(B), 270(d)(i)(C), 270(e), 270(h)(i), and 270(m) Wyoming has additional permitting procedure requirements (e.g., Wyoming's section 124(e)(iii) is more stringent than 40 CFR 124.12(a)(3) and (a)(4) in that the State requires a hearing to be scheduled within 20 days after the close of the public comment, unless a different schedule is deemed necessary by the Council. The State also requires a public notice to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing in the county where the applicant plans to locate the facility);

    b. Notifications and Reports: At 261(a)(iii), 262(a)(iii), 262(a)(v), 263(a)(iv), 264(a)(v), 265(a)(iv), 265(a)(v), 265(a)(ix), and 267(a)(iii), Wyoming requires copies of necessary notifications and reports be made and submitted to the Director or State agency in addition to the required Federal notification or reporting;

    c. Location Standards: At both 264(a)(iv) and 267(a)(ii), Wyoming prohibits new facilities from being located in a 100-year floodplain;

    d. Health and Environment Risk Assessment and Minimization: At 264(a)(vii), 264(l), 264(m), and 270(l) the State requires facility owners or operators to demonstrate the ability to take and continue to take steps to prevent threats to human health and the environment including additional provisions for the assessment of health risks from facilities associated with normal operation or failure of a hazardous waste management facility pollution control or containment system;

    e. Landfill Prohibition: At 264(a)(x), 264(a)(xi), and 265(a)(x) Wyoming prohibits the placement of nonhazardous liquid waste in landfills;

    f. State Registration of Professional Engineers and Geologists: At 264(h), 264(i), 265(e), 265(f), 267(b), 270(j), and 270(k), Wyoming requires both professional engineers and professional geologists to be registered in the State when referring to activities requiring Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist certification;

    g. Military Munitions: At 266(b)(i), 266(b)(iii) through (v), and 266(b)(viii) Wyoming has additional requirements for military munitions (e.g., at 266(b)(i) the State requires the operator of the range to notify the Director in writing if remedial action for these types of waste is infeasible); and

    h. Remedial Action Plans (RAPs): Wyoming has chosen not to adopt the less stringent Remedial Action Plan (RAP) alternate permit for remediation management sites addressed in the final rule published on November 30, 1998 (63 FR 65874).

    2. The EPA considers several State requirements to be broader-in-scope than the Federal program. Although a facility must comply with these requirements in accordance with State law, they are not RCRA requirements. Broader-in-scope requirements are not part of the authorized program and EPA cannot enforce them. The specific broader-in-scope provisions include the following:

    a. Wyoming Voluntary Remediation Program: At 264(e)(i) and (ii) [with respect to the Wyoming Voluntary Remediation Program only] the State makes the Corrective Action Management Unit program requirements available to participants in the State of Wyoming Voluntary Remediation Program who would otherwise not be regulated under the RCRA program; and

    b. Permitting Program and Procedures: At 270(n), Wyoming requires an applicant for a permit to demonstrate fitness by requiring that the past performance of the applicant or any partners, executive officers, or corporate directors, be reviewed.

    Wyoming did not change any previously more stringent or broader-in-scope provisions to be equivalent to the Federal rules.

    3. The EPA will continue to implement certain Federal requirements that the EPA cannot delegate to states. The requirements include: (1) Certain provisions in 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5) and 261.41, part 262, subparts E, F and H, part 263, subpart B, 264.12(a)(2), 264.71(a)(3), 264.71(d), 265.12(a)(2), 265.71(a)(3), and 265.71(d) regarding governmental oversight of exports and imports of hazardous waste; (2) manifest registry functions in 40 CFR part 262, subpart B; (3) 268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), and 268.44(a)-(g) regarding land disposal restrictions; and (4) 279.82(b) regarding State petitions to allow use of used oil as a dust suppressant.

    I. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Wyoming will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which were issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until Wyoming has equivalent instruments in place. We will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Wyoming is not yet authorized.

    J. How does this action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Wyoming?

    This program revision does not extend to “Indian country” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.

    In excluding Indian country from the scope of this program revision, the EPA is not making a determination that the State either has adequate jurisdiction or lacks jurisdiction over sources in Indian country. Should the State of Wyoming choose to seek program authorization within Indian country, the EPA would have to be satisfied that the State has authority, either pursuant to explicit Congressional authorization or applicable principles of Federal Indian law, to enforce its laws against existing and potential pollution sources within any geographical area for which it seeks program approval, and that such approval would constitute sound administrative practice.

    II. Corrections

    In the entry for the Checklist 142B authorization table published for Wyoming as part of the February 25, 1999 (64 FR 9278) proposed rule (final rule published on August 6, 2001 (66 FR 40911)), the citation “Ch. 13, S1(a)(vi)(A)” should be corrected to read “Ch. 13, S1(a)(vi)(I)”.

    III. Incorporation by Reference A. What is codification?

    Codification is the process of including the statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste management program into the CFR. Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize state hazardous waste management programs. The state regulations authorized by the EPA supplant the Federal regulations concerning the same matter with the result that after authorization the EPA enforces the authorized regulations. Infrequently, state statutory language which acts to regulate a matter is also authorized by the EPA with the consequence that the EPA enforces the authorized statutory provision. The EPA does not authorize state enforcement authorities and does not authorize state procedural requirements. The EPA codifies the authorized state program in 40 CFR part 272 and incorporates by reference state statutes and regulations that make up the approved program which is federally enforceable in accordance with Sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934 and 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

    B. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    In this action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Wyoming rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 272 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    The purpose of this Federal Register document is to codify the EPA's authorization of Wyoming's base hazardous waste management program and its revisions to that program. The codification reflects the State program that would be in effect at the time the EPA's authorized revisions to the Wyoming hazardous waste management program addressed in this direct final rule become final. This action does not reopen any decision the EPA previously made concerning the authorization of the State's hazardous waste management program. The EPA is not requesting comments on its decisions published in the Federal Register documents referenced in Section I.F of this preamble concerning revisions to the authorized program in Wyoming.

    The EPA is incorporating by reference the EPA's approval of Wyoming's hazardous waste management program by adding subpart ZZ to 40 CFR part 272. Section 272.2551 incorporates by reference Wyoming's authorized hazardous waste regulations, as amended effective March 18, 2015. Section 272.2551 also references the demonstration of adequate enforcement authority, including procedural and enforcement provisions, which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program. In addition, section 272.2551 references the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statements and the Program Description, which are evaluated as part of the approval process of the hazardous waste management program in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.

    C. What is the effect of Wyoming's codification on enforcement?

    The EPA retains the authority under statutory provisions, including but not limited to, RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in all authorized states. With respect to enforcement actions, the EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than the state analogs to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference Wyoming's inspection and enforcement authorities nor are those authorities part of Wyoming's approved State program which operates in lieu of the Federal program. 40 CFR 272.2551(c)(2) lists these authorities for informational purposes, and because the EPA also considered them in determining the adequacy of Wyoming's procedural and enforcement authorities. Wyoming's authority to inspect and enforce the State's hazardous waste management program requirements continues to operate independently under State law.

    D. What state provisions are not part of the codification?

    The public is reminded that some provisions of Wyoming's hazardous waste management program are not part of the federally authorized State program. These non-authorized provisions include:

    (1) Provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program because they are “broader-in-scope” than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR 271.1(i));

    (2) Federal rules for which Wyoming was previously authorized but which were later vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 08-1144; June 27, 2014). See 80 FR 18777 (April 8, 2015).

    (3) State procedural and enforcement authorities which are necessary to establish the ability of the State's program to enforce compliance but which do not supplant the Federal statutory enforcement and procedural authorities.

    State provisions that are “broader-in-scope” than the Federal program are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, the EPA lists in 40 CFR 272.2551(c)(3) the Wyoming regulatory and statutory provisions which are “broader in scope” than the Federal program and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. While “broader in scope” provisions are not part of the authorized program and cannot be enforced by the EPA, the State may enforce such provisions under State law.

    E. What will be the effect of codification on Federal HSWA requirements?

    With respect to any requirement(s) pursuant to HSWA for which the State has not yet been authorized, and which the EPA has identified as taking effect immediately in States with authorized hazardous waste management programs, the EPA will enforce those Federal HSWA standards until the State is authorized for those provisions.

    The codification does not affect Federal HSWA requirements for which the State is not authorized. The EPA has authority to implement HSWA requirements in all states, including states with authorized hazardous waste management programs, until the states become authorized for such requirements or prohibitions, unless the EPA has identified the HSWA requirement(s) as an optional or as a less stringent requirement of the Federal program. A HSWA requirement or prohibition, unless identified by the EPA as optional or as less stringent, supersedes any less stringent or inconsistent state provision which may have been previously authorized by EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985).

    Some existing state requirements may be similar to the HSWA requirements implemented by the EPA. However, until the EPA authorizes those state requirements, the EPA enforces the HSWA requirements and not the state analogs.

    IV. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes and codifies State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action authorizes and codifies pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it 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). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes and codifies State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this rule authorizes pre-existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing Federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective August 23, 2016.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 272

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority at 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b), the EPA is granting final authorization under 40 CFR part 271 to the State of Wyoming for revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and is amending 40 CFR part 272 as follows:

    PART 272—APPROVED STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 272 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    2. Amend subpart ZZ by adding § 272.2551 to read as follows:
    § 272.2551 Wyoming State-administered program: Final authorization.

    (a) Pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), Wyoming has final authorization for the following elements as submitted to the EPA in Wyoming's base program application for final authorization which was approved by the EPA effective on October 18, 1995. Subsequent program revision applications were approved effective on August 6, 2001 and August 23, 2016.

    (b) The State of Wyoming has primary responsibility for enforcing its hazardous waste management program. However, the EPA retains the authority to exercise its inspection and enforcement authorities in accordance with sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934, 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions, as well as in accordance with other statutory and regulatory provisions.

    (c) State statutes and regulations. (1) The Wyoming regulations cited in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section are incorporated by reference as part of the hazardous waste management program under Subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. This incorporation by reference is approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain copies of the Wyoming regulations that are incorporated by reference in this paragraph from Wyoming Secretary of State's Office, The Capitol Building, Room B-10, 200 West 24th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0020, (Phone: 307-777-5407). You may inspect a copy at the EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, phone number (303) 312-6231, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    (i) The Binder entitled “EPA-Approved Wyoming Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program”, dated March, 2016.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (2) The EPA considered the following statutes and regulations in evaluating the State program but is not incorporating them herein for enforcement purposes:

    (i) Wyoming Statutes Annotated (W.S.), as amended, 2015 Edition, Title 16, City, County, State, and Local Powers: Chapter 1, Intergovernmental Cooperation, section 16-1-101; Chapter 3, Administrative Procedure, sections 16-3-101(b)(vi), 16-3-103(h), 16-3-107(k); Chapter 4, Uniform Municipal Fiscal Procedures, Public Records, Documents and Meetings, sections 16-4-201, 16-4-203(d)(i), 16-4-203(d)(v).

    (ii) W.S., as amended, 2015 Edition, Title 35, Public Health and Safety: Chapter 11, Environmental Quality, Article 1, General Provisions, sections 35-11-102, 35-11-103(a), 35-11-103(d)(i), 35-11-103(d)(ii), 35-103(d)(vii), 35-11-104 through 35-11-106, 35-11-108 through 35-11-115; Article 5, Solid Waste Management, sections 35-11-501 through 35-11-503 (except 35-11-503(b) and (c)), 35-11-504 through 35-11-506, 35-11-508, 35-11-509, 35-11-514, 35-11-516, 35-11-518 through 35-11-520; Article 9, Penalties, sections 35-11-901(a), (j), and (k); Article 11, Miscellaneous Provisions, sections 35-11-1101, 35-11-1105(d), 35-11-1106(a)(iv); Article 16, Voluntary Remediation of Contaminated Sites, section 35-11-1607(e).

    (iii) Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, Rule 24.

    (iv) Wyoming Hazardous Waste Management Rules, Chapter 1, General Provisions: Sections 1(a) through (d); 2(c) and (d); 124 (except 124(a)(v)); 260(b)(ii); and 270(o) through 270(q).

    (v) Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended February 14, 1994, Chapter III.

    (3) The following statutory provisions are broader in scope than the Federal program, are not part of the authorized program, are not incorporated by reference and are not federally enforceable:

    (i) W.S., as amended, 2015 Edition, Title 35, Public Health and Safety: Chapter 11, Environmental Quality, Article 5, Solid Waste Management, section 35-11-517; Chapter 12, Industrial Development and Siting, sections 35-12-101, et seq.

    (ii) Wyoming Hazardous Waste Management Rules, Chapter 1, General Provisions: Sections 264(e)(i) [with respect to the Wyoming Voluntary Remediation Program only]; 264(e)(ii); and 270(n).

    (iii) [Reserved]

    (4) Unauthorized state amendments. (i) Wyoming has adopted but is not authorized for the following Federal final rules:

    (A) Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste: Implementation of OECD Council Division [61 FR 16290, 04/12/96] (HSWA—Not delegable to States);

    (B) Hazardous Waste Combustors; Revised Standards [63 FR 33782, 6/19/98] (Non-HSWA—Vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 08-1144; June 27, 2014);

    (C) Exclusion of Oil-Bearing Secondary Materials Processed in a Gasification System to Produce Synthesis Gas [73 FR 52, 1/2/08] (Non-HSWA—Vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 08-1144; June 27, 2014);

    (D) OECD Requirements; Export Shipments of Spent Lead Acid Batteries [75 FR 1236, 1/8/10] (Non-HSWA—Not delegable to States);

    (E) Withdrawal of the Emission Comparable Fuel Exclusion [75 FR 33712, 6/15/10] (Non-HSWA—Vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 08-1144; June 27, 2014); and

    (F) Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste [73 FR 64668, 10/30/08].

    (ii) Those Federal rules written under RCRA provisions that predate HSWA (non-HSWA) which the State has adopted, but for which it is not authorized, are not federally enforceable. In contrast, the EPA will continue to enforce the Federal HSWA standards for which Wyoming is not authorized until the State receives specific authorization from EPA.

    (5) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA, Region 8 and the State of Wyoming, signed by the State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality on July 19, 2012, and by the EPA Regional Administrator on July 27, 2012, although not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

    (6) Statement of legal authority. “Attorney General's Statement for Final Authorization”, signed by the Attorney General of Wyoming on July 14, 1995, and revisions, supplements and addenda to that Statement dated December 9, 1997 and May 11, 2015, although not incorporated by reference, are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

    (7) Program Description. The Program Description and any other materials submitted as supplements thereto, although not incorporated by reference, are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

    3. Appendix A to part 272 is amended by adding the listing for “Wyoming” to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 272—State Requirements Wyoming

    The regulatory provisions include:

    Wyoming Hazardous Waste Management Rules, as amended effective March 18, 2015, Chapter 1, General Provisions: Sections 2(a) and (b); 3; 4; 124(a)(v); 260 (except 260(b)(ii)); 261; 262; 263; 264(a) through 264(d), 264(e)(i) (except the citation “W.S. 35-11-1607” and the phrase “or a signed remedy agreement pursuant to W.S. 35-11-1607” in the first sentence), 264(e)(iii)(A) and (B), 264(f) through 264(m); 265; 266; 267; 268; 270(a) through 270(m); 273; and 279.

    Copies of the Wyoming regulations that are incorporated by reference are available from Wyoming Secretary of State's Office, The Capitol Building, Room B-10, 200 West 24th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0020, (Phone: (307) 777-5407).

    [FR Doc. 2016-14284 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 48 CFR Parts 1536 and 1537 [EPA-HQ-OARM-2013-0370; FRL-9946-78-OARM] Acquistion Regulation: Update to Construction and Architect-Engineer and Key Personnel Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a final rule amending the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to remove the evaluation of contracting performance and to incorporate flexibility to identify the required number of days of key personnel commitment during the early stages of contractor performance under the Key Personnel clause. This final rule also provides for minor edits of an administrative nature.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2013-0370. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Holly Hubbell, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-1091; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary

    This rule incorporates an existing class deviation and makes minor administrative changes to EPAAR parts 1536 and 1537. This rule includes the following content changes: (1) Removes 1536.201 Evaluation of contracting performance; (2) provides administrative updates and adds Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO) to 1536.209(c); (3) under 1536.521, updates the term “small purchases” with “simplified acquisition threshold”; (4) under 1537.110(b) the term contracting officer's technical representative(s)” is replaced by Contracting Officer's Representative(s)”; (5) amends 1537.110(c) to incorporate the flexibilities provided by a class deviation to the Key Personnel requirements; and (6) removes “CFR 48” from 1537.110. These changes do not incur any costs, but provide flexibility regarding key personnel commitments.

    II. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    The EPAAR applies to contractors who have a construction, architect-engineer, or service contract with EPA.

    B. What action is the agency taking?

    The rule removes the evaluation of contracting performance and incorporate flexibility to identify the required number of days of key personnel commitment during the early stages of contractor performance under the Key Personnel clause. The rule also provides for minor edits of an administrative nature.

    III. Background

    EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 79 FR 47044, August 12, 2014, to remove section 1536.201 on the evaluation of contractor performance under construction contracts and the incorporation of flexibilities provided by a class deviation to the Key Personnel requirements under EPAAR Part 1537. A previous review of the EPAAR, determined that the EPAAR requirement for the evaluation of construction contracts should be removed as it was superseded by FAR 42.1502. Additionally, under EPAAR 1552.237-72, EPA provides contracting officers with the flexibility to identify the required number of days of key personnel commitment during the early stages of contractor performance. The length of time will be based on the requirements of individual acquisitions when continued assignment is essential to the successful implementation of the program's mission. Contracting officers may include a different number of days in excess of the ninety (90) days included in the clause, if approved at one level above the contracting officer. The rule also provides minor administrative edits in the EPAAR sections identified. No comments were received on the previously published proposed rule.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore, not subject to review under the EO.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. No information is collected under this action.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action revises a current EPAAR provision and does not impose requirements involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or record keeping. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, Local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and Local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate effect on children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use” (66 FR 28335, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) of NTTA, Public Law 104-113, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rulemaking will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rulemaking does not involve human health or environmental effects.

    K. Congressional Review

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1536 and 1537

    Environmental protection, Government procurement.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Denise Polk, Acting Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is amended as set forth below:

    PART 1536—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 1. The authority citation for part 1536 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 1707.

    1536.201 [Removed]
    2. Remove section 1536.201.
    1536.209 [Amended]
    3. Amend section 1536.209, paragraph (c), by removing the text “CCO” and “RAD” and adding the words “Chief of the Contracting Office”, in their places.
    1536.521 [Amended]
    4. Amend section 1536.521 by removing the words “small purchase” and adding the words “simplified acquisition threshold”, two times.
    PART 1537—SERVICE CONTRACTING 5. The authority citation for part 1537 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 1707.

    6. Amend section 1537.110 by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (f) to read as follows:
    1537.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    (b) The Contracting Officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 1552.237-71, Technical Direction, in solicitations and contracts where the Contracting Officer intends to delegate authority to issue technical direction to the Contracting Officer's Representative(s).

    (c) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1552.237-72, Key Personnel, in solicitations and contracts when it is necessary for contract performance to identify Contractor key personnel. Contracting Officers have the flexibility to identify the required number of days of key personnel commitment during the early stages of contractor performance. The length of time will be based on the requirements of individual acquisitions when continued assignment is essential to the successful implementation of the program's mission. Therefore, Contracting Officers may use a clause substantially the same as in 48 CFR 1552.237-72, regarding substitution of key personnel. Contracting Officers may include a different number of days in excess of the ninety (90) days included in this clause, if approved at one level above the Contracting Officer.

    (f) To ensure that Agency contracts are administered so as to avoid creating an improper employer-employee relationship, contracting officers shall insert the contract clause at 1552.237-76, “Government-Contractor Relations”, in all solicitations and contracts for non-personal services that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

    [FR Doc. 2016-15002 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1815 and 1852 RIN 2700-AE27 NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Removal of Grant Handbook References (NFS Case 2016-N001) AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NASA is issuing a final rule amending the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) to remove references to NASA's Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook, NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 5800.1, NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-21 for educational institutions and A-122 for nonprofit organizations.

    DATES:

    Effective: July 25, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew O'Rourke, telephone 202-358-4560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 81 FR 13308 on March 14, 2016, to amend the NFS to remove references to NASA's Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook, NPR 5800.1, NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-21 for educational institutions and A-122 for nonprofit organizations.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    No public comments were submitted in response to the proposed rule. The proposed rule has been converted to a final rule without change.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is summarized as follows:

    NASA is issuing a final rule amending the NFS to remove references to the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook and NPR 5800.1, NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook. No changes were made to the final rule. No public comments were received in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the proposed rule. Therefore, the proposed rule has been adopted as final. NASA does not expect this final rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because it merely removes outdated and unnecessary grant and cooperative agreement references that should not be in the NFS. There are no new reporting requirements or recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule. In addition, there are no other alternatives that could further minimize the already negligible impact on businesses, small or large.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1815 and 1852

    Government procurement.

    Manuel Quinones, NASA FAR Supplement Manager.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1815 and 1852 are amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for parts 1815 and 1852 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 1815—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION 2. Revise section 1815.602 to read as follows:
    1815.602 Policy.

    Renewal proposals, (i.e., those for the extension or augmentation of current contracts) are subject to the same FAR and NFS regulations, including the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act, as are proposals for new contracts.

    PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. Amend section 1852.235-72 by— a. Removing from the provision heading “DEC 2005” and adding (JUL 2016) in its place; and b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (c)(8)(iii).

    The revisions read as follows:

    1852.235-72 Instructions for responding to NASA research announcements.

    (a) * * *

    (4) A contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement may be used to accomplish an effort funded in response to an NRA. NASA will determine the appropriate award instrument. Contracts resulting from NRAs are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the NASA FAR Supplement. A grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement resulting from NRAs are subject to policies and procedures outlined in the Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Funding Announcement, 2 CFR part 1800, 14 CFR part 1274, or other agreement policy. Any proposal from a large business concern that may result in the award of a contract, which exceeds $5,000,000 and has subcontracting possibilities should include a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

    (Subcontract plans for contract awards below $5,000,000, will be negotiated after selection.)

    (c) * * *

    (8) * * *

    (iii) Allowable costs are governed by FAR part 31 and the NASA FAR Supplement part 1831.

    [FR Doc. 2016-14851 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 160205084-6510-02] RIN 0648-BF76 International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Purse Seine Observer Requirements, and Fishing Restrictions and Limits in Purse Seine and Longline Fisheries for 2016-2017 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act), NMFS issues this final rule that, first, requires that U.S. purse seine vessels carry observers on fishing trips in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO); second, establishes restrictions in 2016 and 2017 on the use of fish aggregating devices (FADs) by U.S. purse seine vessels in the WCPO; and third, establishes limits in 2016 and 2017 on the amount of bigeye tuna that may be captured by U.S. longline vessels in the WCPO. This action implementing specific provisions of Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2015-01 is necessary to satisfy the obligations of the United States as a Contracting Party to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention), pursuant to the authority of the WCPFC Implementation Act.

    DATES:

    Effective July 25, 2016, except § 300.223(b)(1) introductory text and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv), and § 300.224(a), which shall be effective July 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of supporting documents prepared for this final rule, including the regulatory impact review (RIR), and the programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) and supplemental information report (SIR) prepared for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) purposes, as well as the proposed rule, are available via the Federal e-rulemaking Portal, at www.regulations.gov (search for Docket ID NOAA-NMFS-2016-0031). Those documents are also available from NMFS at the following address: Michael Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) prepared under authority of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is included in the Classification section of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Graham, NMFS PIRO, 808-725-5032.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 27, 2016, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (81 FR 24772). The proposed rule was open for public comment until May 12, 2016.

    This final rule is issued under the authority of the WCPFC Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Department in which the United States Coast Guard is operating (currently the Department of Homeland Security), to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the obligations of the United States under the Convention, including the decisions of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Commission or WCPFC). The authority to promulgate regulations has been delegated to NMFS.

    This final rule implements specific provisions of the Commission's Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2015-01, “Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin, and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.” The preamble to the proposed rule provides background information on the Convention and the Commission, the provisions of CMM 2015-01 that are being implemented in this rule, and the basis for the proposed regulations, which is not repeated here.

    The Action

    This final rule includes three elements, described in detail below, that will be included in regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart O.

    1. Purse Seine Observer Requirements

    This final rule prohibits U.S. purse seine vessels from fishing in the Convention Area between the latitudes of 20 °N. and 20 °S. without a WCPFC observer on board, with the exception of fishing trips during which any fishing in the Convention Area takes place entirely within areas under the jurisdiction of a single nation other than the United States. Although U.S. purse seine vessels are exempt from this requirement on trips in which fishing occurs only in the waters of a single foreign nation, it is expected that such foreign nations will require that U.S. purse seine vessels carry observers if fishing in their waters.

    A WCPFC observer is an observer deployed from an observer program that has been authorized by the Commission to be part of the WCPFC Regional Observer Programme (see definition at 50 CFR 300.211). Currently, the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) observer program, from which observers for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet have traditionally been deployed, and the NMFS observer program, among others, are authorized as part of the WCPFC Regional Observer Programme. Thus, observers deployed by these programs are considered WCPFC observers.

    2. Purse Seine FAD Restrictions for 2016-2017

    This final rule establishes restrictions on the use of FADs by purse seine vessels, including periods in 2016 and 2017 during which specific uses of FADs are prohibited (FAD prohibition periods), annual limits in 2016 and 2017 on the number of purse seine sets that may be made on FADs (FAD sets), and restrictions on the use of FADs on the high seas throughout 2017.

    Specifically, this final rule establishes FAD prohibition periods from July 1 through September 30 in each of 2016 and 2017, a limit of 2,522 FAD sets in each of 2016 and 2017, and a prohibition on FAD sets on the high seas during 2017.

    As defined at 50 CFR 300.211, a FAD is “any artificial or natural floating object, whether anchored or not and whether situated at the water surface or not, that is capable of aggregating fish, as well as any object used for that purpose that is situated on board a vessel or otherwise out of the water. The definition of FAD does not include a vessel.” Although the definition of a FAD does not include a vessel, the restrictions during the FAD prohibition periods include certain activities related to fish that have aggregated in association with a vessel, or drawn by a vessel, as described below.

    During the July-September FAD prohibition periods in each of 2016 and 2017, after the 2,522 FAD set limit is reached in 2016 or 2017 (until the end of the respective calendar year), and on the high seas throughout 2017, owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels of the United States are prohibited from doing any of the following activities in the Convention Area in the area between 20 °N. latitude and 20 °S. latitude:

    (1) Set a purse seine around a FAD or within one nautical mile of a FAD.

    (2) Set a purse seine in a manner intended to capture fish that have aggregated in association with a FAD or a vessel, such as by setting the purse seine in an area from which a FAD or a vessel has been moved or removed within the previous eight hours, setting the purse seine in an area in which a FAD has been inspected or handled within the previous eight hours, or setting the purse seine in an area into which fish were drawn by a vessel from the vicinity of a FAD or a vessel.

    (3) Deploy a FAD into the water.

    (4) Repair, clean, maintain, or otherwise service a FAD, including any electronic equipment used in association with a FAD, in the water or on a vessel while at sea, except that: A FAD may be inspected and handled as needed to identify the FAD, identify and release incidentally captured animals, un-foul fishing gear, or prevent damage to property or risk to human safety; and a FAD may be removed from the water and if removed may be cleaned, provided that it is not returned to the water.

    (5) From a purse seine vessel or any associated skiffs, other watercraft or equipment, submerge lights under water; suspend or hang lights over the side of the purse seine vessel, skiff, watercraft or equipment, or direct or use lights in a manner other than as needed to illuminate the deck of the purse seine vessel or associated skiffs, watercraft or equipment, to comply with navigational requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of the crew. These prohibitions do not apply during emergencies as needed to prevent human injury or the loss of human life, the loss of the purse seine vessel, skiffs, watercraft or aircraft, or environmental damage.

    3. Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits for 2016-2017

    This final rule establishes limits on the amount of bigeye tuna that may be caught in the Convention Area by U.S. fishing vessels using longline gear in each of 2016 and 2017. The limit for 2016 is 3,554 mt, and the limit for 2017 is 3,345 mt. If NMFS later determines that there was an overage of the limit for 2016, NMFS will adjust the 2017 limit in accordance with the provisions of CMM 2015-01 and any other pertinent Commission decisions in force at the time.

    The 2016 and 2017 longline bigeye tuna catch limits apply only to U.S-flagged longline vessels operating as part of the U.S. longline fisheries. The limits do not apply to U.S. longline vessels operating as part of the longline fisheries of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or Guam, which are U.S. Participating Territories in the Commission. Existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(b), (c), and (d) detail the manner in which longline-caught bigeye tuna is attributed among the fisheries of the United States and the U.S. Participating Territories.

    The catch limits will be measured in terms of retained catches—that is, bigeye tuna that are caught by longline gear and retained on board the vessel.

    As set forth under the existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(e), if NMFS determines that the 2016 or 2017 limit is expected to be reached before the end of the respective calendar year, NMFS will publish a notice in the Federal Register to announce specific fishing restrictions that will be effective from the date the limit is expected to be reached until the end of that calendar year. NMFS will publish the notice of the restrictions at least 7 calendar days before the effective date to provide vessel owners and operators with advance notice. Periodic forecasts of the date the limit is expected to be reached will be made available to the public on the Web site of the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, at www.fpir.noaa.gov/SFD/SFD_regs_3.html, to help vessel owners and operators plan for the possibility of the limit being reached.

    As set forth under the existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(f), if the 2016 or 2017 limit is reached, the following restrictions will go into effect:

    (1) Retaining on board, transshipping, or landing bigeye tuna: Starting on the effective date of the restrictions and extending through December 31 of the applicable year, it will be prohibited to use a U.S. fishing vessel to retain on board, transship, or land bigeye tuna captured in the Convention Area by longline gear, with three exceptions, as described below.

    First, any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel upon the effective date of the restrictions may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, provided that they are landed within 14 days after the restrictions become effective. A vessel that had declared to NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a) that the current trip type is shallow-setting will not be subject to this 14-day landing restriction, so these vessels will be able to land bigeye tuna more than 14 days after the restrictions become effective.

    Second, bigeye tuna captured by longline gear may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are caught by a fishing vessel registered for use under a valid American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit, or if they are landed in American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI. However, the bigeye tuna must not be caught in the portion of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago, and must be landed by a U.S. fishing vessel operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.

    Third, bigeye tuna captured by longline gear may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are caught by a vessel that is included in a valid specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(d), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(f)(1)(iv).

    (2) Transshipping bigeye tuna to certain vessels: To the extent authorized under the prohibition described above on “retaining on board, transshipping, or landing bigeye tuna,” starting on the effective date of the restrictions and extending through December 31 of the applicable year, it will be prohibited to transship bigeye tuna caught by longline gear in the Convention Area to any vessel other than a U.S. fishing vessel operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.

    (3) Fishing inside and outside the Convention Area: To help ensure compliance with the restrictions related to bigeye tuna caught by longline gear in the Convention Area, this final rule establishes two additional, related prohibitions that will go into effect starting on the effective date of the restrictions and extending through December 31 of the applicable year. First, vessels will be prohibited from fishing with longline gear both inside and outside the Convention Area during the same fishing trip, with the exception of a fishing trip that is in progress at the time the announced restrictions go into effect. In the case of a fishing trip that is in progress at the time the restrictions go into effect, the vessel still must land any bigeye tuna taken in the Convention Area within 14 days of the effective date of the restrictions, as described above. Second, if a vessel is used to fish using longline gear outside the Convention Area and enters the Convention Area at any time during the same fishing trip, the longline gear on the fishing vessel must be stowed in a manner so as not to be readily available for fishing while the vessel is in the Convention Area. These two prohibitions will not apply to vessels on declared shallow-setting trips pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a), or vessels operating for the purposes of this rule as part of the longline fisheries of American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI. This second group includes vessels registered for use under valid American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permits; vessels landing their bigeye tuna catch in one of the three U.S. Participating Territories, so long as these vessels conduct fishing activities in accordance with the conditions described above; and vessels included in a specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(d), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(f)(1)(iv).

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received several comments on the proposed rule. The comments are summarized below, followed by responses from NMFS.

    Comment 1: I support the proposed regulations; they are logical steps towards sustainable use of international fisheries and will have a positive impact on these fisheries and will contribute to improving sustainability of tropical tuna stocks. Additionally, the regulations may set a new standard for other nations to improve regulations on these important and vulnerable resources.

    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.

    Comment 2: The Hawaii Longline Association commented as follows on the proposed longline bigeye tuna catch limits for 2016-2017.

    It is well established that the United States cannot end overfishing of bigeye tuna in the WCPO through unilateral actions, and unilateral suppression of U.S. commercial longline bigeye tuna fishing would be counterproductive to conservation of bigeye tuna and other species.

    We understand that there was no overage of the U.S. longline bigeye tuna catch limit for 2015, so we expect the 2016 limit to be 3,554 mt, as in the proposed rule. If the 2016 limit is reached and a specified fishing agreement (under 50 CFR 665.819(c)) is effective and has been approved at the time the limit is reached, any fish landed immediately after the limit is reached should be attributed to the U.S. territory that is a party to the specified fishing agreement.

    In 2015 the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery was closed for an extended period in the WCPO and a great many vessels had to cease fishing entirely—even though a specified fishing agreement had been executed—because NMFS' issuance of territory specification regulations was delayed. We request that NMFS act promptly and with all due diligence in completing the territory specification rulemaking process in 2016.

    Response: NMFS agrees that ending overfishing of bigeye tuna will require multilateral efforts by the countries involved in fisheries for the stock.

    With respect to the 2015 longline bigeye tuna catch limit, the commenter's understanding that there was no overage of the 2015 limit is correct. NMFS explained in the proposed rule that if, after publishing the proposed rule, NMFS determines that there was an overage in 2015, NMFS would adjust the 2016 limit as follows: An amount equal to the overage would be subtracted from 3,554 mt to determine the annual limit for 2016. Since publication of the proposed rule, NMFS has determined that that there was no overage of the 2015 limit. As a result, the limit for 2016, as established in this final rule, is unchanged from the proposed limit, 3,554 mt.

    With respect to what will occur if the 2016 longline bigeye tuna limit is reached, bigeye tuna caught by vessels included in specified fishing agreements under 50 CFR 665.819(c) will be attributed among fisheries according to the existing criteria and procedures at 50 CFR 300.224(d) and 665.819, which are not revised by this final rule. NMFS emphasizes that whether a given bigeye tuna will be attributed to the U.S. territory that is party to a specified fishing agreement will depend on, among other things, the start date for the agreement as determined under 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9).

    With respect to the issuance of specifications related to longline bigeye tuna catch limits for the U.S. territories and specified fishing agreements for 2016, NMFS acknowledges the comment and will undertake the rulemaking process in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

    Comment 3: The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) submitted comments stating that it has a strong interest in eliminating fisheries impacts on marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as well as marine species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

    In support of its comments, CBD stated that WCPO fisheries involve primarily purse seine and longline fishing, targeting bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna species, but that bycatch in these fisheries is common, sometimes accounting for more than 30 percent of a ship's annual haul. CBD stated that every year, fishing fleets are known to ensnare species protected under the MMPA and ESA as part of their fishing operation, but observers on U.S. vessels only conduct limited identification and reporting of impacts to protected marine mammals and sea turtles, and observers remain undertrained for this task. CBD noted that the Biological Opinion on the Effects of the U.S. Tuna Purse Seine Fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean on Listed Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals (2006 BiOp) described limitations on observer data collected for the U.S. purse seine fishery operating in the WCPO regarding the specific protected species with which the fishery interacts. Due to the limitations on the data, the 2006 BiOp did not estimate the total number of marine mammals projected to be captured each year, and NMFS did not set a take limit for these species. CBD noted that according to the 2006 BiOp, four of the 12 recorded capture events between 1997 and 2004 involved interactions with whale species, possibly involving multiple individuals each time.

    Response: NMFS acknowledges that that there were limitations in available data during completion of the 2006 BiOp. Beginning in 2010, however, consistent with WCPFC conservation and management measures, the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery has been subject to increased observer coverage requirements adopted by the WCPFC. With this increased observer coverage, more robust data have become available. NMFS reinitiated formal ESA Section 7 consultation for the WCPO purse seine fishery for the effects of the fishery on the recently listed Indo-West Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the scalloped hammerhead shark, and we expect completion of formal consultation for that species by the end of 2016. NMFS also is developing a biological assessment for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery in anticipation of reinitiating ESA Section 7 consultation for one or more other species, as may be warranted, based on raw observer data recently obtained from the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), located in Honiara, Solomon Islands.

    Comment 4: CBD submitted comments stating that in the 2006 BiOp, NMFS estimated that purse seining in the WCPO would take 61 sea turtles annually, and possibly as many as 122. In addition to being caught in nets, NMFS also determined in the 2006 BiOp that ship strikes remain a risk to both sea turtles and marine mammals, though the 2006 BiOp failed to estimate the number of individuals that may be taken in this manner or to set take limits based on assumptions regarding the risk of ship strikes.

    Response: The 2006 BiOp provides information on worldwide ship strikes of whales, but indicates that there were no recorded ship strikes in the action area and that observer data for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery available at the time indicated that interactions with large whales, including ESA-listed species, were relatively uncommon in both the action area and throughout the Pacific Ocean. According to the 2006 BiOp, of the 292 recorded ship strikes from the years 1975 to 2002, 134 incidents had a known vessel type and fishing vessels were responsible for four of those 134 ship strikes. Thus, NMFS determined that the probability of a vessel in the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery colliding with listed whale species was low in the action area.

    The 2006 BiOp also states that relative to other threats, vessel collisions are not considered a current problem for sea turtle species in the action area, with the possible exception of green and hawksbill turtles in Hawaii and green turtles in Palau. The 2006 BiOp indicates that there are no reports of ship strikes of the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery on sea turtles. Moreover, the 2006 BiOp states that data regarding sea turtles in the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery available at the time indicate that all sea turtles caught in nets were released alive.

    Comment 5: CBD submitted comments stating that in order for reporting to be meaningful and effective, NMFS must ensure observers are properly trained and that they provide accurate, reliable reports of protected animals taken down to the species level. According to CBD, the 2006 BiOp and the PEA highlight that the quality of purse seine observer data is unacceptably low. Moreover, CBD stated, one of the enforceable terms and conditions in the BiOp is to improve data collection, as NMFS mandated that the agency work to ensure that observers collect standardized information regarding the incidental capture, injury, and mortality of sea turtles including species, gear and set information for each interaction that occurs. That NMFS has no observer data regarding protected species is evidence that this term and condition has not been met. CBD stated that to ensure compliance with the ESA, the observer program must have a separate and equal focus of recording and reporting adequate information on the species taken, the number of impacted individuals in each observed take event, and all observed impacts to these individuals, in light of the low threshold for take. Without this information, it is impossible for NMFS to ensure that the WCPO fishery participants are adhering to the terms of its 2006 Incidental Take Statement (ITS). Additionally, observers should not myopically focus only on net-related take events; instead, they also should be trained and ordered to report on all observed take events, including ship strikes, as other take events may be a significant yet unreported portion of the incidental take within this fishery.

    Response: As stated above, beginning in 2010, the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery has been subject to increased observer coverage requirements adopted by the WCPFC. These observers are deployed by FFA and must undergo specialized training and certifications. FFA observers also have been authorized by the WCPFC to function as WCPFC observers and so meet the training and certification requirements of the WCPFC's Regional Observer Programme. NMFS has provided financial resources to the FFA to support the augmentation of the FFA observer training curriculum to focus on better identification of species of special concern, which include but are not limited to marine mammals, marine reptiles, sharks, and seabirds. FFA-deployed observers on U.S. purse seine vessels have collected specific information on all protected species interactions since 2008. This information is not focused solely on net-related take events. Preliminary raw data are currently available from 2008 to 2014. This raw observer data recently received from the FFA indicates low levels of interactions with some protected species since 2008. This data is currently being analyzed for management use. NMFS is continuing to work with FFA to obtain verified data closer to real-time in accordance with the ITS specified in the 2006 BiOp and the terms and condition of the 2006 BiOp. As stated above, NMFS also is developing a biological assessment for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery in anticipation of reinitiating ESA Section 7 consultation for one or more species (other than the Indo-West Pacific DPS of the scalloped hammerhead shark), as may be warranted, based on the observer data recently obtained from FFA.

    Comment 6: CBD also provided comments stating that it is crucial that NMFS annually make observer reports available to the public. The last time NMFS made these data available was in the 2006 BiOp, prior to the transition to 100 percent observer coverage. Without these observer data, it is impossible for concerned citizens, scientists, or organizations to evaluate adherence to or the effectiveness of any conservation measures NMFS has proposed and is authorized to enforce. Publishing this information would make it possible for interested parties to independently judge the quality of observer data, and, over the years, track any improvement or decline in the quality of this information. For these reasons and others, it is important that NMFS provide access to this information on a regular basis.

    Response: Observer data collected by the FFA observer program are subject to confidential handling under various authorities, including but not limited to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a; Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.; South Pacific Tuna Act, 16 U.S.C. 973; and Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. NMFS endeavors to make information on protected species impacts accessible to the public, but in a format that does not compromise the confidentiality of non-public domain data, or violate the United States' international obligations. NMFS further notes that the dissemination of observer data is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

    Comment 7: CBD provided comments stating that NMFS should reinitiate ESA Section 7 consultation for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery, based on events and conditions occurring after NMFS finalized its 2006 BiOp. According to CBD, the PEA incorrectly states that the U.S. purse seine fishery operating in the WCPO has had limited interactions with marine mammals in recent years and the number of these interactions and whether the marine mammals were ESA-listed species is unknown at this time. CBD states that the 2006 BiOp includes references to recorded impacts to ESA-listed whales and sea turtles and is evidence that NMFS anticipates future take, by virtue of the incidental take limits set for each species of sea turtle that occurs within the Convention Area. In addition, since 2006, fishing effort has increased dramatically, which requires reinitiation of consultation and revision of the 2006 BiOp. Since 2006, the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery has increased both in the number of vessels participating and in the total tonnage of fish caught, so the fishery is likely operating in a manner that exceeds the take limits set for each sea turtle species in the 2006 BiOp. The new relaxed fishing vessel registration policy, the four-fold increase in the number of U.S. fishing vessels, and the two-fold increase in fishing effort are more than sufficient to trigger reinitiation of Section 7 consultation. Moreover, the recent changes to the listing status of green and loggerhead turtles trigger reinitiation of consultation. The new DPS for these species contain new information that may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not previously considered.

    Response: NMFS acknowledges CBD's comments. As stated above, observers deployed by the FFA on U.S. purse seine vessels operating in the WCPO currently collect detailed information on incidentally caught species, discards and interactions with species of special interest, including species protected under the ESA and MMPA. Since 2010, there has been observer coverage on virtually 100 percent of U.S. purse seine fishing trips in the Convention Area. NMFS is continuing to analyze the observer-collected data for recent years—that is, for years subsequent to the data used for the completion of the 2006 BiOp. NMFS has reinitiated ESA Section 7 consultation on the effects of the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery on the Indo-West Pacific DPS of the scalloped hammerhead shark and, as indicated in the SIR, expects that consultation to be completed by the end of 2016. NMFS also is developing a biological assessment for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery in anticipation of reinitiating ESA Section 7 consultation for one or more other species under the jurisdiction of NMFS and any new ITS for ESA-listed species will be based on the completed analysis of the best available information. Observer-collected data would be made available, as appropriate, to the public in nonconfidential form through the publication of any Biological Opinion for the fishery.

    NMFS acknowledges that the number of vessels participating in the fishery has returned to historic levels since the 2006 BiOP was completed, and the current number of active vessels and the number of sets per year is more similar to the historic activity of the fleet in the late 1990s (see Table 2 of the PEA). However, the number of available licenses from FFA for the fleet that was analyzed within the PEA remains the same, the area where the fishery operates remains essentially the same, and the fishing techniques remain the same. As stated above, NMFS has reinitiated ESA Section 7 consultation on the effects of the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery on the Indo-West Pacific DPS of the scalloped hammerhead shark and as indicated in the SIR, expects that consultation to be completed by the end of 2016. NMFS also is developing a biological assessment for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery in anticipation of reinitiating ESA Section 7 consultation for one or more other species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, as applicable, based on observer data recently obtained from the FFA.

    Comment 8: CBD provided comments stating that in its new BiOp, NMFS must set a take limit for any ESA-listed marine mammals that occur within the Convention Area. In the 2006 BiOp, NMFS acknowledged that whales have interacted with nets and risk being struck by fishing vessels, but despite this, the 2006 BiOp failed to set a take limit for listed whale species. Contrary to the conclusions in the 2006 BiOp, any interaction with fishing gear constitutes a take within the meaning of the ESA, and take limits must be set accordingly. Furthermore, NMFS should consider take not only based off of net interactions, but also from probable ship strikes. Considering the real risk of these impacts, it is important for NMFS to reevaluate the risk of take, especially in light of the four-fold increase in U.S. fishing vessels and two-fold increase in fishing effort since NMFS published its WCPO BiOp in 2006. To issue a take limit for ESA-listed marine mammals, NMFS must first issue an MMPA authorization. The MMPA places a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals, and only under limited exceptions to this moratorium may NMFS allow take incidental to commercial fishing operations. NMFS must authorize vessels' take of threatened or endangered marine mammals during a period of up to three years after making a finding of negligible impact and finding that other MMPA requirements are met. NMFS cannot issue such authorization without a thorough analysis of the impacts of the fishery on the listed marine mammals. Thus, adequate monitoring of marine mammal mortality is necessary for continued operation of the fishery.

    Response: As stated above, NMFS is developing a biological assessment for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery in anticipation of reinitiating ESA Section 7 consultation for one or more other species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, based on recently obtained raw observer data from the FFA. NMFS will analyze the effects of the fishery on any ESA-listed species, including marine mammals, in the action area and develop ITS, as appropriate, based on the best available data. NMFS notes that some of the marine mammal species present in the action area are not ESA-listed or depleted under the MMPA. The U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery has been designated as a Category II fishery under the regulations that govern the incidental take of marine mammals during fishing operations under the MMPA. This means that the fishery is considered to result in occasional serious injuries and mortalities to marine mammals. NMFS is continuing to analyze observer-collected data, as well as other available data, and will follow the process to obtain the appropriate permits under the MMPA if they indicate that incidental takes of ESA-listed marine mammals have occurred in the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery.

    Changes From Proposed Rule

    No changes from the proposed regulations have been made in these final regulations.

    Classification

    The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, has determined that this final rule is consistent with the WCPFC Implementation Act and other applicable laws.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after date of publication for the purse seine FAD restrictions and the 2016 longline bigeye tuna catch limit. NMFS must establish the FAD restrictions by July 1, 2016, to comply with the provisions of CMM 2015-01. With respect to the longline bigeye tuna catch limit, NMFS' latest forecast indicates that the 2016 limit of 3,554 mt could be reached in the latter half of July. Also, in the event the catch limit is expected to be reached, the regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(e) provide for NMFS to publish the notice announcing fishing prohibitions at least seven days in advance of the date the prohibitions go into effect. Thus, there would be substantial risk of the 2016 longline bigeye tuna catch limit being exceeded if this rule is not made effective by July 1, 2016. The FAD restrictions and longline bigeye tuna catch limits are intended to reduce or otherwise control fishing pressure on bigeye tuna in the WCPO in order to restore this stock to levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. According to the NMFS stock status determination criteria, bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean is currently experiencing overfishing. Failure to establish the FAD restrictions and the 2016 longline bigeye tuna catch limit by July 1, 2016, would result in additional fishing pressure on this stock, and would be inconsistent with CMM 2015-01. Thus, NMFS finds that delaying the effective date of the FAD restrictions and the 2016 longline bigeye tuna catch limit past July 1, 2016, would be contrary to the public interest.

    Executive Order 12866

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared as required by section 604 of the RFA. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared for the proposed rule. The analysis in the IRFA is not repeated here in its entirety. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble and in other sections of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this final rule, above. The analysis follows:

    Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

    NMFS did not receive any comments on the IRFA, but the Hawaii Longline Association provided comments on the economic impacts of the longline bigeye tuna catch limit established in a previous rule, for 2015, and requested that NMFS act promptly and with all due diligence in completing the territory specification rulemaking process in 2016 (see comment 2 and NMFS' response, above).

    Description of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

    Small entities include “small businesses,” “small organizations,” and “small governmental jurisdictions.” The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the United States, including commercial finfish harvesters (NAICS code 114111). A business primarily involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

    The final rule applies to owners and operators of U.S. purse seine and longline vessels used for fishing for HMS in the Convention Area. The number of purse seine vessels affected by the rule is approximated by the number with WCPFC Area Endorsements, which are the NMFS-issued authorizations required to use a vessel to fish commercially for HMS on the high seas in the Convention Area. As of May 2016 the number of purse seine vessels with WCPFC Area Endorsements was 41.

    The final rule applies to U.S. longline vessels used to fish for HMS in the Convention Area, except those operating as part of the longline fisheries of American Samoa, the CNMI, or Guam. The total number of affected longline vessels is approximated by the number of vessels with Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permits (issued under 50 CFR 665.13), although some such vessels might be able to operate as part of the longline fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories and thus not be affected. Under the Hawaii longline limited access program, no more than 164 permits may be issued. During 2006-2012 the number of permitted vessels ranged from 130 to 145. The number of permitted vessels as of April 2016 was 139. U.S. longline vessels based on the U.S. west coast without Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permits also could be affected by this rule if they fish in the Convention Area. However, the number of such vessels is very small and fishing in the Convention Area by such vessels is rare, so it is expected that very few, if any, such vessels will be affected.

    Most of the Hawaii longline fleet targets bigeye tuna using deep sets, and during certain parts of the year, portions of the fleet target swordfish using shallow sets. In the years 2005 through 2013, the estimated numbers of Hawaii longline vessels that actually fished ranged from 124 to 135. Of the vessels that fished, the number of vessels that engaged in deep-setting in the years 2005 through 2013 ranged from 122 to 135, and the number of vessels that engaged in shallow-setting ranged from 15 to 35. The number of vessels that engaged in both deep-setting and shallow-setting ranged from 15 to 35. The number of vessels that engaged exclusively in shallow-setting ranged from zero to two.

    Based on limited available financial information about the affected fishing vessels and the SBA's small entity size standards for commercial finfish harvesters, and using individual vessels as proxies for individual businesses, NMFS believes that all the affected fish harvesting businesses—in both the purse seine and longline sectors—are small entities. NMFS used estimates of average per-vessel returns over recent years to estimate annual revenue, because gross receipts and ex-vessel price information specific to the individual affected vessels are not available to NMFS.

    For the affected purse seine vessels, 2013 is the most recent year for which complete catch data are available, and NMFS estimates that the average annual receipts over 2011-2013 for each purse seine vessel were less than the $20.5 million threshold for finfish harvesting businesses. The greatest was about $20 million, and the average was about $12 million. This is based on the estimated catches of each vessel in the purse seine fleet during that period, and indicative regional cannery prices developed by the FFA (available at https://www.ffa.int/node/425). Since 2013, cannery prices for purse seine-caught tuna have declined dramatically, so the vessels' revenues in 2014 and 2015 very likely declined as well.

    For the longline fishery, the ex-vessel value of catches in the Hawaii longline fishery in 2013 was about $0.7 million per vessel, on average, well below the $20.5 million threshold for finfish harvesting businesses.

    Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

    The recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements are discussed below for each element of the final rule, as described earlier in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. Fulfillment of these requirements is not expected to require any professional skills that the affected vessel owners and operators do not already possess. The costs of complying with the requirements are described below to the extent possible:

    1. Purse Seine Observer Requirements

    This element of the final rule does not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The new compliance requirement is for affected vessel owners and operators to carry WCPFC observers on all fishing trips in the Convention Area between the latitudes of 20 °N. and 20 °S., with the exception of fishing trips during which any fishing in the Convention Area takes place entirely within areas under the jurisdiction of a single nation other than the United States. The expected costs of complying with this requirement are described below.

    Under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT), U.S. purse seine vessels operating in the Treaty Area (which is almost entirely in the Convention Area) are required to carry observers on about 20 percent of their fishing trips, which equates to roughly one trip per year per vessel. The observers required under the terms of the SPTT are deployed by the FFA, which acts as the SPTT Administrator on behalf of the Pacific Island Parties to the SPTT. The FFA observer program has been authorized to be part of the WCPFC observer program, so FFA-deployed observers are also WCPFC observers. Thus, in a typical year for a typical U.S. purse seine vessel, the cost of carrying observers to satisfy requirements under the SPTT can be expected to constitute 20 percent of the costs of the requirement in this rule. However, recent events associated with the SPTT make 2016 an atypical year. Because of late negotiations among the SPTT parties on the terms of access in foreign zones in the SPTT Area for 2016, no U.S. vessels were licensed under the SPTT until March of 2016, and thus none were authorized to fish in foreign zones or on the high seas in the Treaty Area until then. The terms of access for future years, and the SPTT itself, are uncertain. Given this uncertainty, an upper-bound estimate of the costs of compliance is provided here. For this purpose, it is assumed that fishing patterns in the Convention Area will be similar to the pattern in recent years, and that observer coverage under the terms of the SPTT will not contribute at all to the costs of complying with this requirement.

    Based on the U.S. purse seine fleet's fishing patterns in 2011-2013, it is expected that each vessel will spend about 252 days at sea per year, on average, with some vessels spending as many as about 354 days at sea per year.

    The compliance costs of the requirement can be broken into two parts: 1) The costs of providing food, accommodation, and medical facilities to observers (observer accommodation costs); and 2) the fees imposed by observer providers for deploying observers (observer deployment costs). Observer accommodation costs are expected to be about $20 per vessel per day-at-sea.

    With respect to observer deployment costs, affected fishing companies can use observers from any program that has been authorized by the Commission to be part of the WCPFC Regional Observer Programme. In other words, they are not required to use FFA observers, which they have traditionally used until now. Nonetheless, the costs of deploying FFA observers are probably good indications of observer deployment costs in the region generally, and they are used for this analysis. Based on budgets and arrangements for the deployment of observers under the FFA observer program, observer deployment costs are expected to be about $230 per vessel per day-at-sea. Thus, combined observer accommodation costs and observer deployment costs are expected to be about $250 per vessel per day-at-sea. For the average vessel, which is expected to spend about 252 days at sea per year, the total cost of compliance are therefore expected to be about $63,000 per year. The cost for vessels that spend fewer days at sea will be accordingly less. At the other extreme, if a vessel spends 354 days at sea (the top of the range in 2011-2013), the total cost of compliance will be about $88,500 per year. Both of these figures are upper-bound estimates. If arrangements under the SPTT return to something like they have been in the past, then the numbers of days spent at sea on fishing trips in the Convention Area are likely to be close to the levels described above, but the compliance costs will be about 20 percent less than estimated above because observer coverage under the SPTT will satisfy about 20 percent of the coverage required under this rule. If arrangements under the SPTT do not return to something like they have been in the recent past, then the number of days spent at sea on fishing trips in the Convention Area could be substantially lower than as described above, and the costs of complying with this requirement will be accordingly less.

    2. Purse Seine FAD Restrictions for 2016-2017

    This element of the final rule does not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The new requirement is for affected vessel owners and operators to comply with the FAD restrictions described earlier in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble, including FAD prohibition periods from July 1 through September 30 in each of 2016 and 2017; limits of 2,522 FAD sets that may be made in each of 2016 and 2017; and prohibitions on specific uses of FADs on the high seas in 2017. The expected costs of complying with this requirement are described below to the extent possible.

    The FAD restrictions will substantially constrain the manner in which purse seine fishing can be conducted in the specified areas and periods in the Convention Area; in those areas and during those periods, vessels will be able to set only on free, or “unassociated,” schools.

    The costs associated with the FAD restrictions cannot be quantitatively estimated, but the fleet's historical use of FADs can give a qualitative indication of the costs. In the years 1997-2013, the proportion of sets made on FADs in the U.S. purse seine fishery ranged from less than 30 percent in some years to more than 90 percent in others. Thus, the importance of FAD sets in terms of profits appears to be quite variable over time, and is probably a function of many factors, including fuel prices (unassociated sets involve more searching time and thus tend to bring higher fuel costs than FAD sets) and market conditions (e.g., FAD fishing, which tends to result in greater catches of lower-value skipjack tuna and smaller yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna than unassociated sets, might be more attractive and profitable when canneries are not rejecting small fish). Thus, the costs of complying with the FAD restrictions will depend on a variety of factors.

    In 2010-2013, the last 4 years for which complete data are available and for which there was 100 percent observer coverage, the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet made about 39 percent of its sets on FADs. During the months when setting on FADs was allowed, the percentage was about 58 percent. The fact that the fleet has made such a substantial portion of its sets on FADs indicates that prohibiting the use of FADs in the specified areas and periods could bring substantial costs and/or revenue losses.

    To mitigate these impacts, vessel operators might choose to schedule their routine vessel and equipment maintenance during the FAD prohibition periods. However, the limited number of vessel maintenance facilities in the region might constrain vessel operators' ability to do this. It also is conceivable that some vessels might choose not to fish at all during the FAD prohibition periods rather than fish without the use of FADs. Observations of the fleet's behavior in 2009-2013, when FAD prohibition periods were in effect, do not suggest that either of these responses occurred to an appreciable degree. The proportion of the fleet that fished during the two- and three-month FAD prohibition periods of 2009-2013 did not appreciably differ from the proportion that fished during the same months in the years 1997-2008, when no FAD prohibition periods were in place.

    The FAD restrictions for 2016 are similar to those in place in 2013-2015, except that there is a limit of 2,522 FAD sets instead of the October FAD prohibition period that was in place in 2013-2015. 2016 is an unusual year in that SPTT licenses for 2016 were not issued until March, and the number of licensed vessels (34 as of May 2016) is fewer than in recent years. Thus, the level of purse seine fishing effort to date in the Convention Area in 2016 is somewhat lower than typical levels in recent years. As a result, the expected amount of fishing effort in the Convention Area in 2016 is expected to be substantially less than in recent years. Consequently, the 2,522 FAD set limit will be less constraining than it would be if fishing effort were greater. For example, if total fishing effort in 2016 is 5,000 fishing days (about 62% of the average in 2010-2013), and the average number of sets made per fishing day is the same as in 2010-2013 (0.97), and the average number of all sets that are FAD sets (“FAD set ratio”) during periods when FAD sets are allowed is the same as in 2010-2013 (58%), and if fishing effort is evenly distributed through the year, then the number of FAD sets expected in 2016 under the final rule will be about 2,130, somewhat less than the limit of 2,522. Under the assumptions described above, the limit of 2,522 FAD sets will start to become constraining at a total fishing effort level of 5,900 fishing days.

    The effects of the FAD restrictions in 2017 will likely be greater than in 2016 because of the additional prohibition on setting on FADs on the high seas. The magnitude of that additional impact cannot be predicted, but as an indication of the additional impact, in 2010-2013, about 10 percent of the fleet's fishing effort occurred on the high seas. As in 2016, the impact of the 2,522 FAD set limit in 2017 will be primarily a function of the fleet's total level of fishing effort. Given the uncertainty related to the future of the SPTT, fishing effort in 2017 is very difficult to predict. As described above for 2016, the limit will start to become constraining at a fishing effort level of about 5,900 fishing days, but in 2017 that threshold will be applicable only in the portion of the Convention Area that is not high seas (again, about 10 percent of fishing effort has occurred on the high seas in recent years).

    In summary, the economic impacts of the FAD prohibition periods and FAD set limits in 2016 and 2017 and the prohibition on using FADs on the high seas throughout 2017 cannot be quantified, but they could be substantial. Their magnitude will depend in part on market conditions, oceanic conditions, and the fleet's fishing effort in 2016 and 2017, which will be determined in part by any limits on allowable levels of fishing effort in foreign EEZs and on the high seas in the Convention Area.

    3. Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits for 2016-2017

    This element of the final rule will not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The new compliance requirement is for affected vessel owners and operators to cease retaining, landing, and transshipping bigeye tuna caught with longline gear in the Convention Area if and when the bigeye tuna catch limit is reached in 2016 (3,554 mt) or 2017 (3,345 mt), for the remainder of the calendar year, subject to the exceptions and provisos described in other sections of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. Although the restrictions that will come into effect in the event the catch limit is reached will not prohibit longline fishing, per se, they are sometimes referred to in this analysis as constituting a fishery closure. The costs of complying with this requirement are described below to the extent possible.

    Complying with this element of the final rule could cause foregone fishing opportunities and result in associated economic losses in the event that the bigeye tuna catch limit is reached in 2016 or 2017 and the restrictions on retaining, landing, and transshipping bigeye tuna are imposed for portions of either or both of those years. These costs cannot be projected quantitatively with any certainty. The limits of 3,554 mt for 2016 and 3,345 mt for 2017 can be compared to catches in 2005-2008, before limits were in place. The average annual catch in that period was 4,709 mt. Based on that history, as well as fishing patterns in 2009-2015, when limits were in place, there appears to be a relatively high likelihood of the limits being reached in 2016 and 2017. 2015 saw exceptionally high catches of bigeye tuna. Although final estimates for 2015 are not available, the limit of 3,502 mt was estimated to have been reached by, and the fishery was closed on, August 5 (see temporary rule published July 28, 2015; 80 FR 44883). The fishery was subsequently re-opened for vessels included in agreements with the governments of the CNMI and Guam under regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FEP) (50 CFR 665.819). If bigeye tuna catch patterns in 2016 or 2017 are like those in 2005-2008, the limits will likely be reached in the fourth quarter of the year. If catches are more accelerated, as in 2015, the limits could be reached in the third quarter of the year.

    If the bigeye tuna limit is reached before the end of 2016 or 2017 and the Convention Area longline bigeye tuna fishery is consequently closed for the remainder of the calendar year, it can be expected that affected vessels would shift to the next most profitable fishing opportunity (which might be not fishing at all). Revenues from that next best alternative activity reflect the opportunity costs associated with longline fishing for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area. The economic cost of the rule would not be the direct losses in revenues that would result from not being able to fish for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area, but rather the difference in benefits derived from that activity and those derived from the next best activity. The economic cost of the rule on affected entities is examined here by first estimating the direct losses in revenues that would result from not being able to fish for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area as a result of the catch limit being reached. Those losses represent the upper bound of the economic cost of the rule on affected entities. Potential next-best alternative activities that affected entities could undertake are then identified in order to provide a (mostly qualitative) description of the degree to which actual costs would be lower than that upper bound.

    Upper bounds on potential economic costs can be estimated by examining the projected value of longline landings from the Convention Area that would not be made as a result of reaching the limit. For this purpose, it is assumed that, absent this rule, bigeye tuna catches in the Convention Area in each of 2016 and 2017 would be 5,000 mt, slightly more than the average in 2005-2008. Under this scenario, imposition of limits of 3,554 mt for 2016 and 3,345 mt for 2017 would result in 29 percent and 33 percent less bigeye tuna being caught in those two years, respectively, than under no action. In the deep-set fishery, catches of marketable species other than bigeye tuna would likely be affected in a similar way if vessels do not shift to alternative activities. Assuming for the moment that ex-vessel prices would not be affected by a fishery closure, under the rule, revenues in 2016 and 2017 to entities that participate exclusively in the deep-set fishery would be approximately 29 and 33 percent less than under no action in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Average annual ex-vessel revenues (from all species) per mt of bigeye tuna caught during 2005-2008 were about $14,332/mt (in 2015 dollars, derived from the latest available annual report on the pelagic fisheries of the western Pacific Region (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 2016, Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region: 2013 Annual Report. Honolulu, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council). If there are 128 active vessels in the fleet, as there were during 2005-2008, on average, then under the no-action scenario of fleet-wide annual catches of 5,000 mt, each vessel would catch 39 mt/yr, on average. Reductions of 29 percent and 33 percent in 2016 and 2017, respectively, as a result of the limits would be about 11 mt and 13 mt, respectively. Applying the average ex-vessel revenues (from all species) of $14,332 per mt of bigeye tuna caught, the reductions in ex-vessel revenue per vessel would be $162,000 and $185,000, on average, for 2016 and 2017, respectively.

    In the shallow-set fishery, affected entities would bear limited costs in the event of the limit being reached (but most affected entities also participate in the deep-set fishery and might bear costs in that fishery, as described below). The cost would be about equal to the revenues lost from not being able to retain or land bigeye tuna captured while shallow-setting in the Convention Area, or the cost of shifting to shallow-setting in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO), which is to the east of 150 degrees W. longitude, whichever is less. In the fourth calendar quarters of 2005-2008, almost all shallow-setting effort took place in the EPO, and 97 percent of bigeye tuna catches were made there, so the cost of a bigeye tuna fishery closure to shallow-setting vessels would appear to be very limited. During 2005-2008, the shallow-set fishery caught an average of 54 mt of bigeye tuna per year from the Convention Area. If the bigeye tuna catch limit is reached even as early as July 31 in 2016 or 2017, the Convention Area shallow-set fishery would have caught at that point, based on 2005-2008 data, on average, 99 percent of its average annual bigeye tuna catches. Imposition of the landings restriction at that point in 2016 or 2017 would result in the loss of revenues from approximately 0.5 mt (1 percent of 54 mt) of bigeye tuna, which, based on recent ex-vessel prices, would be worth no more than $5,000. Thus, expecting about 26 vessels to engage in the shallow-set fishery (the annual average in 2005-2013), the average of those potentially lost annual revenues would be no more than $200 per vessel. The remainder of this analysis focuses on the potential costs of compliance in the deep-set fishery.

    It should be noted that the impacts on affected entities' profits would be less than impacts on revenues when considering the costs of operating vessels, because costs would be lower if a vessel ceases fishing after the catch limit is reached. Variable costs can be expected to be affected roughly in proportion to revenues, as both variable costs and revenues would stop accruing once a vessel stops fishing. But affected entities' costs also include fixed costs, which are borne regardless of whether a vessel is used to fish—e.g., if it is tied up at the dock during a fishery closure. Thus, profits would likely be adversely impacted proportionately more than revenues.

    As stated previously, actual compliance costs for a given entity might be less than the upper bounds described above, because ceasing fishing would not necessarily be the most profitable alternative opportunity when the catch limit is reached. Two alternative opportunities that are expected to be attractive to affected entities include: (1) Deep-set longline fishing for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area in a manner such that the vessel is considered part of the longline fishery of American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI; and (2) deep-set longline fishing for bigeye tuna and other species in the EPO. These two opportunities are discussed in detail below. Four additional opportunities are: (3) Shallow-set longline fishing for swordfish (for deep-setting vessels that would not otherwise do so), (4) deep-set longline fishing in the Convention Area for species other than bigeye tuna, (5) working in cooperation with vessels operating as part of the longline fisheries of the Participating Territories—specifically, receiving transshipments at sea from them and delivering the fish to the Hawaii market, and (6) vessel repair and maintenance. A study by NMFS of the effects of the WCPO bigeye tuna longline fishery closure in 2010 (Richmond, L., D. Kotowicz, J. Hospital and S. Allen, 2015, Monitoring socioeconomic impacts of Hawai`i's 2010 bigeye tuna closure: Complexities of local management in a global fishery, Ocean & Coastal Management 106:87-96) did not identify the occurrence of any alternative activities that vessels engaged in during the closure, other than deep-setting for bigeye tuna in the EPO, vessel maintenance and repairs, and granting lengthy vacations to employees. Based on those findings, NMFS expects that alternative opportunities (3), (4), (5) and (6) are probably unattractive relative to the first two alternatives, and are not discussed here in any further detail. NMFS recognizes that vessel maintenance and repairs and granting lengthy vacations to employees are two alternative activities that might be taken advantage of if the fishery is closed, but no further analysis of their mitigating effects is provided here.

    Before examining in detail the two potential alternative fishing opportunities that would appear to be the most attractive to affected entities, it is important to note that under the rule, once the limit is reached and the WCPO bigeye tuna fishery is closed, fishing with longline gear both inside and outside the Convention Area during the same trip would be prohibited (except in the case of a fishing trip that is in progress when the limit is reached and the restrictions go into effect). For example, after the restrictions go into effect, during a given fishing trip, a vessel could be used for longline fishing for bigeye tuna in the EPO or for longline fishing for species other than bigeye tuna in the Convention Area, but not for both. This reduced operational flexibility would bring costs, since it would constrain the potential profits from alternative opportunities. Those costs cannot be quantified.

    A vessel could take advantage of the first alternative opportunity (deep-setting for bigeye tuna in a manner such that the vessel is considered part of the longline fishery of one of the three U.S. Participating Territories), by three possible methods: (a) Landing the bigeye tuna in one of the three Participating Territories, (b) holding an American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit, or (c) being considered part of a Participating Territory's longline fishery, by agreement with one or more of the three Participating Territories under the regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the Pelagics FEP (50 CFR 665.819). In the first two circumstances, the vessel would be considered part of the longline fishery of the Participating Territory only if the bigeye tuna were not caught in the portion of the U.S. EEZ around the Hawaiian Islands and were landed by a U.S. vessel operating in compliance with a permit issued under the regulations implementing the Pelagics FEP or the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species.

    With respect to the first method of engaging in alternative opportunity 1 (1.a.) (landing the bigeye tuna in one of the Participating Territories), there are three potentially important constraints. First, whether the fish are landed by the vessel that caught the fish or by a vessel to which the fish were transshipped, the costs of a vessel transiting from the traditional fishing grounds in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Archipelago to one of the Participating Territories would be substantial. Second, none of these three locales has large local consumer markets to absorb substantial additional landings of fresh sashimi-grade bigeye tuna. Third, transporting the bigeye tuna from these locales to larger markets, such as markets in Hawaii, the U.S. west coast, or Japan, would bring substantial additional costs and risks. These cost constraints suggest that this alternative opportunity has limited potential to mitigate the economic impacts of the rule on affected small entities.

    The second method of engaging in the first alternative opportunity (1.b.) (having an American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit), would be available only to the subset of the Hawaii longline fleet that has both Hawaii and American Samoa longline permits (dual permit vessels). Vessels that do not have both permits could obtain them if they meet the eligibility requirements and pay the required costs. For example, the number of dual permit vessels increased from 12 in 2009, when the first WCPO bigeye tuna catch limit was established, to 20 in both 2011 and 2012. The previously cited NMFS study of the 2010 fishery closure (Richmond et al. 2015) found that bigeye tuna landings of dual permit vessels increased substantially after the start of the closure on November 22, 2010, indicating that this was an attractive opportunity for dual permit vessels, and suggesting that those entities might have benefitted from the catch limit and the closure.

    The third method of engaging in the first alternative opportunity (1.c.) (entering into an Amendment 7 agreement), was also available in 2011-2015 (in 2011-2013, under section 113(a) of Public Law 112-55, 125 Stat. 552 et seq., the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, continued by Public Law 113-6, 125 Stat. 603, section 110, the Department of Commerce Appropriations Act, 2013; hereafter, “section 113(a)”). As a result of agreements that were in place in 2011-2014, the WCPO bigeye tuna fishery was not closed in any of those four years because the annual limit for U.S. longline fisheries adopted by the WCPFC was not reached. In 2015 the fishery was closed in August but then reopened when agreements with the CNMI, and later with Guam, went into effect. Participation in an Amendment 7 agreement would likely not come without costs to fishing businesses. As an indication of the possible cost, the terms of the agreement between American Samoa and the members of the Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) in effect in 2011 and 2012 included payments totaling $250,000 from the HLA to the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund, equal to $2,000 per vessel. It is not known how the total cost was allocated among the members of the HLA, so it is possible that the owners of particular vessels paid substantially more than or less than $2,000.

    The second alternative opportunity (2) (deep-set fishing for bigeye tuna in the EPO), would be an option for affected entities only if it is allowed under regulations implementing the decisions of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). Annual longline bigeye tuna catch limits have been in place for the EPO in most years since 2004. Since 2009, a bigeye tuna catch limit of 500 mt for 2016 has applied to U.S. longline vessels greater than 24 meters (m) in length (50 CFR 300.25), and the limits were reached in 2013 (November 11), 2014 (October 31), and 2015 (August 12). The highly seasonal nature of bigeye tuna catches in the EPO and the relatively high inter-annual variation in catches prevents NMFS from making a useful prediction of whether and when the limit in 2016 is likely to be reached. However, the trend in 2013-2015 suggests a relatively high likelihood of it being reached in 2016. If it is reached, this alternative opportunity would not be available for large longline vessels, which constitute about a quarter of the fleet. Currently there is no limit in place for 2017; the IATTC would have to take further action to adopt a limit for 2017, and NMFS would then need to implement it to put it into effect.

    Historical fishing patterns can provide an indication of the likelihood of affected entities making use of the opportunity of deep-setting in the EPO in the event of a closure in the WCPO. The proportion of the U.S. fishery's annual bigeye tuna catches that were captured in the EPO from 2005 through 2008 ranged from 2 percent to 22 percent, and averaged 11 percent. In 2005-2007, that proportion ranged from 2 percent to 11 percent, and may have been constrained by the IATTC-adopted bigeye tuna catch limits established by NMFS (no limit was in place for 2008). Prior to 2009, most of the U.S. annual bigeye tuna catch by longline vessels in the EPO typically was made in the second and third quarters of the year; in 2005-2008 the percentages caught in the first, second, third, and fourth quarters were 14, 33, 50, and 3 percent, respectively. These data demonstrate two historical patterns—that relatively little of the bigeye tuna catch in the longline fishery was typically taken in the EPO (11 percent in 2005-2008, on average), and that most EPO bigeye tuna catches were made in the second and third quarters, with relatively few catches in the fourth quarter when the catch limit will most likely be reached. These two patterns suggest that there could be substantial costs for at least some affected entities that shift to deep-set fishing in the EPO in the event of a closure in the WCPO. On the other hand, fishing patterns since 2008 suggest that a substantial shift in deep-set fishing effort to the EPO could occur. In 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the proportions of the fishery's annual bigeye tuna catches that were captured in the EPO were about 16, 27, 23, 19, 36, and 36 percent, respectively, and most bigeye tuna catches in the EPO were made in the latter half of the calendar years.

    The NMFS study of the 2010 closure (Richmond et al. 2015) found that some businesses—particularly those with smaller vessels—were less inclined than others to fish in the EPO during the closure because of the relatively long distances that would need to be travelled in the relatively rough winter ocean conditions. The study identified a number of factors that likely made fishing in the EPO less lucrative than fishing in the WCPO during that part of the year, including fuel costs and the need to limit trip length in order to maintain fish quality and because of limited fuel storage capacity.

    In addition to affecting the volume of landings of bigeye tuna and other species, the catch limits could affect fish prices, particularly during a fishery closure. Both increases and decreases appear possible. After a limit is reached and landings from the WCPO are prohibited, ex-vessel prices of bigeye tuna (e.g., that are caught in the EPO or by vessels in the longline fisheries of the three U.S. Participating Territories), as well as of other species landed by the fleet, could increase as a result of the constricted supply. This would mitigate economic losses for vessels that are able to continue fishing and landing bigeye tuna during the closure. For example, the NMFS study of the 2010 closure (Richmond et al. 2015) found that ex-vessel prices during the closure in December were 50 percent greater than the average during the previous five Decembers. (It is emphasized that because it was an observational study, neither this nor other observations of what occurred during the closure can be affirmatively linked as effects of the fishery closure.)

    Conversely, a WCPO bigeye tuna fishery closure could cause a decrease in ex-vessel prices of bigeye tuna and other products landed by affected entities if the interruption in the local supply prompts the Hawaii market to shift to alternative (e.g., imported) sources of bigeye tuna. Such a shift could be temporary—that is, limited to 2016 and/or 2017—or it could lead to a more permanent change in the market (e.g., as a result of wholesale and retail buyers wanting to mitigate the uncertainty in the continuity of supply from the Hawaii longline fisheries). In the latter case, if locally caught bigeye tuna fetches lower prices because of stiffer competition with imported bigeye tuna, then ex-vessel prices of local product could be depressed indefinitely. The NMFS study of the 2010 closure (Richmond et al. 2015) found that a common concern in the Hawaii fishing community prior to the closure in November 2010 was retailers having to rely more heavily on imported tuna, causing imports to gain a greater market share in local markets. The study found this not to have been borne out, at least not in 2010, when the evidence gathered in the study suggested that few buyers adapted to the closure by increasing their reliance on imports, and no reports or indications were found of a dramatic increase in the use of imported bigeye tuna during the closure. The study concluded, however, that the 2010 closure caused buyers to give increased consideration to imports as part of their business model, and it was predicted that tuna imports could increase during any future closure. To the extent that ex-vessel prices would be reduced by this action, revenues earned by affected entities would be affected accordingly, and these impacts could occur both before and after the limit is reached, and as described above, possibly after 2017.

    The potential economic effects identified above would vary among individual business entities, but it is not possible to predict the range of variation. Furthermore, the impacts on a particular entity would depend on both that entity's response to the rule and the behavior of other vessels in the fleet, both before and after the catch limit is reached. For example, the greater the number of vessels that take advantage—before the limit is reached—of the first alternative opportunity (1), fishing as part of one of the Participating Territory's fisheries, the lower the likelihood that the limit would be reached. The fleet's behavior in 2011 and 2012 is illustrative. In both those years, most vessels in the Hawaii fleet were included in a section 113(a) arrangement with the government of American Samoa, and as a consequence, the U.S. longline catch limit was not reached in either year. Thus, none of the vessels in the fleet, including those not included in the section 113(a) arrangements, were prohibited from fishing for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area at any time during those two years. The fleet's experience in 2010 (before opportunities under section 113(a) or Amendment 7 to the Pelagics FEP were available) provides another example of how economic impacts could be distributed among different entities. In 2010 the limit was reached and the WCPO bigeye tuna fishery was closed on November 22. As described above, dual permit vessels were able to continue fishing outside the U.S. EEZ around the Hawaiian Archipelago and benefit from the relatively high ex-vessel prices that bigeye tuna fetched during the closure.

    In summary, based on potential reductions in ex-vessel revenues, NMFS has estimated that the upper bound of potential economic impacts of the rule on affected longline fishing entities could be roughly $162,000 per vessel, on average, in 2016 and $185,000 per vessel, on average, in 2017. The actual impacts to most entities are likely to be substantially less than those upper bounds, and for some entities the impacts could be neutral or positive (e.g., if one or more Amendment 7 agreements are in place in 2016 and 2017 and the terms of the agreements are such that the U.S. longline fleet is effectively unconstrained by the catch limits).

    Disproportionate Impacts

    As indicated above, all affected entities are believed to be small entities, so small entities would not be disproportionately affected relative to large entities. Nor would there be disproportionate economic impacts based on home port.

    Purse seine vessels would be impacted differently than longline vessels, but whether the impacts would be disproportional between the two gear types cannot be determined.

    For the longline sector, as described above, there could be disproportionate impacts according to vessel type and size and the type of fishing permits held. A vessel with both a Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permit and an American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit would be considered part of the American Samoa longline fishery (except when fishing in the U.S. EEZ around the Hawaiian Archipelago), so it would not be subject to the catch limits. Because the EPO bigeye tuna catch limit for 2016 applies only to vessels greater than 24 m in length, in the event that the WCPO bigeye tuna fishery is closed and the 500 mt limit is reached in the EPO, only vessels 24 m or less in length would be able to take advantage of the alternative opportunity of deep-setting for bigeye tuna in the EPO. On the other hand, smaller vessels can be expected to find it more difficult, risky, and/or costly to fish in the EPO during the relatively rough winter months than larger vessels. If there are any large entities among the affected entities, and if the vessels of the large entities are larger than those of small entities, then it is possible that small entities could be disproportionately affected relative to large entities.

    Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities

    NMFS has sought to identify alternatives that would minimize the rule's economic impact on small entities (“significant alternatives”). Taking no action could result in lesser adverse economic impacts than the action for affected entities in the purse seine and longline fisheries (but as described below, for some affected longline entities, the rule could be more economically beneficial than no-action), but NMFS has determined that the no-action alternative would be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the Convention, and NMFS has rejected it for that reason. Alternatives identified for each of the three elements of the rule are discussed below.

    1. Purse Seine Observer Requirements

    NMFS has not identified any significant alternatives to the purse seine observer requirements that would comport with U.S. obligations to implement the Commission decisions regarding observer coverage.

    2. Purse Seine FAD Restrictions for 2016-2017

    NMFS considered in detail one set of alternatives to the restrictions on the use of FADs. Under CMM 2015-01, the United States could use either of two options in either of 2016 and 2017 (in addition to the three-month FAD closure periods in both years and the prohibition on FAD sets on the high seas in 2017). One option is a fourth-month FAD prohibition period, in October. The second option, which is part of this rule, is an annual limit of 2,522 FAD sets. The relative effects of the two options would depend on the total amount of fishing effort exerted by the U.S. purse seine fleet in the Convention Area in a given year. If total fishing effort is relatively high, an October FAD prohibition period would likely allow for more FAD sets than a limit of 2,522 FAD sets, and thus likely cause lesser adverse impacts. The opposite would be the case for relatively low levels of total fishing effort. For example, given the fleet's recent historical average FAD set ratio of 58 percent when FAD-setting is allowed (2010-2013), and assuming an even distribution of sets throughout the year, the estimated “breakeven” point between the two options is 6,502 total sets for the year. The levels of fishing effort in 2016 and 2017 are very difficult to predict; they will be determined largely by the level of participation in the fishery (number of vessels) and any limits imposed on fishing effort. Fishing effort in foreign zones and on the high seas in the SPTT Area is likely to be limited by the terms of arrangements under the SPTT. Fishing effort elsewhere in the Convention Area (e.g., in the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas outside the Treaty Area) will be constrained by any limits established by NMFS to implement the provisions of CMM 2015-01. NMFS has not yet established or proposed any such limits for 2016 or 2017, and cannot speculate what limits it might propose, but a point of reference are the limits that were in place in 2009-2015. Those limits applied to the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine, or ELAPS, which consists of all areas of high seas and U.S. exclusive economic zone in the Convention Area between the latitudes of 20 °N. and 20 °S. The limits in 2009-2013 were 2,588 fishing days per year. The limits in 2014-2015 were 1,828 fishing days per year. With respect to numbers of vessels and allowable fishing effort limits under the SPTT, 2016 is an unusual year in that SPTT licenses for 2016 were not issued until March, and the number of licensed vessels (34 as of May 2016) is fewer than in recent years. Thus, there has been relatively little purse seine fishing effort to date in the Convention Area in 2016, and NMFS expects that total fishing effort in 2016 is likely to be less than 6,502 sets (the estimated breakeven point between the two options). For reference, the average number of sets made annually in 2010-2013, when an average of 38 vessels were active in the fishery, was 7,835. The average number of fishing days made annually in 2010-2013 was 8,030, so the average number of sets made per fishing day was 0.97. Predicting the situation for 2017 is even more difficult than for 2016, but current circumstances suggest that participation in 2017 could be less than in recent years. Also, because setting on FADs on the high seas will be prohibited in 2017 under this rule, the estimated breakeven point of 6,502 total sets applies not everywhere in the Convention Area, but only those portions that are not high seas. Assuming that about 10 percent of fishing effort takes place on the high seas, as in 2010-2013, the breakeven point for the Convention Area as a whole is about 7,224 total sets. Assuming 0.97 sets per fishing day, on average, as occurred in 2010-2013, this equates roughly to 7,371 fishing days. This is slightly less than the average annual fishing effort in 2010-2013 (7,835 sets; 8,030 fishing days), but again, given current circumstances and uncertainty surrounding the future of the SPTT, NMFS expects that total fishing effort in 2017 is likely to be less than that breakeven level. Based on the above expectations and assumptions for conditions in 2016 and 2017, a FAD prohibition period in October is likely to have greater adverse impacts on fishing businesses than an annual limit of 2,522 FAD sets, in both 2016 and 2017. After considering the objectives of CMM 2015-01, the expected economic impacts of both alternatives on U.S. fishing operations and the nation as a whole, and expected environmental and other effects, NMFS expects that for both 2016 and 2017, a limit of 2,522 FAD sets is likely to be somewhat more cost-effective than a FAD prohibition period in October. For this reason, NMFS has rejected the latter alternative.

    3. Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits

    NMFS has not identified any significant alternatives to this element of the rule, other than the no-action alternative.

    Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. NMFS has prepared small entity compliance guides for this rule, and will send the appropriate guide(s) to holders of permits in the relevant fisheries. The guides and this final rule also will be available at www.fpir.noaa.gov and by request from NMFS PIRO (see ADDRESSES).

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300

    Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: June 17, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

    PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS Subpart O—Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart O, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

    2. In § 300.222, add paragraph (ww) to read as follows:
    § 300.222 Prohibitions.

    (ww) Fail to carry an observer as required in § 300.223(e).

    3. In § 300.223: a. Revise paragraph (b)(1) introductory text and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii); and b. Add paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (iv), and paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 300.223 Purse seine fishing restrictions.

    (b) * * *

    (1) During the periods and in the areas specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels of the United States shall not do any of the activities described below in the Convention Area in the area between 20° N. latitude and 20° S. latitude:

    (2) * * *

    (i) From July 1 through September 30, 2016;

    (ii) From July 1 through September 30, 2017;

    (iii) During any period specified in a Federal Register notice issued by NMFS announcing that NMFS has determined that U.S. purse seine vessels have collectively made, or are projected to make, 2,522 sets on FADs in the Convention Area in the area between 20° N. latitude and 20° S. latitude in 2016 or 2017. The Federal Register notice will be published at least seven days in advance of the start of the period announced in the notice. NMFS will estimate and project the number of FAD sets using vessel logbooks, and/or other information sources that it deems most appropriate and reliable for the purposes of this section; and

    (iv) In any area of high seas, from January 1 through December 31, 2017.

    (e) Observer coverage. (1) A fishing vessel of the United States may not be used to fish with purse seine gear in the Convention Area without a WCPFC observer on board. This requirement does not apply to fishing trips that meet either of the following conditions:

    (i) The portion of the fishing trip within the Convention Area takes place entirely within areas under the jurisdiction of a single nation other than the United States; or,

    (ii) No fishing takes place during the fishing trip in the Convention Area in the area between 20 °N. latitude and 20 °S. latitude.

    (2) Owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels subject to paragraph (e)(1) of this section must accommodate WCPFC observers in accordance with the provisions of § 300.215(c).

    (3) Meeting either of the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section does not exempt a fishing vessel from having to carry and accommodate a WCPFC observer pursuant to § 300.215 or other applicable regulations.

    4. In § 300.224, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 300.224 Longline fishing restrictions.

    (a) Establishment of bigeye tuna catch limits. (1) During calendar year 2016 there is a limit of 3,554 metric tons of bigeye tuna that may be captured in the Convention Area by longline gear and retained on board by fishing vessels of the United States.

    (2) During calendar year 2017 there is a limit of 3,345 metric tons of bigeye tuna that may be captured in the Convention Area by longline gear and retained on board by fishing vessels of the United States.

    [FR Doc. 2016-14967 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 160411325-6535-02] RIN 0648-XE568 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues this final rule to implement annual management measures and harvest specifications to establish the allowable catch levels (i.e., annual catch limit (ACL)/harvest guideline (HG)) for the northern subpopulation of Pacific sardine (hereafter, simply Pacific sardine), in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017. These specifications were determined according to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This action includes a prohibition on directed non-tribal Pacific sardine commercial fishing for Pacific sardine off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California, which is required because the estimated 2016 biomass of Pacific sardine is below the biomass threshold specified in the HG control rule. Under this action, Pacific sardine may still be harvested as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or as incidental catch in other fisheries; the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine would initially be limited to 40-percent by weight of all fish per trip when caught with other CPS or up to 2 metric tons (mt) when caught with non-CPS. The annual catch limit (ACL) for the 2016-2017 Pacific sardine fishing year is 8,000 mt. This rule is intended to conserve and manage the Pacific sardine stock off the U.S. West Coast.

    DATES:

    Effective July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the Pacific sardine fishery in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the CPS FMP. Annual specifications published in the Federal Register establish the allowable harvest levels (i.e., overfishing limit (OFL)/ACL/HG) for each Pacific sardine fishing year. The purpose of this final rule is to implement these annual catch reference points for the 2016-2017 fishing year. This final rule adopts, without changes, the catch levels and restrictions that NMFS proposed in the rule published on May 26, 2016 (81 FR 33454), including an OFL and an ABC that takes into consideration uncertainty surrounding the current estimate of biomass for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast.

    The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set these annual catch levels for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the annual specification framework and control rules in the FMP. These control rules include the HG control rule, which, in conjunction with the OFL and ABC rules in the FMP, are used to manage harvest levels for Pacific sardine, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. According to the FMP, the quota for the principal commercial fishery is determined using the FMP-specified HG formula. The HG formula in the CPS FMP is HG = [(Biomass−CUTOFF) * FRACTION * DISTRIBUTION] with the parameters described as follows:

    1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific sardine age one and above. For the 2016-2017 management season this is 106,137 mt.

    2. CUTOFF. This is the biomass level below which no HG is set. The FMP established this level at 150,000 mt.

    3. DISTRIBUTION. The average portion of the Pacific sardine biomass estimated in the EEZ off the Pacific coast. The FMP established this at 87 percent.

    4. FRACTION. The temperature-varying harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 150,000 mt that may be harvested.

    As described above, the Pacific sardine HG control rule, the primary mechanism for setting the annual directed commercial fishery quota, includes a CUTOFF parameter which has been set as a biomass level of 150,000 mt. This amount is subtracted from the annual biomass estimate before calculating the applicable HG for the fishing year. Therefore, because this year's biomass estimate is below that value, the formula results in an HG of zero and therefore no Pacific sardine are available for the commercial directed fishery during the 2016-2017 fishing season.

    At the April 2016 Council meeting, the Council's SSC approved, and the Council adopted, the “Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2016 for U.S.A. Management in 2016-2017”, completed by NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center and the resulting Pacific sardine biomass estimate of 106,137 mt as the best available science for setting harvest specifications. Based on recommendations from its SSC and other advisory bodies, the Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, an OFL of 23,085 mt, an ABC of 19,236 mt, and a prohibition on sardine catch unless it is harvested as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or incidental to other fisheries for the 2016-2017 Pacific sardine fishing year. As additional management measures, the Council also recommended, and NMFS is implementing, an ACL of 8,000 mt and specifying that the incidental catch of Pacific sardine in other CPS fisheries be managed with the following automatic inseason actions to reduce the potential for both targeting and discard of Pacific sardine:

    • An incidental allowance of 40 percent Pacific sardine per landing by weight in non-treaty CPS fisheries until a total of 2,000 mt of Pacific sardine are landed.

    • When 2,000 mt are landed, the incidental per-landing allowance would be reduced to 30 percent until a total of 5,000 mt of Pacific sardine have been landed.

    • When 5,000 mt have been landed, the incidental per-landing allowance would be reduced to 10 percent for the remainder of the 2016-2017 fishing year.

    Because Pacific sardine is known to comingle with other CPS stocks, these incidental allowances allow for the continued prosecution of these other important CPS fisheries and reduce the potential discard of sardine. Additionally, non-CPS fisheries are allowed to retain up to 2 mt per landing of sardine harvested incidentally.

    The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of attainment of any of the incidental catch levels described above and subsequent changes to allowable incidental catch percentages. Additionally, to ensure that the regulated community is informed of any closure, NMFS will also make announcements through other means available, including fax, email, and mail to fishermen, processors, and state fishery management agencies.

    As explained in the proposed rule, 800 mt of the ACL are being set aside for tribal harvest use per a request from the Quinault Indian Nation.

    Detailed information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report “Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2016 for U.S.A. Management in 2016-2017” (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Comment and Response

    On May 26, 2016, NMFS published a proposed rule for this action and solicited public comments (81 FR 33454), with a public comment period that ended on June 10, 2016. NMFS received one comment letter—explained below—during the comment period. After consideration of the public comment, no changes were made from the proposed rule. For further background information on this action please refer to the preamble of the proposed rule. NMFS summarizes and responds below to the comment letter below.

    Comment: The commenter expressed support for the prohibition on directed commercial sardine fishing, but is opposed to the proposed ACL level, and requested that NMFS instead set an ACL of no more than 1,000 mt to be divided among the live bait and tribal sectors, and to accommodate limited bycatch. The commenter expressed an opinion that the proposed ACL of 8,000 mt fails to follow the harvest control rule because the FMP states that the harvest rate should be zero when the biomass drops below the CUTOFF.

    The comment also requested reconsideration of the sardine harvest control rule and other aspects of sardine management, including but not limited to the existing CUTOFF and Minimum Stock Size Threshold values. (These parameters, as well as other changes to the sardine harvest control rule and management mentioned by the commenter are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and will not be addressed below.)

    Response: First, NMFS notes that the stock assessment for the 2016-2017 fishing year, as with each annual stock assessment, went through a multi-stage review process including being reviewed and discussed by the Council, and the Council's SSC, CPS management team, and CPS advisory subpanel to ensure that the best available science is utilized when calculating the biomass estimate. This year's biomass estimate used for the 2016-2017 specifications, along with the resulting OFL and ABC, was endorsed by the Council's SSC and NMFS as the best available science. Although this biomass estimate is still below the CUTOFF value, triggering the second year of the closure of the primary directed fishery, the estimate is slightly higher than last year's estimate.

    NMFS disagrees that the ACL implemented in this rule is not in line with the FMP or that it fails to prevent overfishing or will “contribute to the continued decline of the sardine population to an overfished condition”. The ACL should be viewed in the context of the OFL for the northern subpopulation of Pacific Sardine of 23,085 mt and an ABC of 19,236 mt that takes into account scientific uncertainty surrounding the OFL. These reference limits were recommended by the Council based on the control rules in the FMP and were endorsed the Council's SSC. The commenter does not note disagreement with these levels. By definition, fishing could conceivably occur up to these levels and overfishing would not be occurring and therefore fishing would not be the cause of the stock moving towards an overfished state. An ACL of 8,000 mt is well below both the OFL and ABC, under which incidental catch of sardine will be managed, along with the multiple safeguards in place to keep the catch under that level, the management measures implemented by this rule are more than adequate to prevent exceeding the OFL.

    In response to the commenter's opinion that overall harvest rate should be zero when the biomass drops below the 150,000 mt CUTOFF, NMFS notes that the FMP does not forbid incidental, live bait or tribal harvest in this situation. The reference provided by the commenter to of a harvest rate of zero is specific to the primary directed fishery; as explained above, this action sets the directed harvest rate at zero. Although the commenter states that the harvest rate in this situation should be zero, the commenter nevertheless also seems to agree that the FMP allows incidental, live bait, or tribal harvest if the directed harvest is set at zero. The commenter specifically cites the CPS FMP language that allows for live bait harvest when the estimated biomass drops below the CUTOFF. Additionally, although the commenter disagrees with setting the ACL at 8,000 mt because it would allow a harvest rate above zero percent (which the commenter argues would violate the FMP), the commenter supports an ACL of 1,000 mt (implying that the commenter recognizes that the FMP allows a harvest rate above zero percent).

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law.

    NMFS finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for the establishment of these final harvest specifications for the 2016-2017 Pacific sardine fishing season. In accordance with the FMP, this rule was recommended by the Council at its meeting in April 2016, the contents of which were based on the best available new information on the population status of Pacific sardine that became available at that time. Making these final specifications effective on July 1 is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific sardine resource. The FMP requires a prohibition on directed fishing for Pacific sardine for the 2016-2017 fishing year because the sardine biomass is below the CUTOFF. The purpose of the CUTOFF in the FMP—and prohibiting directed fishing when the biomass drops below this level—is to protect the stock when biomass is low and provide a buffer of spawning stock that is protected from fishing and available for use in rebuilding the stock. A delay in the effectiveness of this rule for a full 30 days would not allow the implementation of this prohibition prior to the expiration of the closure of the directed fishery on July 1, 2016, which was imposed under the 2015-2016 annual specifications.

    Delaying the effective date of this rule beyond July 1 would be contrary to the public interest because reducing Pacific sardine biomass beyond the limits set out in this action could decrease the sustainability of the Pacific sardine, as well as cause future harvest limits to be even lower under the harvest control rule, thereby reducing future profits of the fishery.

    These final specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

    This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paper Reduction Act.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 17, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14955 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 150916863-6211-02] RIN 0648-XE694 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; reallocation.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is exchanging unused flathead sole and yellowfin sole Community Development Quota (CDQ) for rock sole CDQ acceptable biological catch (ABC) reserves in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2016 total allowable catch of rock sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area to be harvested.

    DATES:

    Effective June 24, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The 2016 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ reserves specified in the BSAI are 2,247 mt, 5,710 mt, and 15,808 mt as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016), and one flatfish exchange (81 FR 21482, April 12, 2016). The 2016 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves are 4,842 mt, 11,528 mt, and 6,844 mt as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016), and one flatfish exchange (81 FR 21482, April 12, 2016).

    The Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association has requested that NMFS exchange 15 mt of flathead sole and 35 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ reserves for 50 mt of rock sole CDQ ABC reserve under § 679.31(d). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.31(d), NMFS exchanges 15 mt of flathead sole and 35 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ reserves for 50 mt of rock sole CDQ ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the associated total annual catches (TAC) and CDQ ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts. Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016), as revised by one flatfish exchange (81 FR 21842, April 12, 2016), are revised as follows:

    Table 11—Final 2016 Community Development Quota (CDQ) Reserves, Incidental Catch Amounts (ICAs), and Amendment 80 Allocations of the Aleutian Islands Pacific Ocean Perch, and BSAI Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole TACs [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector Pacific ocean perch Eastern
  • Aleutian
  • district
  • Central
  • Aleutian
  • district
  • Western
  • Aleutian
  • district
  • Flathead
  • sole
  • BSAI Rock
  • sole
  • BSAI Yellowfin
  • sole
  • BSAI
    TAC 7,900 7,000 9,000 20,985 56,750 144,365 CDQ 845 749 963 2,232 5,760 15,773 ICA 200 75 10 5,000 6,000 3,500 BSAI trawl limited access 685 618 161 0 0 14,979 Amendment 80 6,169 5,558 7,866 13,753 44,990 110,113 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative 3,271 2,947 4,171 1,411 11,129 43,748 Alaska Seafood Cooperative 2,898 2,611 3,695 12,342 33,861 66,365 Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Table 13—Final 2016 and 2017 ABC Surplus, Community Development Quota (CDQ) ABC Reserves, and Amendment 80 ABC Reserves in the BSAI for Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector 2016
  • Flathead sole
  • 2016
  • Rock sole
  • 2016
  • Yellowfin sole
  • 2017
  • Flathead sole
  • 2017
  • Rock sole
  • 2017
  • Yellowfin sole
  • ABC 66,250 161,100 211,700 64,580 145,000 203,500 TAC 20,985 56,750 144,365 21,000 57,100 144,000 ABC surplus 45,265 104,350 67,335 43,580 87,900 59,500 ABC reserve 45,265 104,350 67,335 43,580 87,900 59,500 CDQ ABC reserve 4,857 11,478 6,879 4,663 9,405 6,367 Amendment 80 ABC reserve 40,408 92,872 60,456 38,917 78,495 53,134 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative for 2016 1 4,145 22,974 24,019 n/a n/a n/a Alaska Seafood Cooperative for 2016 1 36,263 69,898 36,437 n/a n/a n/a 1 The 2017 allocations for Amendment 80 species between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2016.
    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the flatfish exchange by the Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association in the BSAI. Since these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 20, 2016.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15001 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 122 Friday, June 24, 2016 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 532 RIN 3206-AN38 Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed rule that would redefine the geographic boundaries of several appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas for pay-setting purposes. Based on recent reviews of Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) boundaries in a number of wage areas, OPM proposes redefinitions affecting the following wage areas: Salinas-Monterey, CA; San Francisco, CA; New London, CT; Central and Western Massachusetts; Cincinnati, OH: Dayton, OH, Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon; and Spokane, WA.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on or before July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 3206-AN38,” using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Brenda L. Roberts, Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Leave, Employee Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 7H31, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415-8200.

    Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606-2838 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OPM is issuing a proposed rule to redefine the geographic boundaries of several appropriated fund FWS wage areas. These changes are based on recommendations of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the statutory national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters affecting the pay of FWS employees. From time to time, FPRAC reviews the boundaries of wage areas and provides OPM with recommendations for changes if the Committee finds that changes are warranted.

    OPM considers the following regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.211 when defining FWS wage area boundaries:

    (i) Distance, transportation facilities, and geographic features;

    (ii) Commuting patterns; and

    (iii) Similarities in overall population, employment, and the kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments.

    In addition, OPM regulations at 5 CFR 532.211 do not permit splitting MSAs for the purpose of defining a wage area, except in very unusual circumstances.

    The U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines MSAs and maintains and updates the definitions of MSA boundaries following each decennial census. MSAs are composed of counties and are defined on the basis of a central urbanized area—a contiguous area of relatively high population density. Additional surrounding counties are included in MSAs if they have strong social and economic ties to central counties.

    When the boundaries of wage areas were first established in the 1960s, there were fewer MSAs than there are today and the boundaries of the then existing MSAs were much smaller. Most MSAs were contained within the boundaries of a wage area. MSAs have expanded each decade and in some cases now extend beyond the boundaries of the wage area.

    FPRAC recently reviewed several wage areas where boundaries subdivide certain MSAs and has recommended by consensus that OPM implement the changes described in this proposed rule. These changes would be effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 30 days following publication of the final regulations.

    San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA

    San Benito and Santa Clara Counties, CA, comprise the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA. The San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA is split between the Salinas-Monterey, CA, wage area and the San Francisco, CA, wage area. San Benito County is part of the Salinas-Monterey area of application while Santa Clara County is part of the San Francisco survey area.

    OPM proposes to redefine San Benito County to the San Francisco area of application so that the entire San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA is in one wage area. There are currently 15 FWS employees stationed in San Benito County.

    Worcester, MA-CT MSA

    Windham County, CT, and Worcester County, MA, comprise the Worcester, MA-CT MSA. The Worcester MSA is split between the New London, CT, wage area and the Central and Western Massachusetts, MA, wage area. Windham County is part of the New London area of application and Worcester County is part of the Central and Western Massachusetts area of application, except that the towns of Warren and West Warren in Worcester County are part of the Central and Western Massachusetts survey area and the towns of Blackstone and Millville in Worcester County are part of the Narragansett Bay, RI, survey area.

    OPM proposes to redefine Windham County to the Central and Western Massachusetts area of application so that the entire Worcester, MA-CT MSA is in one wage area. There are currently no FWS employees stationed in Windham County.

    Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN MSA

    Dearborn, Ohio, and Union Counties, IN; Boone, Bracken, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Kenton, and Pendleton Counties, KY; and Brown, Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties, OH, comprise the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN MSA. The Cincinnati MSA is split between the Cincinnati, OH, wage area and the Dayton, OH, wage area. Dearborn County, IN; Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties, KY; and Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties, OH, are part of the Cincinnati survey area. Ohio County, IN; Bracken, Gallatin, Grant, and Pendleton Counties, KY; and Brown and Butler Counties, OH, are part of the Cincinnati area of application. Union County is part of the Dayton area of application.

    OPM proposes to redefine Union County to the Cincinnati area of application so that the entire Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN MSA is in one wage area. There are currently no FWS employees stationed in Union County.

    Walla Walla, WA MSA

    Columbia and Walla Walla Counties, WA, comprise the Walla Walla, WA MSA. The Walla Walla MSA is split between the Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon wage area and the Spokane, WA, wage area. Walla Walla County is part of the Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon survey area and Columbia County is part of the Spokane area of application.

    OPM proposes to redefine Columbia County to the Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon area of application so that the entire Walla Walla, WA MSA is in one wage area. There are currently three FWS employees stationed in Columbia County.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would affect only Federal agencies and employees.

    List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

    Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.

    Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows:

    PART 532—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS 1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532—Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas 2. Appendix C to subpart B is amended by revising the wage area listings for the Salinas-Monterey, CA; San Francisco, CA; New London, CT; Central and Western Massachusetts; Cincinnati, OH: Dayton, OH, Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon; and Spokane, WA, wage areas to read as follows: * * * * * CALIFORNIA * * * * * Salinas-Monterey Survey Area California: Monterey Area of Application. Survey area. * * * * * San Francisco California: Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Area of Application. Survey area plus: California: Mendocino San Benito Santa Cruz Sonoma * * * * * CONNECTICUT * * * * * New London Survey Area Connecticut: New London Area of Application. Survey area. * * * * * MASSACHUSETTS * * * * * Central and Western Massachusetts Survey Area Massachusetts The following cities and towns in: Hampden County Agawam Chicopee East Longmeadow Feeding Hills Hampden Holyoke Longmeadow Ludlow Monson Palmer Southwick Springfield Three Rivers Westfield West Springfield Wilbraham Hampshire County Easthampton Granby Hadley Northampton South Hadley Worcester County Warren West Warren Area of Application. Survey area plus: Connecticut: Windham Massachusetts: Berkshire Franklin Worcester (except Blackstone and Millville) The following cities and towns in: Hampden County Blandford Brimfield Chester Granville Holland Montgomery Russell Tolland Wales Hampshire County Amherst Belchertown Chesterfield Cummington Goshen Hatfield Huntington Middlefield Pelham Plainfield Southampton Ware Westhampton Williamsburg Worthington Middlesex County Ashby Shirley Townsend New Hampshire: Belknap Carroll Cheshire Grafton Hillsborough Merrimack Sullivan Vermont: Addison Bennington Caledonia Essex Lamoille Orange Orleans Rutland Washington Windham Windsor * * * * * OHIO Cincinnati Survey Area Indiana: Dearborn Kentucky: Boone Campbell Kenton Ohio: Clermont Hamilton Warren Area of Application. Survey area plus: Indiana: Franklin Ohio Ripley Switzerland Union Kentucky: Bracken Carroll Gallatin Grant Mason Pendleton Ohio: Adams Brown Butler Highland * * * * * Dayton Ohio: Champaign Clark Greene Miami Montgomery Preble Area of Application. Survey area plus: Indiana: Randolph Wayne Ohio: Auglaize Clinton Darke Logan Shelby * * * * * WASHINGTON * * * * * Southeastern Washington-Eastern Oregon Survey Area Oregon: Umatilla Washington: Benton Franklin Walla Walla Yakima Area of Application. Survey area plus: Oregon: Baker Grant Harney Malheur Morrow Union Wallowa Wheeler Washington: Columbia Kittitas (Only includes the Yakima Firing Range portion) Spokane Survey Area Washington: Spokane Area of Application. Survey area plus: Idaho: Benewah Bonner Boundary Clearwater Idaho Kootenai Latah Lewis Nez Perce Shoshone Washington: Adams Asotin Chelan (Does not include the North Cascades National Park portion) Douglas Ferry Garfield Grant Kittitas (Does not include the Yakima Firing Range portion) Lincoln Okanogan Pend Oreille Stevens Whitman * * * * *
    [FR Doc. 2016-14912 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Parts 2 and 3 [Docket No. APHIS-2012-0107] Petition To Amend Animal Welfare Act Regulations To Prohibit Public Contact With Big Cats, Bears, and Nonhuman Primates AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are reopening the comment period for a petition requesting amendments to the Animal Welfare Act regulations and standards pertaining to physical contact with dangerous animals. We are especially interested in receiving public comments on the additional questions included in this notice. We are providing information about upcoming virtual stakeholder listening sessions and other efforts intended to gather additional public comment. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments and further inform our thinking on the handling of dangerous animals.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the notice published on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47215) and reopened on October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63408) is reopened. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 31, 2016. The virtual listening sessions described in this notice will be held on Wednesday, June 29, 2016, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. eastern time (ET); Wednesday, July 6, 2016, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. ET; and Thursday, August 4, 2016, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. ET. Registration is required to participate in the listening sessions. Links for registering to participate in the virtual listening sessions are included in the Web site in footnote 2 below.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0107.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2012-0107, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0107 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Barbara Kohn, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 851-3751.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 5, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 47215-47217, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0107) a notice 1 making available for comment a petition requesting amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations and standards, including amendments to prohibit licensees from allowing individuals, with certain exceptions, from coming into direct or physical contact with big cats, bears, or nonhuman primates of any age, to define the term “sufficient distance,” and to prohibit the public handling of young or immature big cats, bears, and nonhuman primates.

    1 To view the notice, petition, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0107.

    Comments were required to be received on or before October 4, 2013. In a subsequent notice published October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63408), we reopened the comment period for an additional 45 days to November 18, 2013. We received 15,379 comments.

    We are again reopening the comment period and will accept all comments we receive on or before August 31, 2016. We are especially interested in receiving public comments on the questions presented below. Responses to these questions will help further inform our thinking on the handling of dangerous animals:

    1. What factors and characteristics should determine if a type of animal is suitable for public contact? When the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) describes an animal as dangerous, there are certain characteristics we use to classify the animals, such as the size, strength, and instinctual behavior of an animal, risk of disease transmission between animals and humans (i.e., zoonoses such as Herpes B), and ability to safely and humanely handle (or control) the animal in all situations.

    2. What animals should APHIS consider including under the definition of dangerous animals? For example, are all nonhuman primates dangerous? We currently identify some animals as dangerous, including, but not limited to, nondomestic felids (such as lions, tigers, jaguars, mountain lions, cheetahs, and any hybrids thereof), wolves, bears, certain nonhuman primates (such as gorillas, chimps, and macaques), elephants, hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses, moose, bison, camels, and common animals known to carry rabies.

    3. What animals may pose a public health risk and why? What risks does public contact with dangerous animals present to the individual animal and the species and why?

    4. What are the best methods of permanent, usable animal identification for dangerous animals?

    5. What are the most humane training techniques to use with dangerous animals?

    6. What scientific information (peer-reviewed journals preferred) is available that identifies the appropriate weaning ages for nondomestic felids, bears, elephants, wolves, nonhuman primates, and other dangerous animals?

    7. What industry, organizational, or governmental standards have been published for the handling and care of dangerous animals?

    8. What constitutes sufficient barriers for enclosures around dangerous animals to keep members of the public away from the animals? What methods (structures, distance, attendants, etc.) are needed to prevent entry of the public into an enclosure and keep the animal safe while still allowing for meaningful viewing?

    In addition to inviting the public to comment on these questions, we are making available for the public a Web site 2 containing background information on the topics explained in this notice. We also plan to convene three virtual listening sessions during the summer, allowing stakeholders to participate regardless of their location before the close of the public comment period. The dates of each virtual listening session are as follows:

    2https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/Handling-Dangerous-Animals-Feedback-Page.

    • June 29, 2016, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. eastern time (ET);

    • July 6, 2016, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. ET; and

    • August 4, 2016, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. ET.

    Persons wishing to participate in the virtual listening sessions are required to register prior to the session. Links for registering to participate in each listening session are included in the Web site in footnote 2. Upon registration, participants will be provided with a call-in number and access code. The virtual listening sessions will provide the public with opportunities to share their views on the handling of dangerous animals and provide us with additional material to inform our thinking on this topic.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of June 2016. William H. Clay, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14976 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [Docket No. PRM-72-6; NRC-2008-0649] Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for rulemaking; denial.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying Requests 4 and 9 of a petition for rulemaking (PRM), dated November 24, 2008, filed by Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director of C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. (the petitioner). The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations concerning dry cask safety, security, transferability, and longevity. The petitioner made 12 specific requests. The NRC previously denied 9 of these requests and accepted 1 request for consideration in the rulemaking process. Two remaining requests were reserved for future rulemaking determinations. The purpose of this Federal Register notice is to announce the NRC's final decision to deny these two remaining requests.

    DATES:

    The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-72-6, is closed on June 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0649 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0649. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Torre Taylor, telephone: 301-415-7900, email: [email protected]; or Haile Lindsay, telephone: 301-415-0616, email: [email protected]; both of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. The Petition

    Section 2.802 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Petition for rulemaking,” provides an opportunity for any interested person to petition the Commission to issue, amend, or rescind any regulation. The NRC received a PRM, dated November 24, 2008, filed by Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director of C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. (ADAMS Accession No. ML083470148). The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations concerning dry cask safety, security, transferability, and longevity. The petitioner made 12 specific requests in the petition. The petition was noticed in the Federal Register for public comment on March 3, 2009 (74 FR 9178). The NRC received over 9,000 comment letters, including comments from industry, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), non-governmental organizations, and members of the public. The overwhelming majority of the comment letters received were identical (form) emails. The Nuclear Energy Institute and the Strategic Team and Resource Sharing organization opposed the petition. All form email comments, ASME, and the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists Social Justice Committee supported the petition. The NRC staff discussed its review of the petition and the comments received in SECY-12-0079, “Partial Closure of Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-72-6) C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.,” dated June 1, 2012 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML12068A090).

    The comments were summarized in a Federal Register notice, dated October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63254). The NRC denied 9 of the petitioner's 12 requests (Requests 1, 2, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12), accepted one request (Request 11) for consideration as part of the ongoing independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) security rulemaking effort (RIN 3150-A178; Docket ID NRC-2009-0558), and reserved 2 requests for future rulemaking determination (Requests 4 and 9) in that Federal Register notice. The two reserved requests, as stated in the petition, are:

    (1) Request 4: “To require that dry casks are qualified for transport at the time of onsite storage approval certification. Transport capacity for shipment offsite must be required in the event of a future environmental emergency or for matters of security to an alternative storage location or repository and must be part of the approval criteria. NRC Chapter 1 of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1567) should clearly define Part 72.122(i); 72.236(h); and in 72.236(m).”

    (2) Request 9: “To require a safe and secure hot cell transfer station coupled with an auxiliary pool to be built as part of an upgraded ISFSI design certification and licensing process. The utility must have dry cask transfer capability for maintenance as well as emergency situations after decommissioning for as long as the spent fuel remains onsite. The NRC has to date not approved a dry cask transfer system.”

    II. Reasons for Denial

    The NRC is denying the petitioner's Requests 4 and 9, because the proposed changes to the NRC requirements are unnecessary to ensure safe and secure storage and transportation of spent fuel. The NRC had reserved a decision on these two requests, because the NRC staff was conducting an ongoing analysis of: (1) Spent fuel storage and transportation compatibility; (2) regulatory changes that might be necessary to continue safe storage of fuel in casks beyond the initial storage period over multiple renewal periods; (3) the behavior of high burnup fuel during extended storage periods; and (4) regulation of stand-alone ISFSIs. This analysis was being done as part of the NRC staff's work related to COMSECY-10-0007, “Project Plan for the Regulatory Program Review to Support Extended Storage and Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel” (ADAMS Accession No. ML101390413). Part of this analysis also involved evaluating the licensing programs for spent fuel storage for any improvements. As a consequence of this work, as well as considering information and insight from other sources, the NRC can now resolve the outstanding requests from the petitioner.

    Petitioner Request 4

    The NRC is denying Request 4 for the following reasons. In reviewing Request 4, the NRC staff interpreted the petition to request that the NRC require that a transportation package certificate of compliance be approved at the same time as the onsite storage approval certification. The NRC's decision to deny Request 4 is based on this understanding of the request. In addition to the ongoing work related to COMSECY-10-0007 discussed above, the following efforts discussed in the project plan in COMSECY-10-0007 also relate specifically to Request 4:

    The staff will evaluate the compatibility of 10 CFR part 71, `Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material,' and 10 CFR part 72, `Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste,' requirements to identify (1) areas of overlap where the requirements are substantially similar, (2) areas where the performance requirements are significantly different, (3) specific regulations that must be met for transportation for which there is no similar storage regulation, and (4) recommendations for improving the compatibility and efficiency of the 10 CFR parts 71 and 72 review processes. The staff will also evaluate the different types of currently authorized dry cask storage systems to identify any potential unique compatibility issues. This assessment will also consider potential integration of the storage and transportation safety reviews conducted under 10 CFR parts 71 and 72.

    As indicated above, there were four areas in which the staff was evaluating the compatibility of the requirements within 10 CFR part 71 and 10 CFR part 72 related to storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The NRC reserved its decision on Request 4 until the NRC staff had made sufficient progress on the four areas identified above. These efforts have provided the NRC with sufficient information to now make a decision on Request 4.

    The NRC staff's consideration of the compatibility of 10 CFR part 71 and 10 CFR part 72, as part of the NRC staff's efforts related to COMSECY-10-0007, has informed recent safety evaluation reviews performed by the NRC staff of storage design certifications, such as new applications and renewals. Since the petition was received in 2008, the NRC staff has completed the review of 12 storage design applications; information on these reviews can be found at http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/designs.html. The NRC staff's work on these storage and transportation compatibility considerations may be further documented in future revisions to the Standard Review Plans for Storage—NUREG-1536, Rev. 1, “Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems” (ADAMS Accession No. ML101040620); and NUREG-1567, “Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities” (ADAMS Accession No. ML003686776).

    The petitioner noted the potential for an environmental emergency or matter of security that would require transport of the spent fuel from storage to an alternate location as a basis for why transportation certification approval should be required at the time of storage certification. By design, dry storage systems are robust, passive systems and, as discussed above, transport is unlikely to be the best course of action in an emergency. These systems have been evaluated for several design basis events, including malicious acts. As the first step in addressing an environmental emergency or matter of security, the staff would not recommend removal of the spent fuel from storage. The storage requirements in 10 CFR part 72, in combination with the packaging and transportation requirements in 10 CFR part 71, are adequate to ensure safety. In the case of an environmental emergency, the best course of action would likely be to secure the area, contain the spent fuel, assess the situation, and to keep the spent fuel in storage until a more thorough evaluation of the situation has been completed. There are interim measures that can be taken to contain the spent fuel and to provide safety, such as restricting access to the area, putting up temporary physical barriers, and using temporary shielding. If it is determined that the spent fuel must be moved, the NRC has several regulatory options to ensure the safe transportation of the spent fuel, including issuing license amendments, issuing immediately effective orders, or evaluating requests for exemptions to the spent fuel transportation regulations in 10 CFR part 71. Under 10 CFR 71.12, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may grant an exemption from the transportation requirements if it determines the exemption is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security. This allows flexibility for the design and construction of transportation packaging if the controls proposed in the shipping procedures are demonstrated to be adequate to provide an equivalent level of safety of the shipment and its content.

    Dry storage system designs have become more standardized and many designs use a welded canister to provide one of the confinement barriers of the spent nuclear fuel. Because the welded canister provides confinement of the spent nuclear fuel, as required under 10 CFR 72.122(h), removal of the fuel during storage should be unnecessary so long as the licensee is complying with the regulations to ensure safety measures are met. Additionally, for packaging and transporting welded canisters containing spent fuel, under 10 CFR part 71, most spent fuel cask vendors have compatible transportation packaging designs either approved or under development. For those limited, older systems that may not have been designed with transportation packaging as a consideration, an exemption can be issued in accordance with 10 CFR 71.12 if the Commission determines that doing so will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security. This allows flexibility for the design and construction of transportation packaging, if the controls proposed in the shipping procedures are demonstrated to be adequate to provide an equivalent level of safety of the shipment and its content.

    In association with efforts related to COMSECY-10-0007, the NRC staff conducted a comparison of the requirements for storage systems in 10 CFR part 72 and those for transportation packaging in 10 CFR part 71 to identify any areas of incompatibility. This work began before receipt of the petition. The NRC staff found from this comparison that there are differences between these requirements, such as differences in thermal design criteria, confinement/containment design criteria, criticality design criteria and specific accident conditions design criteria. However, these differences do not preclude the safe packaging and transportation of spent fuel in casks designed for storage. As an example, there is a difference between the temperature criteria for transportation accident conditions and those for storage accident conditions. If it became necessary to remove the spent fuel casks from storage and transport them, in most cases the temperature criteria differences would not preclude the safe transport. Alternatively, an exemption could be issued in accordance with 10 CFR 71.12 if the transportation criteria were not met but the Commission determined that the transportation would not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.

    As required by 10 CFR part 72, cask storage systems must be designed to provide for safe and secure storage taking into consideration natural and human-induced events. For a specific license, the design basis events that must be evaluated are provided in: (1) 10 CFR 72.92, “Design basis external natural events,” and (2) 10 CFR 72.94, “Design basis external man-induced events.” Nuclear power reactor licensees are authorized to store spent fuel under the general license in 10 CFR 72.210, “General license issued.” A general licensee must choose a storage cask that has an NRC-issued certificate of compliance. The list of approved storage casks is provided in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” For these storage casks, the vendor has already evaluated the cask design against normal, off-normal, and accident conditions as required by 10 CFR 72.236, “Specific requirements for spent fuel storage cask approval and fabrication.” The general licensees must meet the specific requirements found in 10 CFR 72.212, “Conditions of general license issued under 10 CFR 72.210.” The regulations in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6) require the general licensee to review the safety analysis report referenced in the certificate or amended certificate and the related NRC safety evaluation report prior to use of the general license. The licensee must determine whether the reactor site parameters, including analyses of earthquake intensity and tornado missiles, are included within the cask design bases. In addition, the licensee must establish that the stored spent fuel will meet the design requirements for natural and human-induced events: (1) 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5)(ii) for static and dynamic loads and (2) 10 CFR 72.212(b)(9) which requires the general licensee to protect the spent fuel against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage in accordance with the requirements set forth in the licensee's physical security plan under 10 CFR 73.55, “Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage.” These requirements provide assurance that spent fuel storage casks are sufficiently robust to withstand environmental and security events included within the design bases.

    The safety of spent fuel storage has been demonstrated by operating experience. Subsequent to the NRC's earlier review of this petition, an earthquake occurred in the vicinity of the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant in Virginia. This earthquake was beyond the design basis event for which the spent fuel storage designs were evaluated. After the earthquake, North Anna Nuclear Power Plant personnel and representatives from the spent fuel storage system manufacturer conducted detailed inspections and monitoring. The NRC staff also conducted several inspections through an Augmented Inspection Team (ADAMS Accession No. ML113040031) at North Anna Nuclear Power Plant to evaluate and assess the plant conditions as well as the integrity and safety of onsite spent fuel storage systems. These inspections confirmed that there was no damage that had any impact on safety-related features. Some casks experienced minor shifting on the pad that did not impact safety. The spent fuel continued to be surrounded by several tons of steel and concrete and the storage system seals were intact. Radiation surveys indicated no changes to cask surface dose rates, and there were no releases due to the shifting of the systems. As part of the outcome of the NRC's inspections, the licensee sought, and the NRC approved, an amendment to allow the casks that had shifted to remain in place rather than moving them back to the original location. Documentation related to these inspections is publicly available in ADAMS and includes (1) information submitted as part of the amendment request submitted by the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML14160A707), (2) the Final Environmental Assessment (ADAMS Accession No. ML15022A575), and (3) the documentation related to Amendment 4 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML15050A395) of the ISFSI license. The NRC's assessment of the earthquake at the North Anna Power Plant confirmed that the spent fuel storage casks could safely remain in place.

    The petitioner also stated that transport capacity for shipment offsite must be required for matters of security. As stated earlier in this document, moving the spent fuel offsite after an environmental emergency or security incident would likely not be the best course of action. Moving the spent fuel from storage onto a public highway or rail system represents a higher risk than protecting the spent fuel storage casks in place, because it increases the potential for unnecessary dose to workers or the public. Storage licensees must have security provisions in place that include physical barriers; surveillance; intrusion detection and response; and, if needed, assistance from local law enforcement, in accordance with 10 CFR part 73, “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.” These measures provide an adequate level of safety and security.

    Finally, the petitioner also stated that “NRC Chapter 1 of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1567) should clearly define Part 72.122(i); 72.236(h); and in 72.236(m).” The petitioner did not provide any additional information regarding this statement. The NUREG-1567 provides guidance to the NRC staff for reviewing applications for specific license approval for commercial ISFSIs. Granting the petitioner's request would not result in a rulemaking. The NRC staff will consider making the clarification when it works on the next revision of NUREG-1567.

    Petitioner Request 9

    The NRC is denying Request 9 for the following reasons. After further evaluation of Request 9, and considering the information resulting from the NRC staff's work on COMSECY-10-0007, the NRC staff concludes that a hot cell transfer station coupled with an auxiliary pool is not needed because the requirements currently in place in 10 CFR part 72 are adequate to ensure safety. In the Federal Register notice published in October 2012 that addressed the other requests in the petition, the NRC indicated that the need for a hot cell transfer station coupled with an auxiliary pool was still being evaluated as part of the NRC staff's review of the regulatory changes that might be necessary to safely store fuel for multiple renewal periods. The NRC staff stated that, “as discussed in Section 3.1 of Enclosure 1 of COMSECY-10-0007, research is needed to develop the safety basis for the behavior of high burnup fuel during extended storage periods. Whether the fuel retains sufficient structural integrity for extended storage and eventual transportation may affect whether the NRC would require dry transfer capability at decommissioned reactors storing high burnup fuel.”

    The NRC periodically conducts research activities related to the storage of spent nuclear fuel to confirm the safety of operations and enhance the regulatory framework to address any changes in technology, science, and policies. The NRC conducts analyses of beyond design basis conditions to confirm that regulatory requirements continue to provide reasonable assurance for safe storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel. Additionally, the NRC evaluates the performance of spent nuclear fuel under normal and accident conditions. Recent analyses included evaluation of the effects of high burnup fuel. Two recent studies related to these research activities were completed and published in 2015: (1) NUREG/CR-7198, “Mechanical Fatigue Testing of High-Burnup Fuel for Transportation Applications,” published in May 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15139A389), and (2) NUREG/CR-7203, “A Quantitative Impact Assessment of Hypothetical Spent Fuel Reconfiguration in Spent Fuel Storage Casks and Transportation Packages,” published in September 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15266A413).

    The NUREG/CR-7198 documents an evaluation of the ability for high burnup fuel containing mostly circumferential hydrides to maintain its integrity under normal conditions of transport. Using an innovative testing system that imposes pure bending loads on the spent fuel rod, high burnup spent fuel rods underwent bending tests to simulate conditions relevant to both storage and transportation. The test results demonstrated that despite complexities and non-uniformities in the fuel cladding system, the high burnup fuel behaved in a manner that would be expected of more uniform materials.

    The NUREG/CR-7203 documents a quantitative assessment of the impact on the safety of spent nuclear fuel storage casks and transportation packages of bounding and very unlikely beyond design basis hypothetical changes of fuel geometry. The study examined the potential changes to criticality, shielding, confinement/containment, and thermal characteristics of the systems due to changes in fuel geometry. The purpose of this study was to determine whether high burnup fuel is safe for storage and transport under normal, off-normal, and hypothetical accident conditions. The detailed conclusions from this study are quite lengthy; however, in summary, the study concluded that:

    Overall, the safety impacts of fuel reconfiguration are system design, content type, and loading dependent. The areas and magnitude of the impact vary from cask/package design to cask/package design. It should also be noted that some of the scenarios are extreme and physically unlikely to occur; they represent bounding values. The spent fuel storage systems and transportation packages approved by the NRC to date provide reasonable assurance that they are safe under normal, off-normal, and hypothetical accident conditions as prescribed in 10 CFR part 71 and 72 regulations.

    The NRC staff recognized at the time of the initial review of the petition that ongoing research into the material properties of high burnup fuel could potentially result in a determination that high burnup fuel would require repackaging after a certain storage period. Therefore, this issue warranted further evaluation to determine if a regulatory requirement for dry transfer capability was needed before a final decision could be made on the petitioner's request. The NRC staff also recognized a potential issue with respect to degradation from aging of high burnup fuel that could cause damage to spent fuel cladding in storage. Based on evaluations of these potential issues in NUREG/CR-7198 and NUREG/CR-7203 the NRC has further evidence of reasonable assurance of adequate safety related to the mechanical behavior and potential degradation of high burnup fuel during extended storage and transportation for the systems approved to date.

    The NRC continuously monitors safety and security issues related to the storage of spent nuclear fuel, including results from safety inspections and additional studies, when applicable. If the NRC became aware of any safety or security issues that could impact public health and safety, or security, the NRC would take action. This could include issuing Orders, rulemaking, or revising guidance to clarify requirements.

    Additionally, when an ISFSI license is being evaluated for renewal, the licensee must establish an Aging Management Program (AMP) that manages aging effects. The intent of the AMP is to detect, monitor, and mitigate aging effects that could impact the safe storage of spent fuel. The AMP is required under the provisions of Section 72.42, “Duration of license; renewal,” paragraph (a)(2) and Section 72.240, “Conditions for spent fuel storage cask renewal,” paragraph (c)(3), for storage cask renewals. An AMP includes subcomponents such as: (1) Dry shielded canister external surfaces, (2) concrete cask, (3) transfer cask, (4) transfer cask lifting yoke, (5) cask support platform, and (6) high burnup fuel. Since high burnup fuel is included as an AMP for license renewal, this provides defense-in-depth in ensuring the integrity of the fuel cladding during periods of extended operation.

    The NRC staff uses the guidance in NUREG-1927, “Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage System Licenses and Certificates of Compliance,” published in March 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111020115) in reviewing renewal applications for spent fuel dry cask storage systems and certificates of compliance.

    The NUREG-1927 is currently being revised to update guidance and to include information gained from the work previously discussed in this document. The revision to NUREG-1927 was noticed for public comment in the Federal Register on July 7, 2015 (80 FR 38780). The AMPs are consistent with 10 program elements that are described in NUREG-1927, including items such as the scope; preventive actions; parameters monitored or inspected; and detection of aging effects before there is a loss of any structure and component function, etc. The AMPs will help ensure timely detection, mitigation, and monitoring of any degradation mechanisms.

    An example of NRC staff's review of license renewal applications that include an AMP for high burnup fuel is the recently completed review of the license renewal application for the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI in October 2014 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML14274A022). From this review, the NRC staff determined that the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI had met the requirements of 10 CFR 72.42(a), which addresses the duration of a license and renewal of such license. As previously discussed in this document, 10 CFR 72.42(a)(2) has a specific requirement for an AMP. The NRC staff concluded in the safety evaluation for this renewal (ADAMS Accession No. ML14274A038) that the dry cask storage systems are still robust and could be renewed.

    Additionally, the NRC has a defense-in-depth approach to safety that includes (1) requirements to design and operate spent fuel storage systems that minimize the possibility of degradation; (2) requirements to establish competent organizations staffed with experienced, trained, and qualified personnel; and (3) NRC inspections to confirm safety and compliance with requirements. Based on the NRC's current requirements, licensee maintenance and review programs, and NRC inspections, the NRC staff is confident that issues will be identified early to allow corrective actions to be taken in a timely fashion.

    In summary, the NRC has made significant progress on relevant regulatory efforts and evaluations discussed earlier in this document and information gained from that work contributed to current revisions of regulatory guidance, standard review plans, and the NRC staff's reviews of renewal applications. Based on the work performed to date, the results do not indicate a need to revise the regulations. Based on the NRC's review of the petition, the specific changes requested by the petitioner are not necessary to ensure safety and security. The storage and transportation regulations are robust, adequate, and sufficiently compatible to ensure safe and secure storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The NRC staff continues to review and evaluate the storage of spent nuclear fuel and the safety of storage casks and ISFSIs. If a potential health, safety, or security issue is identified, the NRC will take action to address the concern.

    III. Conclusion

    For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC is denying the petitioner's two requests from PRM-72-6 that were deferred pending additional research and evaluation on the storage of spent fuel storage. After completing its research, the NRC has concluded that the current regulatory requirements are adequate to protect public health and safety.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of June, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14998 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 [Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0023] RIN 1904-AD70 Energy Efficiency Program: Test Procedure for Televisions; Request for Information AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Request for Information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating a rulemaking to consider whether revisions are needed to the test procedure for televisions. To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE has gathered data and identified several issues associated with the current DOE test procedure on which DOE is particularly interested in receiving comment. The issues outlined in this document mainly concern on-mode power measurement. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of the television test procedure (including topics not specifically raised in this request for information).

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested on or before July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2016-BT-TP-0023, by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include docket number EERE-2016-BT-TP-0023 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, EERE-2016-BT-TP-0023, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585- 0121. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed paper original.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed paper original.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2016-BT-TP-0023.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-586-9870. Email: [email protected]

    Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-287-6111. Email: [email protected]

    For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Discussion A. Evaluation of the IEC Test Clip B. On-Mode Power Behavior With Motion Detection Functionality 1. Brand X #1 2. Brand X #3 3. Brand Y #4 C. Default Luminance With Motion Detection Functionality D. Settings That Impact Motion Detection Functionality E. Forced Menu III. Submission of Comments I. Introduction

    On October 25, 2013, DOE published a final rule adopting the test procedure for televisions (“TV procedure final rule”) at appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 78 FR 63823. This test procedure includes methods for measuring active mode (on-mode), standby mode, and off mode power draw; screen luminance; and the annual energy use of television sets. As part of the on-mode testing, DOE adopted the use of the “International Electrotechnical Commission 62087 Edition 3: Methods of measurement for the power consumption of audio, video, and related equipment” (IEC 62087). IEC 62087 includes a video test clip on a DVD and BluRay disc to be used when conducting on-mode testing (IEC test clip), as well as screen luminance measurements (3-bar image).

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; “EPCA”) provides DOE the authority to consider and prescribe new energy conservation test procedures for TVs. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA 2015), Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015)). Specifically, section 323 of EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

    II. Discussion A. Evaluation of the IEC Test Clip

    DOE performed initial testing on three Brand X televisions (TVs), one Brand Y TV, and one Brand Z TV to determine how representative the current IEC test clip is in terms of measuring the energy use of TVs during a representative average use cycle or period of use. Table 1 has a description of each TV model DOE tested.

    Table 1—TVs Included in DOE's Initial Testing ID # Screen size Resolution
  • (horizontal × vertical pixels)
  • Smart TV
  • (Y/N)
  • Backlight Model year
    Brand X #1 48″ 1920 × 1080 (1080p) Y LED 2015 Brand X #2 48″ 1280 × 720 (720p) N LED 2014 Brand X #3 48″ 3840 × 2160 (4k) Y LED 2015 Brand Y #4 49″ 1920 × 1080 (1080p) Y LED 2015 Brand Z #5 48″ 1920 × 1080 (1080p) Y LED 2015

    DOE tested each TV using multiple video clips and compared the power measurements when using the IEC test clip compared to other video clips. All video clips were upconverted to the TV's native resolution. The following video clips were used for testing:

    1. IEC Test Clip

    “IEC 62087 Edition 3.0 Blu-Ray Disc dynamic broadcast-content video signal.” This is the standard video clip used as per the DOE test procedure. The video is 620 seconds long, including 10 seconds each of introduction and conclusion. The main content consists of various moving scenes, each typically lasting a few seconds.

    2. Recut IEC Test Clip

    To create the recut IEC video, DOE edited the video in the original IEC test clip. Specifically, DOE recut the original IEC video into twenty 30-second portions, plus the 10-second introduction and conclusion, and then shuffled the order of the clip.

    3. Movie 1

    The Movie 1 video is a 620-second portion of the BluRay movie “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.”

    4. Movie 2

    The Movie 2 video is a 620-second portion of a live-action movie (“National Treasure”) recorded from an HD television broadcast. There are no commercials during this 620 second segment.

    5. News

    The News video is a 620-second portion of live news programming recorded from an HD television broadcast. It contains approximately 260 seconds of commercials, which occur in a single portion.

    6. Sports 1

    The Sports 1 video is a 620-second portion of a football game recorded from an HD (1080i) television broadcast. It contains approximately 270 seconds of commercials, which occur in two separate portions.

    7. Sports 2

    The Sports 2 video is a 620-second portion of a soccer game recorded from an online HD (720p) source. It does not contain any commercials.

    DOE performed all this testing according to the DOE TV test procedure (except for the substituted video clip). For TVs with automatic brightness control enabled by default, DOE performed the comparisons only at 100 lux lighting because DOE expects the same behavior at all lux values. Table 2 shows the average on-mode power draw in watts (W) for the TVs tested using the various video clips described in this section.

    Table 2—620-Second Average On Mode Power Draw for Each Tested TV Video clip Brand X #1
  • (W)
  • Brand X #2
  • (W)
  • Brand X #3
  • (W)
  • BRAND Y #4
  • (W)
  • Brand Z #5
  • (W)
  • IEC 52.7 29.7 91.1 42.6 69.4 Recut IEC 52.4 29.7 93.6 41.4 69.1 Movie 1 64.0 29.9 113.2 58.1 69.0 Movie 2 54.8 29.6 103.7 48.3 69.8 News 55.1 29.9 89.7 58.7 70.6 Sports 1 51.7 29.7 95.2 52.8 69.7 Sports 2 52.4 29.7 87.3 58.5 70.6

    While there was no significant difference in power draw for the Brand X #2 or Brand Z #5 across all tested clips, Brand Y #4, Brand X #1, and Brand X #3 exhibited differences in power draw between the IEC test clips and other video sources. This difference in power draw appears to be related to the amount of motion in the video clips, discussed in further detail in the following section.

    B. On-Mode Power Draw With Motion Detection Functionality

    Brand X #1, Brand X #3 and Brand Y TVs have certain brightness features enabled by default settings that are sometimes referred by “Motion Lighting” (ML) or “Motion Eye Care” (MEC). According to the description in user manuals, these features reduce the brightness of the TV when displaying high-motion content. The ML feature has two options: On and Off. The MEC feature has three options: High, Low, and Off. By default, the Brand X TVs were set to “On” and the Brand Y TV was set to “High.” DOE conducted its initial testing of these models using these default modes. DOE then disabled these features (i.e., DOE set the TVs to “ML Off” and “MEC Off,” respectively) and re-ran all of the test clips to evaluate how the features affect the TV power draw. Again, the test setup and power measurements were performed according to the DOE test procedure (except for the substituted video clips). The following sections describe the test results for each of the Brand X and Brand Y TVs.

    1. Brand X #1

    Table 3 shows the results of the tests for Brand X #1.

    Table 3—620-Second Average Power Draw for Brand X #1 With ML On and ML Off Video Brand X #1 (W) ML On ML Off % Increase IEC 52.7 70.5 34 Recut IEC 52.4 70.4 34 Movie 1 64 70.2 10 Movie 2 54.8 70.3 28 News 55.1 70.4 28 Sports 1 51.7 69.6 35 Sports 2 52.4 70.4 34

    For Brand X #1, the IEC clip showed a 34% increase in power draw when ML was off compared to “ML On,” which is the default setting. The same increase was found when the units were tested using the Sports 1 and Sports 2 clips, but the increase was much smaller when the units were tested using Movie 1. The following power traces over the duration of each clip show in greater detail how ML affected the TV's on-mode power draw.

    BILLING CODE 6450-01-P EP24JN16.017 EP24JN16.018 EP24JN16.019 EP24JN16.020 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

    In summary, IEC, Sports 1, and Sports 2, ML On caused a sharp reduction in the power draw near the beginning of each clip, and the power draw remained lower for the duration of the clip. In the case of Movie 2, ML On did not cause a reduction in the power draw until much later in the clip. In the News clip, ML caused the TV to drop in power, except for one portion in the middle of the clip. And for Movie 1, ML had a much smaller impact and did not reduce Brand X 1's power draw significantly. Thus, ML appeared to detect motion and reduce power when a certain amount of motion was detected.

    2. Brand X #3

    Table 4 shows the results of the tests for Brand X #3.

    Table 4—620-Second Average Power Draw for Brand X #3 With ML On and ML Off Video Brand X #3 (W) ML On ML Off % Increase IEC 91.1 103.3 13 Recut IEC 93.6 102.9 10 Movie 1 113.2 104.2 −8 Movie 2 103.7 103.3 0 News 89.7 104.2 16 Sports 1 95.2 103.1 8 Sports 2 87.3 104.6 20

    Brand X #3 showed a slightly different behavior than Brand X #1. Although the average power draw by Brand X #3 while playing IEC with ML On was still very close to the lowest power draw across all of the video clips, the power draw by Brand X #3 while playing News and Sports 2 content was even lower. For Movie 1 and Movie 2, the TV used even more power with ML On than ML Off. With ML Off, the power values were fairly consistent regardless of video clip. The following power traces over the duration of each clip show in greater detail how ML affected the TV's on-mode power draw.

    BILLING CODE 6450-01-P EP24JN16.021 EP24JN16.022 EP24JN16.023 EP24JN16.024 EP24JN16.025 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C With ML Off, the power traces were all generally flat regardless of video clip. With ML On, the power measurement fluctuated significantly but, unlike Brand X #1, the measured power was greater for certain clips than with ML Off. 3. Brand Y #4

    Table 5 shows the results of the tests for Brand Y #4.

    Table 5—620-Second Average Power Draw for Brand Y #4 With MEC High and MEC Off Video Brand Y #4 (W) MEC High MEC Off % Increase IEC 42.6 60.7 42 Recut IEC 41.4 60.6 46 Movie 1 58.1 60.5 4 Movie 2 48.3 60.5 25 News 58.7 61.1 4 Sports 1 52.8 60.6 15 Sports 2 58.5 60.8 4

    For Brand Y #4, the IEC test clip showed the lowest power draw associated with any of the video clips using MEC High (default). Movie 1, News, and Sports 2 showed little difference between power draw using MEC High and MEC Off, whereas Movie 2 and Sports 1 showed a larger difference between the two modes. The largest difference in power between MEC High and MEC Off occurred when testing using the IEC clip and the recut IEC clip. The following power traces over the duration of each clip show in greater detail how MEC affected the TV's on-mode power draw.

    BILLING CODE 6450-01-P EP24JN16.026 EP24JN16.027 EP24JN16.028 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

    For all video clips other than IEC and recut IEC, MEC seemed to have very little impact on the power draw of the TV. Although the MEC setting had some impact on power draw during the Movie 2 and Sports 1 clips, the impact was much less significant than with respect to the IEC clip.

    4. Observations

    Based on the results, it appears that ML and MEC have different impacts on power draw among different content and TV models. However, for all tested models, the IEC clip usually triggered the largest reduction in power when enabled, implying that the IEC clip and recut IEC clip contained the most motion among all of the tested video clips. This is consistent with DOE's observation of the IEC test clip, which is composed of short segments of high motion video stitched together, so that the video content has faster changing scenes compared to most content a user typically would watch. Thus, DOE is seeking feedback on the following questions:

    • What is the utility to the user of the dimming of screen luminance based on high levels of motion found in television content? Does this feature adversely impact the typical consumer viewing experience?

    • What alternative video content could DOE use in its test procedure to better capture TV performance during a representative average use cycle or period of use?

    C. Default Luminance With Motion Detection Functionality

    DOE also evaluated how ML and MEC affected the default luminance in the three TV models discussed above, as measured by the DOE test procedure. Because luminance is measured with a static 3-bar image, DOE evaluated whether the ML or MEC feature would have any impact on the luminance of different parts of the screen. Table 6 results show that screen luminance, as measured by the DOE test procedure, is unchanged whether ML or MEC are enabled or disabled.

    Table 6—Measured Screen Luminance and Power for Brand X #1, Brand X #3, and Brand Y #4 TV ML/MEC State Brand X #1 On Off Brand X #3 On Off Brand Y #4 On Off Bottom Luminance (cd/m2) 174 172 227 200 186 186 Center Luminance (cd/m2) 191 188 255 223 227 227 Top Luminance (cd/m2) 158 155 232 203 188 187 Power (W) 63.1 67.5 108.9 99.4 60.4 60.4

    ML and MEC affect the luminance during on-mode testing using a test clip, but this effect is not captured with the luminance test using the static 3-bar image specified in the DOE test procedure. Thus, the luminance test does not necessarily capture and therefore is not necessarily representative of normal use, depending on whether a TV is shipped with a higher or lower luminance setting. DOE is seeking information on the following questions:

    • Does the current luminance test capture the impact of ML and/or MEC during a representative average use cycle or period of use?

    • What alternative luminance tests, if any, would provide useful information about how a TV performs during a representative average use cycle or period of use?

    D. Settings That Impact Motion Detection Functionality

    Last, DOE evaluated the preset picture settings that enabled ML and MEC in the tested units. While ML and MEC were always enabled in the default picture setting of the tested units, none of the other preset picture settings had these features enabled. For Brand Y, there were 6 preset picture settings other than the default setting (Vivid, Standard, Cinema, Sports, Game, and Expert), all of which disabled MEC. And in the case of Brand X's ML feature, only the default picture setting left ML enabled, and any change to the brightness or contrast of the TV automatically disabled ML. Based on these findings, DOE seeks feedback on the following questions:

    • How does the manufacturer determine if a particular picture setting should have this motion detection feature enabled or disabled?

    • How common is it for users to operate TVs in the default setting throughout the lifetime of the TV? Are there any data suggesting that users are encouraged to disable motion detection features or any other special function by the user manual or any other product information?

    • DOE found that changes to a television's picture setting and/or adjustments to the brightness or contrast of a TV may automatically disable a special function, such as a motion detection feature, that is part of the default setting. Given this finding, does the television test procedure, which conducts the on-mode power test in the default setting, measure on-mode power in the television configuration that is representative of typical use?

    E. Forced Menu

    DOE recognizes that picture settings, such as brightness and contrast, and configuration of special functions, such as quick start or energy efficiency modes, have a significant impact on the energy consumption of a TV. DOE received numerous comments and went through several revisions of its test procedure proposals 1 in order to establish the current uniform test method for measuring the power consumption of television sets that provides manufacturers with clear instructions regarding how to configure the picture mode settings for testing the on-mode power draw of a television. As ultimately adopted, the DOE test procedure for televisions requires that on-mode power be measured using the default picture setting. This is the as-shipped preset picture setting that the television enters upon initial set-up. Recognizing that some TVs are designed to automatically display message prompts requiring the user to select configurable options (as opposed to the user proactively entering the settings menu to configure the television), DOE requires in these instances that the most power consumptive option be selected when testing the unit (see section 5.5 of the DOE test procedure). Additionally, the test procedure requires that the home configuration be selected, if prompted, from a forced menu (as opposed to a retail configuration).

    1 Television Test Procedure Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 77 FR 2830 (January 19, 2012) and Television Test Procedure Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 78 FR 15807 (March 12, 2013).

    Essentially, the selection of the home configuration is the only exception to the requirement that the tester must select the most energy consumptive option when setting up a television for the on-mode test. So, if given a choice between home or retail configurations, the tester should always select the home configuration even if the retail configuration is more consumptive. For any other prompt, whether it is from the initial setup menu or a separate message prompt that appears at another time during the on-mode operation of the TV, the tester must always select the most energy consumptive configuration. DOE's intent is to ensure that manufacturers include energy-saving features as part of the default picture setting (without automatically displaying a message prompt to configure the feature) if they wish for that feature to be enabled when measuring the on-mode power. While DOE is certainly not opposed to manufacturers providing options that make their televisions more efficient than the default settings, DOE intends for the test procedure to capture the power of a TV that is measured using the most commonly used picture setting—which DOE assumed to be the default setting. A TV is only tested with special functions that reduce energy consumption turned on if they are truly part of the most commonly used settings (currently presumed to be default), and there are no prompts that appear which provide users an option to disable them.

    In providing these specifications, DOE attempted to cover all television design scenarios to ensure that the TV was set up in this manner. However, one manufacturer has argued that the current language in the DOE test procedure allows users to select options other than the most consumptive configuration during initial television setup under certain forced menu designs. For example, in the preamble to the TV test procedure final rule, DOE assumed a forced menu would first request selecting either home or retail configuration, and then subsequent message prompts that appear after the initial selection of home or retail would request configuration of other special functions, such as enabling or disabling energy efficient modes. In discussing the configuration of special functions in the preamble to the TV test procedure final rule, DOE discussed the special function configuration criteria in section 5.5 of the DOE Test Procedure assuming that the message prompt requesting configuration of a special function came after the initial selection of the home configuration from a forced menu. While DOE assumed this message prompt would come after the initial selection of the home configuration from a forced menu, DOE's intention is that manufacturers would select the most energy consumptive option if prompted at any time, even if that question came on the initial forced menu before the initial selection of the home configuration. DOE clarified the television configuration requirements by issuing a final guidance document in April 2014 2 that clearly specified the most power consumptive configuration must be selected whenever a message prompt is displayed requesting configuration of a special function, including configurations selected from a forced menu. However, given the findings discussed in paragraph (d) of this RFI that energy saving features may automatically disable when changing preset picture settings or adjusting television brightness or contrast, DOE requests stakeholder comments on whether testing the television in its default configuration is appropriate.

    2 See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/detail_search.aspx?IDQuestion=647&pid=2&spid=1.

    Given the advancement in television design, the ability of manufacturers to customize the design of their forced menus, and the rationale behind testing televisions in the default configuration, DOE seeks to ensure that the forced menu, special function configurations, and any other requirements related to setting up the television for conducting the on-mode power measurement are clear and representative of an average use cycle.

    Hence, DOE is soliciting comment on the following questions:

    • Is the regulatory text clear on how to set-up a television for testing? Are there ways for definitions or requirements in the television test procedure regulatory text to be rewritten to ensure that all requirements related to setting up a television for testing are objective and would apply uniformly regardless of television design?

    • Should DOE consider measuring on-mode power in picture settings other than the default picture setting? If so, what picture setting(s) should be tested, and how can DOE prescribe picture setting testing requirements that are representative of television settings during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as well as ensure that the requirements are repeatable and reproducible in a laboratory testing environment?

    III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by July 25, 2016, comments and information on matters addressed in this RFI and on other matters relevant to the test procedure for televisions.

    After the close of the comment period, DOE will begin collecting data, conducting analyses, and reviewing public comments. These actions will be taken to aid in the revision of the test procedure NOPR for televisions, if DOE determines that revisions are necessary.

    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period. 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 rulemaking may do so at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/34.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2016. Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14982 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6138; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-3] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Indiana, PA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Indiana, PA, to accommodate the new runway at Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field). Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: (202) 366-9826; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2016-6138; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field), Indiana, PA.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-6138; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-3) and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-6138; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field), Indiana, PA. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 8.2-mile radius of the airport and within 2 miles either side of the 096° bearing from the airport, extending from the 8.2-mile radius to 13.6 miles east of the airport is necessary to support the new runway at the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for IFR operations. The geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore; (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA PA E5 Indiana, PA [Amended] Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field), PA (Lat. 40°37′52″ N., long. 79°06′05″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 8.2-mile radius of Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field), and within 2-miles either side of the 096° bearing of the airport, extending from the 8.2-mile radius to 13.6 miles east of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 16, 2016. Debra L. Hogan, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14880 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 Docket No. FAA-2016-6967; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-7 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Santa Rosa, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D airspace at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA, by reducing the segment extending northwest of the airport and adding a segment southeast of the airport. This action also proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to include only that area required for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Additionally, this action updates the airport's geographic coordinates for both Class D and E airspace areas. A review of the airspace has made this proposal necessary for the safety and management of Standard Instrument Approach Procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-6967; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify Class D and Class E airspace at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-6967/Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 to modify Class E airspace designated as an extension at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA, by creating an area southeast of the airport to contain IFR arrivals below 1,000 feet above the surface, and by reducing in size the Class E surface area extension northwest of the airport to only that necessary to contain IFR arrivals below 1,000 feet above the surface. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to include only that area necessary to contain IFR arrivals below 1,500 feet above the surface and IFR departures until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. The proposal would also update the airport's geographic coordinates for all Class D and E airspace areas. The proposed modifications are necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015 and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AWP CA D Santa Rosa, CA Santa Rosa, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA (Lat. 38°30′35″ N., long. 122°48′46″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Santa Rosa/Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. AWP CA E4 Santa Rosa, CA Santa Rosa, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA (Lat. 38°30′35″ N., long. 122°48′46″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles east and 2.8 miles west of the 342° bearing from the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA, extending from the 4.3 mile radius of the airport to 7.4 miles northwest of the airport, and that airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.2 miles each side of the 156° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3 mile radius to 6.3 miles southeast of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWP CA E5 Santa Rosa, CA Santa Rosa, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA (Lat. 38°30′35″ N., long. 122°48′46″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 38°42′14″ N., long. 122°46′18″ W.; to lat. 38°38′58″ N., long. 122°59′10″ W.; to lat. 38°21′20″ N., long. 122°58′26″ W.; to lat. 38°19′23″ N., long. 122°54′00″ W.; to lat. 38°24′00″ N., long. 122°39′26″ W.; thence to the point of origin.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 16, 2016. Brian J. Johnson Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14879 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021; FRL-9948-27-OAR] RIN 2060-AN36 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 13, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule titled, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Site Remediation.” The EPA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule that was scheduled to close on June 27, 2016, by thirty days. The EPA has received letters from trade organizations and calls from business organizations requesting additional time to review and comment on the proposed rule revisions.

    DATES:

    The public comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2016 (81 FR 529821), is being extended. Written comments must be received on or before July 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established docket for the proposed rulemaking (available at http://www.regulations.gov). The Docket ID No. is EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021. Information on this action is posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/siterm/sitermpg.html. Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket ID, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information on this action, contact Paula Hirtz, Refining and Chemicals Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2618; fax number: (919) 541-0246; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    After considering the requests to extend the public comment period received from trade and business organizations, the EPA has decided to extend the public comment period until July 27, 2016. This extension will ensure that the public has additional time to review and comment on the proposed rule.

    Dated: June 17, 2016. Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15012 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 70 [EPA-R02-OAR-2015-0837; FRL-9948-31-Region 2] Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit Program Revision; New Jersey AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the New Jersey title V Operating Permit Program requested by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) on May 15, 2015. NJDEP adopted a rule revision on December 29, 2014, to change the fee schedule for certain permitting activities for major facilities, including application fees for significant modifications and fees to authorize general operating permit registration and operation of used oil space heaters. The adopted rule took effect on February 27, 2015. NJDEP submitted a request to EPA to incorporate the revised fee schedule into its Operating Permit Program. EPA proposes to approve the requested change as a revision to the NJOPP.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2015-0837, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suilin Chan, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4019.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This section provides additional information by addressing the following items:

    I. Background

    EPA granted full approval of the New Jersey title V Operating Permit Program on December 5, 2001 (66 FR 63168). The New Jersey Operating Permit Program (NJOPP) is implemented through its Operating Permits Rule codified at Subchapter 22 of Chapter 27 of Title 7 of the New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C. 7:27-22). As mandated by title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as well as its implementing regulations found in part 70 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 70), an approved State must establish a fee schedule that results in the collection and retention of revenues sufficient to cover the direct and indirect costs of implementing the State's operating permit program. NJDEP periodically adjusts the title V fee schedule stipulated at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22 to ensure that the NJOPP is adequately funded by fees collected from subject sources. EPA's evaluation of New Jersey's title V fee program during a program audit conducted in 2012 showed that the fees collected by New Jersey were insufficient to cover the costs of administering the NJOPP. The NJOPP has a deficit carried over year after year that accumulated to $7.5 million dollars as of fiscal year (FY) 2011. As of FY 2014, the cumulative shortfall was over $10 million dollars. New Jersey is required to resolve the funding issue by taking all necessary actions.

    II. Summary of Program Revision

    On December 29, 2014, New Jersey finalized rule revisions to amend certain fee provisions for major facilities in its Operating Permits Rule, codified at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22. For significant modifications, NJDEP charges major facilities base fees for straightforward applications and adds supplementary fees for more complex applications. The prior fee schedules for significant modifications were found at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(r), (s), (v) and (w). These provisions expired on December 29, 2014 and have now been deleted. New Jersey's revision replaces these provisions with a new Base Fee Schedule and Supplementary Fee Schedule for significant modifications, found at N.J.A.C 7:27-22.31(y) and N.J.A.C 7:27-22.31(z) respectively.

    New Jersey's revision also updated the fee schedule for a major facility's registration under a General Operating Permit and authorization to operate a used oil space heater. The prior fee schedule for these actions was located at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(t) and (x) and expired on December 29, 2014. New Jersey's revision deletes those provisions and replaces them with a new fee schedule at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(aa).

    Finally, New Jersey's revision updates other provisions of the Operating Permits Rule to reflect references to the new fee schedules rather than the prior now-deleted provisions, including at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1 (definition of “probe”) and N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(a)(6), (e), (k)(1), (k)(2), (p) and (u)(4), (5), (7), and (9). For details of New Jersey's revision of its Operating Permits Rule, please refer to the public docket.

    New Jersey has found that these increases in fees are necessary to provide additional funding to help reduce the deficit for the NJOPP, and the rule changes effectuating the increases have undergone the State's complete rulemaking process. On May 15, 2015, NJDEP submitted a request that these revisions to its Operating Permits Rule be incorporated into New Jersey's Operating Permit Program as a program revision, in accordance with 40 CFR 70.4(i).1 This proposed rule would grant that request.

    1 In the same document, NJDEP submitted rule revisions related to minor facilities fees found at N.J.A.C. 7:27-8 as a SIP submittal. This SIP submittal will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.

    III. Proposed Action

    The State of New Jersey has adopted rule revisions to increase the base and supplementary fees for significant modifications at major facilities, at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(y) and (z), and registration fees for major facilities' use of General Operating Permits and authorization to operate used oil space heaters at N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(aa). The rule revisions also deleted outdated fee provisions at 7:27-22.31(r)-(t) and (v)-(x) and updated cross-references found in N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1 (definition of “probe”) and N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.31(a)(6), (e), (k)(1), (k)(2), (p) and (u)(4), (5), (7), and (9). The rule revisions were adopted in accordance with the state's rulemaking procedures on December 29, 2014. The rule changes are necessary to increase fee revenues to fund the NJOPP. The requirement that revenues collected from sources subject to a state's Operating Permits Program provide funding sufficient to cover the permit program's costs is mandated by title V of the CAA and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 70.9. In today's action, pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2), EPA is proposing to approve NJDEP's May 15, 2015 request to incorporate New Jersey's Operating Permits Rule (N.J.A.C. 7:27-22) as revised on December 29, 2014 as a revision to New Jersey's Operating Permit Program. EPA is soliciting public comments on EPA's proposed action to incorporate the revised rule into the NJOPP. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It also 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).

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it 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).

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act.

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In reviewing State Operating Permit Programs submitted pursuant to title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve such regulations provided that they meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove such regulations for failure to use VCS. It would, thus, be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews such regulations, to use VCS in place of a State regulation that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA do not apply.

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 14, 2016. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15004 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 271 and 272 [EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0174; FRL-9947-05-Region 8] Wyoming: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant authorization to the State of Wyoming for the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the state's changes through a direct final action. In addition, the EPA is proposing to codify in the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs,” Wyoming's authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will incorporate by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions of the State regulations that are authorized and that the EPA will enforce under RCRA.

    DATES:

    Send written comments by July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0174 by mail to Christina Cosentini, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mail Code 8P-R, Denver, Colorado 80202. You may also submit comments electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina Cosentini at (303) 312-6231, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, the EPA is authorizing changes to the Wyoming program, in addition to codifying and incorporating by reference the State's hazardous waste program as a direct final rule. The EPA did not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because we believe these actions are not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose them. We have explained the reasons for this authorization and incorporation by reference in the preamble to the direct final rule.

    Unless EPA receives written comments that oppose the authorization and incorporation by reference during the comment period, the direct final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we get comments that oppose the authorization, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take immediate effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14283 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 271 and 272 [EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0131; FRL-9947-03-Region 8] South Dakota: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant authorization to the State of South Dakota for the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the state's changes through a direct final action. In addition, the EPA is proposing to codify in the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs,” South Dakota's authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will incorporate by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions of the State regulations that are authorized and that the EPA will enforce under RCRA.

    DATES:

    Send written comments by July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2016-0131 by mail to Christina Cosentini, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mail Code: 8P-R, Denver, Colorado 80202. You may also submit comments electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina Cosentini at (303) 312-6231, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, the EPA is authorizing changes to the South Dakota program, in addition to codifying and incorporating by reference the State's hazardous waste program as a direct final rule. The EPA did not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because we believe these actions are not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose them. We have explained the reasons for this authorization and incorporation by reference in the preamble to the direct final rule.

    Unless the EPA receives written comments that oppose the authorization and incorporation by reference during the comment period, the direct final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we get comments that oppose the authorization, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take immediate effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14297 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 16-182; RM-11770; DA 16-691] Radio Broadcasting Services; Eagle Butte, South Dakota AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document requests comments on a Petition for Rule Making filed by Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, proposing to amend the FM Table of Allotments, section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules, by allotting Channel 228C1 at Eagle Butte, South Dakota, as the first local Tribal-owned service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 228C1 can be allotted to Eagle Butte consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules with no site restriction. The reference coordinates are 45-01-32 NL and 101-14-22 WL.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed on or before August 8, 2016, and reply comments on or before August 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Harold Frazier, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, P.O. Box 1683, Eagle Butte, SD 57625.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adrienne Y. Denysyk, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 16-182, adopted June 16, 2016, and released June 17, 2016. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text is also available online at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

    Federal Communications Commission. Nazifa Sawez, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.

    § 73.202 [Amended]
    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under South Dakota, is amended by adding Eagle Butte, Channel 228C1.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14935 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 16-690; MB Docket No. 15-167; RM-11751] Radio Broadcasting Services; Grant, Oklahoma AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; Dismissal.

    SUMMARY:

    At the request of the petitioner, Katherine Pyeatt, this Report and Order dismisses the proposed allotment of FM Channel 286A at Grant, Oklahoma, File No. BNPH-20141029ACJ, and terminates the proceeding. It also dismisses, as requested by Southeast Oklahoma Radio LLC (SOR), the SOR counterproposal for station KTMC-FM, McAlester, Oklahoma, File No. BPH-20150831ABE. Furthermore, the Report and Order grants the proposed upgraded facility filed by Liberman Broadcasting of Dallas LLC (Liberman) for Station KZMP-FM, Channel 285C0, Pilot Point, Texas, File No. BPH-20141028AAK and approves the Liberman-Pyeatt Reimbursement Agreement.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adrienne Y. Denysyk, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 15-167, adopted June 16, 2016, and released June 17, 2016. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text is also available online at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

    Federal Communications Commission. Nazifa Sawez, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14936 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    81 122 Friday, June 24, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—Trafficking Controls and Fraud Investigations AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection codified by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations at 7 CFR 274.6(b)(5) and 274.6(b)(6).

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) regulations at 7 CFR 274.6(b)(5) allow State agencies to deny a request for a replacement SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card until the household makes contact with the State agency if the requests for replacement cards are determined to be excessive. The State agency may determine the threshold for excessive card replacments, not to be less than four replacement cards in a 12-month period.

    FNS regulations at 274.6(b)(6) require State agencies to monitor EBT card replacement requests and send notices to households when they request four cards within a 12-month period. The State agency shall be exempt from sending this Excessive Replacement Card Notice if it adopts the card withholding option in accordance with 7 CFR 274.6(b)(5) and sends the requisite Withholding Replacement Card Warning Notice on the fourth replacement card request.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimated burden for the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to Jane Duffield, Branch Chief, State Administration Branch, Program Accountability and Administration Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 818, Alexandria, VA 22302. You may also download an electronic version of this notice at http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/federal-register-documents/rules/view-all and comment via email at [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 822, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.

    All comments to this notice will be included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Request for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Clyde Thompson at (703) 305-2461.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Trafficking Controls and Fraud Investigations.

    OMB Number: 0584-0587.

    Expiration Date: 9/30/2016.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: FNS regulations at 7 CFR 274.6 requires State Agencies to issue warning notices to withhold replacement cards or a notice for excessive replacement cards.

    Withhold Replacement Card Warning Notice: State agencies may require an individual member of a household to contact the State agency to provide an explanation in cases where the number of requests for card replacements is determined excessive. The State agency must notify the household in writing when it has reached the threshold, indicating that the next request for card replacement will require the client to contact the State agency to provide an explanation for the requests, before the replacement card will be issued. The State agency must also notify the household in writing once the threshold has been exceeded and the State agency is withholding the card until contact is made.

    Excessive Replacement Card Notice: State agencies must monitor all client requests for EBT card replacements and send a notice, upon the fourth request in a 12-month period, alerting the household their account is being monitored for potential, suspicious activity. The State agency is exempt from sending this notice if they have chosen to exercise the option to withhold the replacement card until contact is made with the State agency.

    The current approval annual burden is 8,336 hours. The updated estimated annual burden is approximately 21,940.41 hours. This revised estimate reflects an increase since the last OMB approval, due to having more accurate figures of State participation and household card request. This updated version also includes the time it takes a household to read the notice required by 274.6(b)(6), which was not included in the original burden. FNS estimates that it will take State personnel approximately 2 minutes to generate and mail each required notice to the client, to comply with 7 CFR 274.6; and that it will take SNAP recipients approximately 2 minutes to read each notice they receive and 28 minutes to make contact with the State agency when required. FNS is currently aware of two State agencies which have opted to follow our regulations at 274.6(b)(5) to withhold replacement cards, with an additional State agency considering the option. All other State agencies follow our regulations at 274.6(b)(6) for the Excessive Replacement Card Notice. Available data from 2015 shows that on average 2,527.5 households in a State request five or more replacement cards within 12 months. FNS estimates that half of all recipients who receive a notice upon issuance of their fourth card (5,055) will not request a fifth card.

    Annual Reporting Burden Estimates

    Affected Public: Individual/Household; and State and Local Government Agencies.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 275,549.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 550,994.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 21,940.

    Estimated Annual Burden for 0584-0587 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Trafficking Controls and Fraud, 7 CFR 274 CFR Title Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Affected Public: State and Local Agencies 274.6(b)(5) Withhold Replacement Card Warning Notice 3 5,055 15,165 0.0334 506.5 274.6(b)(5) Replacement Card Withheld Notice 3 2,527.5 7,583 0.0334 253.2 274.6(b)(6) Excessive Replacement Card Notice 50 5,055 252,750 0.0334 8,441.85 Subtotal 53 5,198 275,498 0.0334 9,201.55 Affected Public: Households 274.6(b)(5) Withhold Replacement Card Warning Notice 15,165 1 15,165 0.0334 506.5 274.6(b)(5) Replacement Card Withheld Notice 7,581 1 7,581 0.5 3,790.5 274.6(b)(5) Excessive Replacement Card Notice 252,750 1 252,750 0.0334 8,441.85 Subtotal 275,496 1 275,496 .0462 12,738.85 Grand Total 275,549 2 550,994 0.0796 21,940.41
    Dated: June 16, 2016. Yvette S. Jackson, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14993 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), State Law Enforcement Bureau (SLEB) Fraud Investigations AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new collection for SNAP, SLEB Fraud Investigations.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Daniel Wilusz, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 422, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Daniel Wilusz at 703-305-1863 or via email to [email protected]. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Leysha López Recci at 703-605-0253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), State Law Enforcement Bureau (SLEB) Fraud Investigations.

    Form Number: Not Yet Assigned.

    OMB Number: 0584-NEW.

    Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is the Federal agency responsible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), (7 U.S.C. 2011-2036), which offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities. FNS works with State partners to establish State Law Enforcement Bureau (SLEB) agreements to improve program administration and ensure program integrity. Through SLEB agreements, FNS authorizes State agencies to conduct investigations into possible SNAP fraud, and to obtain Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) benefits for such law enforcement and investigative activities. This form gathers data associated with SLEB investigations using SNAP EBT benefits and the expenses for investigative activities.

    Affected Public: State government agencies that have a SLEB agreement with FNS.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of respondents is 53. This includes all States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories that administer SNAP.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: The respondents will be asked to complete this form 2 times per year.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 106.

    Estimated Time per Response: The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 2 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, complete and review the information collection.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 212 hours (12,720 minutes).

    Respondent Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Responses
  • annually per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • average
  • number of
  • hours per
  • response
  • Estimated
  • total hours
  • Reporting Burden State government agencies that have a SLEB agreement with FNS 53 2.00 106.00 2.00 212.00
    Dated: June 13, 2016. Yvette S. Jackson, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14991 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Rural Business-Cooperative Service Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service (RHS), and Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed collection; Comments requested.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the above-named Agencies to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of debt settlement of Community Facilities and Direct Business Program Loans and Grants.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by August 23, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For inquiries on the Information Collection Package, contact Anita Outen, Community Programs Specialist, Community Programs, RHS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mail Stop 0787, Washington, DC 20250-0787, Telephone (202) 720-1497, Email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: 7 CFR part 1956, subpart C—“Debt Settlement—Community and Business Programs.”

    OMB Number: 0575-0124.

    Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2016.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The following Community and Direct Business Programs loans and grants are debt settled by this currently approved docket (0575-0124). The Community Facilities loan and grant program is authorized by Section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926) to make loans to public entities, nonprofit corporations, and Indian tribes through the Community Facilities program for the development of essential community facilities primarily serving rural residents.

    The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Title 3 (Pub. L. 88-452), authorizes Economic Opportunity Cooperative loans to assist incorporated and unincorporated associations to provide low-income rural families essential processing, purchasing, or marketing services, supplies, or facilities.

    The Food Security Act of 1985, Section 1323 (Pub. L. 99-198), authorizes loan guarantees and grants to Nonprofit National Corporations to provide technical and financial assistance to for-profit or nonprofit local businesses in rural areas.

    The Business and Industry program is authorized by Section 310 B (7 U.S.C. 1932) (Pub. L. 92.419, August 30, 1972) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to improve, develop, or finance business, industry, and employment and improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution abatement control.

    The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, Section 310 B(c) (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)), authorizes Rural Business Enterprise Grants to public bodies and nonprofit corporations to facilitate the development of private businesses in rural areas.

    The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, Section 310 B(f)(i)(7 U.S.C. 1932(c)), authorized Rural Cooperative Development Grants to nonprofit institutions for the purpose of enabling such institutions to establish and operate centers for rural cooperative development.

    The purpose of the debt settlement function for the above programs is to provide the delinquent client with an equitable tool for the compromise, adjustment, cancellation, or charge-off of a debt owned to the Agency.

    The information collected is similar to that required by a commercial lender in similar circumstances.

    Information will be collected by the field offices from applicants, borrowers, consultants, lenders, and attorneys.

    Failure to collect information could result in improper servicing of these loans.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5.3 hours per response.

    Respondents: Public bodies and nonprofit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 35.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 5.5.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 193.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,041 hours.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, (202) 692-0040.

    Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: June 14 2016. Tony Hernandez, Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14994 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee Discussing Current Civil Rights Concerns in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, July 8, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. CDT. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss current civil rights in the state, and to identify potential areas of study for the next Committee inquiry.

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-428-9490, conference ID: 2361414. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement at the end of the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Member of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=246. Click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links to download. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda: Welcome and Introductions Review of written comment: Environmental Justice in Illinois Discussion of civil rights topics for study Public Comment Future plans and actions Adjournment DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, July 8, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. CDT.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 888-428-9490; Conference ID: 2361414.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14949 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census [Docket Number 160607498-6498-01] Current Mandatory Business Surveys AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Determination.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) has determined that it is conducting the following current mandatory business surveys for 2016: Annual Retail Trade Survey, Annual Wholesale Trade Survey, Service Annual Survey, Company Organization Survey, Annual Survey of Manufactures, Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey, Annual Capital Expenditures Survey, Business R&D and Innovation Survey, Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs, Management and Organizational Practices Survey, and the Business & Professional Classification Report. We have determined that data collected from these surveys are needed to aid the efficient performance of essential governmental functions and have significant application to the needs of the public and industry. The data derived from these surveys, most of which have been conducted for many years, are not publicly available from nongovernmental or other governmental sources.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Census Bureau will furnish reporting formats to organizations included in the surveys. Additional copies are available upon written request to the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-0101.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nick Orsini, Assistant Director for Economic Programs, U.S. Census Bureau, 5H160, Washington, DC 20233, Telephone: 301-763-2558; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The surveys described herein are authorized by Title 13, United States Code, sections 131 and 182 and are necessary to furnish current data on the subjects covered by the major censuses. These surveys are made mandatory under the provisions of sections 224 and 225 of Title 13, United States Code. These surveys will provide continuing and timely national statistical data for the period between economic censuses. The data collected in the surveys will be within the general scope and nature of those inquiries covered in the economic census. The next economic census will be conducted for the year 2017.

    Annual Retail Trade Survey

    The Annual Retail Trade Survey collects data on annual sales, sales tax, e-commerce sales, year-end inventories held inside and outside the United States, total operating expenses, purchases, and accounts receivable from a sample of employer firms with establishments classified in retail trade as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    Annual Wholesale Trade Survey

    The Annual Wholesale Trade Survey collects data on annual sales, e-commerce sales, year-end inventories held both inside and outside of the United States, method of inventory valuation, total operating expenses, purchases, gross selling value, and commissions from a sample of employer firms with establishments classified in wholesale trade as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    Service Annual Survey

    The Service Annual Survey collects annual data on total revenue, select detailed revenue, total and detailed expenses, and e-commerce revenue for a sample of businesses in the service industries, including Utilities; Transportation and Warehousing; Information; Finance and Insurance; Real Estate and Rental and Leasing; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; Administration and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services; Educational Services; Health Care and Social Assistance; Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation; Accommodation and Food Services (starting in survey year 2016); and Other Services as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    Company Organization Survey

    The Company Organization Survey collects annual data on ownership or control by a domestic or foreign parent and ownership of foreign affiliates; research and development; company activities such as employees from a professional employer organization, operating revenue and net sales, royalties and license fees for the use of intellectual property and manufacturing activities, operational status, mid-March employment, first-quarter payroll, and annual payroll of establishments from a sample of multi-establishment enterprises in order to update and maintain a centralized, multipurpose Business Register (BR) and also serves as a collection instrument for the Enterprise Statistics Program (ESP).

    Annual Survey of Manufactures

    The Annual Survey of Manufactures collects annual industry statistics, such as total value of shipments, employment, payroll, workers' hours, capital expenditures, cost of materials consumed, supplemental labor costs, and so forth. This survey is conducted on a sample basis, and covers all manufacturing industries, including data on plants under construction but not yet in operation.

    Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey

    The Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey collects annual data on sales and unfilled orders in order to provide annual benchmarks for unfilled orders for the monthly Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders (M3) survey. The Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey data are also used to determine whether it is necessary to collect unfilled orders data for specific industries on a monthly basis, as some industries are not requested to provide unfilled orders data in the M3 Survey.

    Annual Capital Expenditures Survey

    The Annual Capital Expenditures Survey collects annual data on the amount of business expenditures for new and used structures and equipment from a sample of non-farm, non-governmental companies, organizations, and associations. Both employer and nonemployer companies are included in the survey. The data are the sole source of investment in buildings and other structures, machinery, and equipment by all private nonfarm businesses in the United States, by the investing industry, and by kind of investment.

    Business R&D and Innovation Survey

    The Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS) collects annual data on spending for research and development activities by businesses. This survey replaced the Survey of Industrial Research and Development that had been collected since the 1950's. The BRDIS collects global as well as domestic spending information, more detailed information about the R&D workforce, and information regarding innovation and intellectual property from U.S. businesses. The Census Bureau collects and compiles this information in accordance with a joint project agreement between the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Census Bureau. The NSF posts the joint project's information results on their Web site.

    Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs

    The Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs (ASE) collects annual data from a sample of employer firms on the characteristics of the business and business owner(s). Estimates are produced for the number of firms, sales/receipts, annual payroll, and employment by gender, ethnicity, race, and veteran status. The ASE introduces a new topical module each year to measure a relevant business component related to business productivity and growth. The module fielded in 2016 for reference year 2015 will cover management and business practices. The ASE is a joint effort funded by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the Census Bureau.

    Management and Organizational Practices Survey

    The Management and Organizational Practices Survey collects data periodically on management and organizational practices at the establishment level from a sample of manufacturing plants in order to produce estimates of the stock of management and organizational assets.

    Business & Professional Classification Report

    The Business & Professional Classification Report collects one-time data on a firm's type of business activity from a sample of newly organized employer firms. The data are used to update the sampling frames for our current business surveys to reflect these newly opened establishments. Additionally, the business classification data will help ensure businesses are directed to complete the correct report in the economic census.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. In accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 45, OMB approved the surveys described in this notice under the following OMB control numbers: Annual Retail Trade Survey, 0607-0013; Annual Wholesale Trade Survey, 0607-0195; Service Annual Survey, 0607-0422; Company Organization Survey, 0607-0444; Annual Survey of Manufactures, 0607-0449; Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey, 0607-0561; Annual Capital Expenditures Survey, 0607-0782; Business R&D and Innovation Survey, 0607-0912; Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs, 0607-0986; Management and Organizational Practices Survey, 0607-0963; and, Business & Professional Classification Report, 0607-0189.

    Based upon the foregoing, I have directed that the current mandatory business surveys be conducted for the purpose of collecting these data.

    Dated: June 17, 2016. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14970 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-037] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain biaxial integral geogrid products (“geogrids”) from the People's Republic of China (the “PRC”). The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 24, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob Palmer or Ryan Mullen, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202.482.9068 or 202.482.5260, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are geogrids from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix II.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memo.1 The Preliminary Decision Memo is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memo and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memo are identical in content.

    1See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the People's Republic of China: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Preliminary Decision Memo”).

    The Department notes that, in making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.2 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memo.

    2See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Alignment

    As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memo, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (“AD”) investigation of geogrids from the PRC.3 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than October 31, 2016, unless postponed.

    3See Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 81 FR 7755 (February 16, 2016).

    Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated an estimated individual countervailable subsidy rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated. We preliminarily determine these rates to be:

    Company Subsidy rate BOSTD Geosynthetics Qingdao Ltd. and Beijing Orient Science & Technology Development Co., Ltd 16.60 Taian Modern Plastic Co., Ltd 30.65 All Others 23.63 Chengdu Tian Road Engineering Materials Co., Ltd * 128.27 Chongqing Jiudi Reinforced Soil Engineering Co., Ltd * 128.27 CNBM International Corporation * 128.27 Dezhou Yaohua Geosynthetics Ltd * 128.27 Dezhou Zhengyu Geosynthetics Ltd * 128.27 Hongye Engineering Materials Co., Ltd * 128.27 Hubei Nete Geosynthetics Ltd * 128.27 Jiangsu Dingtai Engineering Material Co., Ltd * 128.27 Jiangsu Jiuding New Material Ltd * 128.27 Lewu New Material Ltd * 128.27 Nanjing Jinlu Geosynthetics Ltd * 128.27 Nanjing Kunchi Composite Material Ltd * 128.27 Nanyang Jieda Geosynthetics Co., Ltd * 128.27 Qingdao Hongda Plastics Corp * 128.27 Shandong Dexuda Geosynthetics Ltd * 128.27 Shandong Haoyang New Engineering Materials Co., Ltd * 128.27 Shandong Tongfa Glass Fiber Ltd * 128.27 Shandong Xinyu Geosynthetics Ltd * 128.27 Tai'an Haohua Plastics Co., Ltd * 128.27 Taian Hengbang Engineering Material Co., Ltd * 128.27 Taian Naite Geosynthetics Ltd * 128.27 Taian Road Engineering Materials Co., Ltd * 128.27 Tenax* 128.27 Hengshui Zhongtiejian Group Co * 128.27 Qingdao Sunrise Dageng Import and Export Co., Ltd * 128.27 * Non-cooperative company to which an adverse facts available rate is being applied. See “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” section in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    In accordance with section 703(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of geogrids from the PRC as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Section 703(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. We preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist for imports produced or exported by BOSTD Geosynthetics Qingdao Ltd. and the all other companies. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, suspension of liquidation of geogrids from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice, the date suspension of liquidation is first ordered. Because we preliminarily found critical circumstances do not exist for Taian Modern Plastic Co., Ltd., we will begin suspension of liquidation for such firms on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amounts indicated above.

    In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as mandatory respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate should exclude zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated as well as rates based entirely on facts otherwise available. Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the “all-others” rate by weighted averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents, because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, for the “all-others” rate, we calculated a simple average of the two responding firms' rates.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for this preliminary determination to the parties within five days of the date of public announcement of this determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments for all non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.4 A table of contents, list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

    4See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.5 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number; the number of participants; and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date, time and location to be determined. Parties will be notified of the date, time and location of any hearing.

    5See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: June 17, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memo I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Alignment VI. Respondent Selection VII. Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances VIII. Injury Test IX. Application of Countervailing Duty Law to Imports from the PRC X. Subsidies Valuation XI. Benchmarks and Interest Rates XII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences XIII. Analysis of Programs XIV. Verification XV. Conclusion Appendix II

    The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain biaxial integral geogrid products. Biaxial integral geogrid products are a polymer grid or mesh material (whether or not finished, slit, cut-to-length, attached to woven or non-woven fabric or sheet material, or packaged) in which four-sided openings in the form of squares, rectangles, rhomboids, diamonds, or other four-sided figures predominate. The products covered have integral strands that have been stretched to induce molecular orientation into the material (as evidenced by the strands being thinner toward the middle between the junctions than at the junctions themselves) constituting the sides of the openings and integral junctions where the strands intersect. The scope includes products in which four-sided figures predominate whether or not they also contain additional strands intersecting the four-sided figures and whether or not the inside corners of the four-sided figures are rounded off or not sharp angles. As used herein, the term “integral” refers to strands and junctions that are homogenous with each other. The products covered have a tensile strength of greater than 5 kilonewtons per meter (“kN/m”) according to American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) Standard Test Method D6637/D6637M in any direction and average overall flexural stiffness of more than 100,000 milligram-centimeter according to the ASTM D7748/D7748M Standard Test Method for Flexural Rigidity of Geogrids, Geotextiles and Related Products, or other equivalent test method standards.

    Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise further processed in a third country, including by trimming, slitting, coating, cutting, punching holes, stretching, attaching to woven or non-woven fabric or sheet material, or any other finishing, packaging, or other further processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the biaxial integral geogrid.

    The products subject to the scope are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under the following subheading: 3926.90.9995. Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings 3920.20.0050 and 3925.90.0000. The HTSUS subheadings set forth above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-15007 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-557-813] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Malaysia. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Euro SME Sdn Bhd (Euro SME). We preliminarily find that Euro SME has sold subject merchandise at less than normal value during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 24, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan Hansen or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3683 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is PRCBs. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) item number 3923.21.0085. While the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.1

    1See memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.

    Bona Fides Analysis

    We have analyzed the information provided by Euro SME in this POR to determine whether the company's sale under review was made in a bona fide manner and, as such, should be reviewed under the administrative review provisions of the regulations. See section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213. Where a review is based on a single sale, exclusion of that sale as non-bona fide necessarily must end the review.2 Accordingly, as discussed in Euro SME's Bona Fides Memorandum, we preliminarily find Euro SME's sale to be bona fide and determine to continue conducting this administrative review.3

    2See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (CIT 2005) (Tianjin Tiancheng) (quoting Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2).

    3See Memorandum to The File entitled “2014-2015 Administrative Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia—Preliminary Bona Fides Sales Analysis of Euro SME Sdn Bhd,” dated concurrently with this notice, for more details including certain business proprietary information.

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice.

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 11.53 percent exists for Euro SME for the period August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.4 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.5

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    5Id., and 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.6 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    6See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If Euro SME's weighted-average dumping margin continues to be above de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If Euro SME's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.” 7

    7See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012).

    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Euro SME for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PRCBs from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Euro SME will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer of the merchandise for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 84.94percent.8 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    8 The all-others rate established in the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia, 69 FR 34128 (June 18, 2004).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum A. Summary B. Background C. Scope of the Order D. Bona Fide Analysis E. Comparisons to Normal Value 1. Determination of Comparison Method 2. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis F. Product Comparisons G. Date of Sale H. Export Price I. Normal Value 1. Home Market Viability as Comparison Market 2. Level of Trade 3. Cost of Production 4. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices J. Currency Conversion K. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-15011 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE684 Endangered Species; File No. 20197 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 025433-3149 [Responsible Party: Dr. William Karp] has applied in due form for a permit to take loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and unidentified hardshell sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 20197 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arturo Herrera or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    The applicant requests a five-year permit to sample sea turtles incidentally caught during commercial fishing operations by Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) certified observers. The purpose of this project is to monitor the take of sea turtle species in observed commercial fisheries and collect data to estimate total bycatch Observers would be authorized to measure, flipper tag, tissue sample, photograph, and video live sea turtles and to salvage carcasses and parts from dead sea turtles.

    Up to 50 loggerhead, 10 Kemp's ridley, 10 green, 20 leatherback, and 20 unidentified sea turtles would be sampled annually.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14989 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Economic Impacts of Diving and Snorkeling Expenditures in Southern Florida.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (request for a new information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 2,000.

    Average Hours per Response: 10 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 333.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for a new collection of information.

    The objective of the survey will be to understand divers' and snorkelers' expenditures associated with recreational coral reef diving activities in South Florida. The survey will also collect information on divers' attitudes, preferences, and concerns about recreational diving and coral reefs health in South Florida. We are conducting this survey to improve our understanding of divers' expenditure patterns and to estimate the economic impact of coral reef related spending. Results of the survey will be used to inform coastal resource management planning and establish a baseline for outreach and education. The expenditure survey is also expected to provide useful information for local economic and business interests.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: One time.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Sarah Brabson, <E T="03">NOAA PRA Clearance Officer</E>.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14988 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE656 Availability of the Draft Report to Congress: Section 404 Fisheries Research AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is releasing the draft Report to Congress on Fisheries Research in accordance with section 404 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) for public review and comment. Additional information, including the draft Report for download, may be found at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/strategic-plan/MSA-Section-404-Report-2016/msa-section-404-report-to-congress-2016.

    DATES:

    NMFS must receive comments on the draft Report by July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified NOAA-NMFS-2016-0064, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0064. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Send written comments to Mark Chandler, NMFS, Fisheries Biologist, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Include on the envelope the following identifier, “Section 404 Report Public Comment.”

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publically accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required field if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted on Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Please include the page number and line number in your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Chandler, 301-427-8114.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 404 of the MSA requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish, in the Federal Register, a strategic plan for fisheries research for the five years immediately following its previous publication in the Federal Register. The MSA requires that the plan address four major areas of research: (1) Research to support fishery conservation and management; (2) conservation engineering research; (3) research on the fisheries; and (4) information management research. The MSA specifies that this plan shall contain a limited number of priority objectives for each of these research areas; indicate goals and timetables; provide a role for commercial fishermen in such research; provide for the collection and dissemination of complete and accurate information concerning fishing activities; and be developed in cooperation with the Regional Fishery Management Councils and affected states. This draft Report on Fisheries Research is consistent with the requirements of section 404 and with NOAA's Next Generation Strategic Plan located on the web at http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/NOAA_NGSP.pdf.

    NMFS currently conducts a comprehensive program of fisheries research and involves industry and others interested in fisheries planning and implementing its objectives. The scope of the present draft document focuses only on the four major areas of research specified in section 404 of the MSA. It does not include the regulatory and enforcement components of the NMFS mission.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1881.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Ned Cyr, Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15026 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Addition AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective date July 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Addition

    On 5/30/2016 (81 FR 31917-31918), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Base Supply Center Mandatory for: USPFO, Camp Mabry, 2200 West 35th Street, Austin, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, W7N2 USPFO ACTIVITY TX ARNG, Austin, TX Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14963 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 10731—Garden Colander, Includes Shipper 20731 Mandatory Purchase For: The requirements of military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 51, 51-6.4 Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Wilson-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7220-00-NSH-0022—Mat, Floor, Chair, 45″ x 53″ x .110″, w/20″ x 12″ Lip 7220-00-NSH-0023—Mat, Floor, Chair, 45″ x 53″ x .110″, w/25″ x 12″ Lip 7220-00-NSH-0024—Mat, Floor, Chair, 46″ x 60″ x .110″, w/25″ x 12″ Lip 7220-00-NSH-0025—Mat, Floor, Chair, 46″ x 60″ x .110″, Without Lip 7220-00-NSH-0026—Mat, Floor, Chair, 60″ x 60″ x .110″, Without Lip 7220-00-NSH-0030—Mat, Floor, Chair, 36″ x 48″ x .150″, w/20″ x 12″ Lip 7220-00-NSH-0031—Mat, Floor, Chair, 45″ x 53″ x .150″, w/25″ x 12″ Lip 7220-00-NSH-0032—Mat, Floor, Chair, 45″ x 53″ x .150″, w/20″ x 12″ Lip 7220-00-NSH-0033—Mat, Floor, Chair, 45″ x 53″ x .220″, w/20″ x 12″ Lip 7220-00-NSH-0035—Mat, Floor, Chair, 46″ x 60″ x .150″, Without Lip 7220-00-NSH-0036—Mat, Floor, Chair, 46″ x 60″ x .150″, w/25″ x 12″ Lip 7220-00-NSH-0038—Mat, Floor, Chair, 46″ x 60″ x .220″, w/25″ x 12″ Lip 7220-00-NSH-0039—Mat, Floor, Chair, 46″ x 60″ x .220″, Without Lip 7220-00-NSH-0040—Mat, Floor, Chair, 60″ x 60″ x .150″, Without Lip Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Northeastern Michigan Rehabilitation and Opportunity Center (NEMROC), Alpena, MI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Distribution: A-List Service Service Type: Janitorial Service Mandatory for: US Forest Service, Northern California Service Center, 6101 Airport Road, Redding, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Shasta County Opportunity Center, Redding, CA Contracting Activity: FOREST SERVICE, PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION, San Francisco, CA Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-579-9752—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9622—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9621—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9747—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9749—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9745—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9753—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9756—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9759—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9762—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9616—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9773—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9776—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9781—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-580-0068—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-580-0075—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9850—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-580-0077—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9852—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9864—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9840—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9843—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9847—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9827—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9830—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9833—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9836—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9801—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9806—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9811—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9814—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9782—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9784—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9823—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9789—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9794—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9795—Multi-Cam Coat Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: STEPS, Inc., Farmville, VA Contracting Activity: W6QK ACC-APG NATICK, NATICK, MA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8920-01-E62-3504—Cake Mix, Gingerbread; 6—4 lb cans 8920-01-E62-3503—Cake Mix, Gingerbread; 6—5 lb boxes Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Transylvania Vocational Services, Inc., Brevard, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14962 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0074] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD) Chief Information Officer (CIO), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the DoD Chief Information Officer 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 11E08, Alexandria VA 22350-1900.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Information Assurance Scholarship Program; OMB Control Number 0704-0486.

    Needs and Uses: The National Security Agency (NSA) is the Executive Administrator of the DoD Information Assurance Scholarship Program (IASP), serving on behalf of the DoD Chief Information Officer. Those who wish to participate in the DoD IASP Recruitment program must complete and submit an application package through their college or university to NSA. Centers of Academic Excellence in Cyber Defense (CAEs) interested in applying for capacity-building grants must complete and submit a written proposal, and all colleges and universities subsequently receiving grants must provide documentation on how the grant funding was utilized and the resulting accomplishments. Without this written documentation, the DoD has no means of judging the quality of applicants to the program or collecting information regarding program performance. In addition, the DoD IASP participants and their faculty advisors (Principal Investigators) are asked to complete annual program assessments. These assessments are collectively reviewed to evaluate the program's effectiveness from the perspective of the students and Principal Investigators. The assessment information is used to improve the program in subsequent years. The estimated burden is based on a typical funding profile for this scholarship program. The actual burden may be less, based on available funding.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 2,166.

    Number of Respondents: 361.

    Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Annual Responses: 722.

    Average Burden per Response: 3 hours.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondents to the scholarship information collection are applicants who provide academic records and professional experience summaries to the NSA for the IASP scholar selection process. Respondents to the grants information collection are Principal Investigators at colleges and universities designated as Centers of Academic Excellence (CAE) participating in the IASP who provide proposals for capacity building initiatives supporting the expansion of cyber-related degree programs at their CAE. The DoD IASP is designed to: Increase the number of new college graduate entrants to DoD who possess key cybersecurity skill sets; serve as a tool to develop and retain well-educated military and civilian personnel who support the Department's cyberspace mission including cutting edge research and development; and serve as a mechanism to build the nation's cyber infrastructure through grants to colleges and universities designated as CAEs by the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, respondents to the annual program assessment survey provide feedback on the program, including suggestions for improvements and changes that can be incorporated to make the grants IASP information collection process stronger and more efficient.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14898 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0074] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; Preschool Development Grants—Preschool Pay for Success Feasibility Pilot AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0074. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-343, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Miriam Lund, 202-401-2871.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Preschool Development Grants—Preschool Pay for Success Feasibility Pilot.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 14.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,800.

    Abstract: Pay For Success (PFS) is an innovative contracting and financing model that tests and advances promising and proven interventions, while providing taxpayer (or other) dollars for successful outcomes for families, individuals, and communities. Through a PFS project, government (or another entity) enters into a contract with an investor to pay for services provided to specific people or communities once concrete, measurable outcomes have been achieved. Payments are made only if interventions achieve the outcomes agreed upon in advance. Where PFS financing is used, the government (or other entity) typically makes Outcomes Payments that cover the cost of services and also offer Investors a modest return, which typically amounts to a fraction of the short and long-term cost savings to the government (or other entity) from the successful outcomes.

    The first step in exploring implementing preschool services through PFS is a Feasibility Study. A Feasibility Study establishes whether PFS is viable, for a specific intervention, in a specific jurisdiction and geographic area. It identifies potential Outcome Measures for the project and evaluates the feasibility of implementing or scaling a specific intervention for an identified Target Population. The study analyzes and quantifies the fiscal benefits for government and societal benefits that result if the Outcome Measures are achieved for the target population. It may also identify statutory and legal barriers, as well as potential partners for PFS. This information collection is an application package for a competition that seeks to award grants for Feasibility Studies to measure the viability of preschool pay for success projects.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14904 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0020] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2016-2019 AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0020. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-343, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2016-2019.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0582.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 77,600.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 999,060.

    Abstract: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) seeks authorization from OMB to continue the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collection. Current authorization expires 12/31/2016 (OMB No. 1850-0582). We are requesting a new clearance for the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 data collections to enable us to provide consistency in our collection of postsecondary data over the next 3 years. IPEDS is a web-based data collection system designed to collect basic data from all postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions. IPEDS enables NCES to report on key dimensions of postsecondary education such as enrollments, degrees and other awards earned, tuition and fees, average net price, student financial aid, graduation rates, student outcomes, revenues and expenditures, faculty salaries, and staff employed. The IPEDS web-based data collection system was implemented in 2000-01, and it collects basic data from approximately 7,500 postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions that are eligible to participate in Title IV Federal financial aid programs. All Title IV institutions are required to respond to IPEDS (Section 490 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 [Pub. L. 102-325]). IPEDS allows other (non-title IV) institutions to participate on a voluntary basis. About 200 elect to respond. IPEDS data are available to the public through the College Navigator and IPEDS Data Center Web sites. This clearance package includes a number of proposed changes to the data collection.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14937 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Proposed Agency Information Collection AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for OMB review and comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection will gather opinions of experts in industry and other organizations regarding the impact on the development and diffusion of energy-efficient technologies and techniques in the construction of residential buildings of DOE/EERE Building Technologies Office (BTO) investments. Expert opinions are necessary to characterize expected patterns of technology development and diffusion in the absence of DOE investments, and so (by comparing these expectations with actual observations) estimate the difference DOE investments have made. This information is needed by DOE for budget justification and strategic planning. Respondents will include representatives of production builder companies (including companies that received DOE R&D funding and companies that received no direct funding from DOE).

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before August 23, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to the

    DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. And to: John Mayernik By email to: [email protected] Or by mail to: Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Mayernik, [email protected] or call 202-287-1754.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. New; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Surveys/Interviews to Gather Expert Opinion on the Impact of DOE/EERE Building Technologies Office Investments have had on the Development and Diffusion of Energy-Efficient Technologies and Techniques in the Construction of Residential Buildings; (3) Type of Request: New collection.; (4) Purpose: The information collection will characterize expected patterns of technology development and diffusion in the absence of DOE investments, so that by comparing these expectations with actual observations the impacts of DOE investments can be estimated; this information is needed by DOE for budget justification and strategic planning. Respondents will include representatives of production builder companies (including companies that received DOE R&D funding and companies that received no direct funding from DOE); (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 104; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 104; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 52; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: 0.

    Statutory Authority:

    DOE Org Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.) and 42 U.S.C. 16191 (AMO authority).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2016. David Nemtzow, Director, Building Technologies Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14978 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE -P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9948-23-Region 5] EPA Great Lakes Advisory Board; Notice of Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of charter renewal.

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the EPA Great Lakes Advisory Board (GLAB) is a necessary committee which is in the public interest. Accordingly, GLAB will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of the GLAB is to provide advice to the Administrator in her capacity as Chair of the Inter-Agency Task Force established per Executive Order 13340 (May 18, 2004), on matters related to Great Lakes restoration and protection. The GLAB's major objectives are to provide advice and recommendations on: Great Lakes protection and restoration policy; long term goals and objectives for Great Lakes protection and restoration; annual priorities to protect and restore the Great Lakes that may be used to help inform budget decisions; and issues addressed by the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. Inquiries may be directed to Rita Cestaric, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604, Email address: [email protected], Telephone number: (312) 886-6815.

    Dated: May 3, 2016. Cameron Davis, Senior Advisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15003 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-2097-7] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). Filed 06/13/2016 Through 06/17/2016. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20160138, Draft, HUD, NY, Lambert Houses Redevelopment, Comment Period Ends: 08/08/2016, Contact: Aaron Werner, 212-863-5953, The City of New York—Department of Housing & Development is the lead agency for the above project. EIS No. 20160139, Final, BLM, UT, Monument Butte Area Oil and Gas Development Project, Review Period Ends: 08/08/2016, Contact: Stephanie Howard 435-781-4469. EIS No. 20160140, Final, AFS, MT, Flint Foothills Vegetation Management Project, Review Period Ends: 07/25/2016, Contact: Charlene Bucha Gentry 406-859-3211. EIS No. 20160141, Final Supplement, USACE, FHWA, VA, US Route 460, Review Period Ends: 07/25/2016, Contact: Edward Sundra (804) 775-3357, The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are joint lead agencies for the above project. EIS No. 20160142, Final, BLM, NV, Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Project, Review Period Ends: 07/25/2016, Contact: Stephanie Trujillo 775-289-1831. Amended Notices EIS No. 20160097, Draft, USFS, CO, Rico-West Dolores Roads and Trails Travel Management Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/15/2016, Contact: Deborah Kill, 970-882-6822.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 05/06/2016; Extending Comment Period from 06/20/2016 to 07/15/2016.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15008 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9931-90-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Michigan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Michigan's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective June 24, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On February 29, 2016, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted an application titled “Michigan Air Emission Reporting System (MAERS)” for revisions/modifications to several of its EPA-approved air programs under title 40 CFR to allow electronic reporting. EPA reviewed MDEQ's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Michigan's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 50-52, 60-61, 63, 65 and 70, is being published in the Federal Register:

    Part 52—Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;

    Part 60—Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources;

    Part 63—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; and

    Part 70—State Operating Permit Programs.

    MDEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Collection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14954 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 12, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., and its subsidiary National Indemnity Company, together with National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Columbia Insurance Company, National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Cypress Insurance Company, National Indemnity Company of the South, Redwood Fire and Casualty Company, Government Employees Insurance Company, General Reinsurance Corporation, General Re Life Corporation, General Star Indemnity Company, Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company, U.S. Underwriters Insurance Company, United States Liability Insurance Company, The Medical Protective Company, Berkshire Hathaway Assurance Corporation, Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska, Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company, First Berkshire Life Insurance Company, Princeton Insurance Company, National Indemnity Company of Mid America, Seaworthy Insurance Company, Unione Italiana Insurance Company, GEICO Advantage Insurance Company, GEICO Casualty Insurance Company, GEICO Choice Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO Secure Insurance Company, GEICO Corporation, General Re Corporation, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company, Central States Indemnity Co. of Omaha, Central States of Omaha Companies, Inc., AmGUARD Insurance Company, Atlanta International Insurance Company, California Insurance Company, Commercial Casualty Insurance Company, Continental Indemnity Company, Finial Reinsurance Company, EastGUARD Insurance Company, General Star National Insurance Company, Genesis Insurance Company, Oak River Insurance Company, NorGUARD Insurance Company, Old United Casualty Company, Radnor Specialty Insurance Company, Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company, WestGUARD Insurance Company, Brilliant National Services, Inc., U.S. Investment Corporation, BH Finance LLC, Precision Steel Warehouse Inc., The Fechheimer Brothers Company, Medical Protective Corporation, Boat America Corporation, Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc., Benjamin Moore Pension Trust, The Buffalo News Office Pension Plan, The Buffalo News Editorial Pension Plan, The Buffalo News Mechanical Pension Plan, The Buffalo News Drivers/Distributors Pension Plan, Dexter Pension Plan, FlightSafety International Inc. Retirement Income Plan, Fruit of the Loom Pension Trust, GEICO Corporation Pension Plan Trust, Johns Manville Corporation Master Pension Trust, Justin Brands Inc. Union Pension Plan & Justin Brands Inc. Pension Plan & Trust, Acme Brick Company Pension Trust and Scott Fetzer Company Collective Investment Trust, all in Omaha, Nebraska; Warren Buffett, Omaha, Nebraska; Charles Munger, Los Angeles, California; and certain immediate family members of Warren Buffett and Charles Munger, to retain and acquire additional voting shares of Wells Fargo & Company, San Francisco, California, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, National Association, Ogden, Utah; Wells Fargo Bank South Central, National Association, Houston, Texas; Wells Fargo Financial National Bank, Las Vegas, Nevada; and Wells Fargo Bank, Ltd., Los Angeles, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 21, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15030 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 22, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President), 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Peach State Bancshares, Inc., to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting stock of Peach State Bank & Trust, both in Gainesville, Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 21, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15031 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-1005; Docket No. CDC-2016-0055] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the “Older Adult Safe Mobility Assessment Tool Impact Evaluation and Developing a Dissemination Plan” extension for the previously approved information collection designed to evaluate whether the Mobility Planning Tool is effective for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0055, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Older Adult Safe Mobility Assessment Tool Impact Evaluation and Developing a Dissemination Plan (OMB Control No. 0920-1005, Exp. Date: 10-31-2016)—Extension—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) requests approval for 2 years, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for the extension of the previously information collection approved under OMB Control No. 0920-1005 (Exp. Date: 10-31-2016). This project is designed to evaluate whether the Mobility Planning Tool (MPT) is effective for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults and assess potential strategies for dissemination of the Mobility Planning Tool.

    The population of older adults in the U.S. is growing rapidly. By 2030, this segment of the population will increase to an estimated 72 million (20% of the U.S. population). A critical public health issue for the older adult population is mobility—how well people are able to get to places they need to go. The goals of this study are to evaluate (1) whether the Mobility Planning Tool is effective for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults and (2) assess potential strategies for dissemination of the MPT.

    Study data will be collected using telephone interviews. Prospective respondents will answer a series of screening questions. Individuals who meet the screening criteria and are willing to participate will complete a baseline and follow-up interview each lasting approximately 10 minutes. The study population is community-living older adults ages 60-74 with no known mobility limitations. A total of 1,000 individuals will participate in the study. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and a series of t-tests, chi-square analyses, and Mann-Whitney U-tests. Multivariate analyses will include a series of repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and logistic regressions.

    The data collected from this study will help CDC identify what further revisions to the MPT might be necessary before it is disseminated publicly. Selected study findings may eventually be presented in oral and poster presentations and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Without this information collection, CDC will not know whether the MPT is an effective tool for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults and will not know whether additional revisions to the tool are necessary before the MPT is disseminated publicly. Also, without this study CDC will have limited information about what strategies are most likely to be effective for disseminating the MPT publicly to the target audience. The total estimated annual burden hours are 733.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Individuals Responding to Initial Phone Call Who Refuse to be Screened Screening Interview Guide 2,500 1 1/60 42 Individuals Responding to Initial Phone Call Responding to Screening Questions Screening Interview Guide 1,500 1 5/60 125 Study Participants Baseline Interview Guide 1,000 1 10/60 166 Study Participants MPT 500 1 30/60 250 Study Participants Follow-up Interview Guide 900 1 10/60 150 Total 733
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14957 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16ARO; Docket No. CDC-2016-0056] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed generic information collection entitled CDC Fellowship Programs Assessments. CDC is requesting Office of Management and Budget approval for a new generic clearance for data collection associated with quality improvement for the CDC fellowship programs that develop the current, emerging, and future public health workforce.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0056, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Data Collection for CDC Fellowship Programs—New—Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development (DSEPD), Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (CSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    CDC's mission is to protect America from health, safety, and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. To ensure a competent, sustainable, and empowered public health workforce prepared to meet these challenges, CDC plays a key role in developing, implementing, and managing a number of fellowship programs. A fellowship is defined as a training or work experience lasting at least 1 month and consisting of primarily experiential (i.e., on-the-job) learning, in which the trainee has a designated mentor or supervisor. CDC fellowships are intended to develop public health professionals, enhance the public health workforce, and strengthen collaborations with partners in public health and healthcare organizations, academia, and other stakeholders in governmental and non-governmental organizations. Assessing fellowship activities is essential to ensure that the public health workforce is equipped to promote and protect the public's health.

    CDC requests a three-year approval of a generic clearance to collect data about its fellowship programs, as they relate to public health workforce development. Data collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between CDC fellowship programs and stakeholders (e.g., fellows, supervisors/mentors, alumni). These collections might include short surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Intended use of the resulting information is to:

    • Inform planning, implementation, and continuous quality improvement of fellowship activities and services;

    • improve efficiencies in the delivery of fellowship activities and services; and

    • determine to what extent fellowship activities and services are achieving established goals.

    Collection and use of information about CDC fellowship activities will help ensure effective, efficient, and satisfying experiences among fellowship program participants and stakeholders.

    CDC estimates that annually, a given fellowship program will conduct one query each with one of the three respondent groups: Fellowship applicants or fellows; mentors, supervisors, or employers; and alumni. The total annualized burden hours of 2,957 was determined as depicted in the following table.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of
  • respondent
  • Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Total
  • number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burde
  • (in hours)
  • Applicants or fellows Fellowship Data Collection Instrument 1,848 1 30/60 924 Mentors, supervisors, or employers Fellowship Data Collection Instrument 370 1 30/60 185 Alumni Fellowship Data Collection Instrument 3,696 1 30/60 1,848 Total 2,957
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14956 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10458] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; the accuracy of the estimated burden; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected].

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of the following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected].

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Consumer Research Supporting Outreach for Health Insurance Marketplace; Use: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is requesting reapproval for two surveys that aid in understanding levels of awareness and customer service needs associated with the Health Insurance Marketplace established by the Affordable Care Act. Because the Marketplace will provide coverage to the almost 50 million uninsured in the United States through individual and small employer programs, we have developed one survey to be administered to individual consumers most likely to use the Marketplace and another to be administered to small employers most likely to use the Small Business Health Options portion of the Marketplace. These brief surveys, designed to be conducted quarterly, give CMS the ability to obtain a rough indication of the types of outreach and marketing that will be needed to enhance awareness of and knowledge about the Marketplace for individual and business customers. CMS' biggest customer service need is likely to be providing sufficient education so consumers: (a) Can take advantage of the Marketplace and (b) know how to access CMS' customer service channels. The surveys will provide information on media use, concept awareness, and conceptual or content areas where education for customer service delivery can be improved. Awareness and knowledge gaps are likely to change over time based not only on effectiveness of CMS' marketing efforts, but also of those of state, local, private sector, and nongovernmental organizations. Form Number: CMS-10458 (OMB control number: 0938-1203): Frequency: Quarterly; Affected Public: Individuals or households, Private Sector (business or other for-profits); Number of Respondents: 40,200; Total Annual Responses: 40,200; Total Annual Hours: 2,480. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Frank Funderburk at 410-786-1820.)

    Dated: June 21, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15021 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10455 and CMS-R-290] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ____, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected].

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10455 Report of a Hospital Death Associated With Restraint or Seclusion CMS-R-290 Medicare Program: Procedures for Making National Coverage Decisions

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Report of a Hospital Death Associated with Restraint or Seclusion; Use: Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, was signed on January 18, 2011. The order recognized the importance of a streamlined, effective, and efficient regulatory framework designed to promote economic growth, innovation, job creation, and competitiveness. Each agency was directed to establish an ongoing plan to reduce or eliminate burdensome, obsolete, or unnecessary regulations to create a more efficient and flexible structure.

    The regulation that was published on May, 16, 2012 (77 FR 29034) included a reduction in the reporting requirement related to hospital deaths associated with the use of restraint or seclusion, § 482.13(g). Hospitals are no longer required to report to CMS those deaths where there was no use of seclusion and the only restraint was 2-point soft wrist restraints. It is estimated that this will reduce the volume of reports that must be submitted by 90 percent for hospitals. In addition, the final rule replaced the previous requirement for reporting via telephone to CMS, which proved to be cumbersome for both CMS and hospitals, with a requirement that allows submission of reports via telephone, facsimile or electronically, as determined by CMS. Finally, the amount of information that CMS needs for each death report in order for CMS to determine whether further on-site investigation is needed has been reduced.

    The Child Health Act (CHA) of 2000 established in title V, part H, section 591 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) minimum requirements concerning the use of restraints and seclusion in facilities that receive support with funds appropriated to any Federal department or agency. In addition, the CHA enacted section 592 of the PHSA, which establishes minimum mandatory reporting requirements for deaths in such facilities associated with use of restraint or seclusion. Provisions implementing this statutory reporting requirement for hospitals participating in Medicare are found at 42 CFR 482.13(g), as revised in the final rule that published on May 16, 2012 (77 FR 29034). Form Number: CMS-10455 (OMB Control Number: 0938-1210); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector; Number of Respondents: 4,900. Number of Responses: 24,500. Total Annual Hours: 8,085. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Karina Meushaw at 410-786-1000.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title: Medicare Program: Procedures for Making National Coverage Decisions; Use: We revised our April 27, 1999 (64 FR 22619) notice and published a new notice on September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55634) that described the process we use to make Medicare coverage decisions including decisions regarding whether new technology and services can be covered. We have made changes to our internal procedures in response to the comments we received following publication of the 1999 notice and experience under our new process. Over the past several years, we received numerous suggestions to further revise our process to continue to make it more open, responsive, and understandable to the public. We share the goal of increasing public participation in the development of Medicare coverage issues. This will assist us in obtaining the information we require to make a national coverage determination in a timely manner and ensuring that the Medicare program continues to meet the needs of its beneficiaries. Form Number: CMS-R-290 (OMB control number: 0938-0776); Frequency: Annual; Affected Public: Private Sector: Business or other for-profits; Number of Respondents: 200; Total Annual Responses: 200; Total Annual Hours: 8,000. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Katherine Tillman at 410-786-9252.)

    Dated: June 21, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15029 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority AGENCY:

    Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Statement of Organizations, Functions, and Delegations of Authority. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has reorganized the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE). This reorganization creates a new Division of Data and Improvement. It will transfer the state systems assessment function and the project management and oversight for Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS) from the Office of Administration, Office of Financial Services, to the new Division of Data and Improvement.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Naomi Goldstein, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, 202-401-9220.

    This notice amends Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), as follows: Chapter KM, OPRE, as last amended 77 FR 47077-47078, August 7, 2012.

    I. Under Chapter KM, OPRE, delete in its entirety and replace with the following:

    KM.00 MISSION. OPRE is the principal advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of programs designed to make measurable improvements in the economic and social well-being of children and families. OPRE provides guidance, analysis, technical assistance, and oversight to ACF programs and across programs in the agency on: Strategic planning aimed at measurable results; performance measurement and management; research and evaluation methodologies; demonstration testing and model development; statistical policy and program analysis; synthesis and dissemination of research, evaluation, and demonstration findings; data quality, usefulness, and sharing; privacy; and application of emerging technologies to improve the effectiveness of programs and service delivery.

    OPRE, through the Division of Economic Independence, the Division of Child and Family Development, the Division of Family Strengthening, and the Division of Data and Improvement, oversees and manages the research and evaluation programs under sections 413, 429, 511, 1110, and 2008 of the Social Security Act and section 649 of the Head Start Act, as well as other research, evaluation, data, and improvement activities authorized by Congress and related to ACF programs and the populations they serve. These activities include: Priority setting and analysis; managing and coordinating major cross-cutting, leading-edge studies and special initiatives; and collaborating with federal partners, states, communities, foundations, professional organizations, and others to promote the safety, well-being, and development of children, families, and communities; parental responsibility; employment; and economic independence.

    OPRE also provides coordination and leadership in implementing the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act, and provides expert advice on matters related to privacy and the sharing of information. The office coordinates mandated OMB information collection approvals and plans and includes ACF's Reports Clearance Officer.

    KM.10 Organization. OPRE is headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary, who reports to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. The Office is organized as follows:

    Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary (KMA) Division of Economic Independence (KMB) Division of Child and Family Development (KMC) Division of Family Strengthening (KMD) Division of Data and Improvement (KME)

    KM.20 FUNCTIONS. A. The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary provides direction and executive leadership to OPRE in administering its responsibilities. It serves as principal advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families on all matters pertaining to: improving the effectiveness and efficiency of ACF programs; strategic planning; performance measurement and management; research, evaluation, statistical, and analysis methods; program and policy evaluation; research and demonstrations; state and local innovations and progress; synthesis and dissemination of research and evaluation findings; data quality, usefulness, and sharing; and application of emerging technologies to improve the effectiveness of programs and service delivery. It represents the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at various planning, research, evaluation, data, and improvement forums and carries out special Departmental and Administration initiatives.

    The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary manages the formulation and execution of budgets for OPRE programs; manages correspondence; manages review of funding opportunity announcements within OPRE; coordinates the provision of staff development and training; provides support for OPRE's personnel administration, including staffing, employee and labor relations, performance management, and employee recognition; manages OPRE space, facilities, and supplies; and oversees travel, time and attendance, and other administrative functions for OPRE.

    B. The Division of Economic Independence, in cooperation with ACF income support programs and others, works with federal counterparts, states, community agencies, and the private sector to understand and overcome barriers to economic independence; promote parental responsibility; and assist in improving the effectiveness of programs that further economic independence. The Division provides guidance, analysis, technical assistance, and oversight in ACF on: Strategic planning and performance measurement for economic independence; statistical, policy, and program analysis; surveys, research, and evaluation methodologies; demonstration testing and model development; synthesis and dissemination of research and evaluation findings; and application of emerging technologies to programs that promote employment, parental responsibility, and economic independence.

    The Division develops policy-relevant research priorities; conducts, manages, and coordinates major cross-program, leading-edge research, demonstrations, and evaluation studies; manages and conducts statistical, policy, and program analyses on trends in employment, child support payments, and other income supports; and works in partnership with states, communities, and the private sector to promote employment, parental responsibility, and family economic independence. Division staff also provides consultation, coordination, direction, and support for research and evaluation activities related to employment, parental responsibility, and family economic independence across ACF programs.

    C. The Division of Child and Family Development, in cooperation with ACF programs and others, works with federal counterparts, states, community agencies, and the private sector to: Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of programs, and foster safety and sound growth and development of children and their families. The Division provides guidance, analysis, technical assistance, and oversight in ACF on: strategic planning and performance measurement for child and family development; statistical, policy, and program analysis; surveys, research and evaluation methodologies; demonstration testing and model development; synthesis and dissemination of research and evaluation findings; and application of emerging technologies to improve the effectiveness of programs and service delivery. The Division conducts, manages, and coordinates major cross-programs, leading-edge research, demonstration and evaluation studies; develops policy-relevant research priorities; and manages and conducts statistical, policy, and program analyses related to children and families. Division staff also provides consultation, coordination, direction, and support for research and evaluation activities related to children and families across ACF programs.

    D. The Division of Family Strengthening, in cooperation with ACF programs and others, works with federal counterparts, states, community agencies, and the private sector to: improve the effectiveness and efficiency of programs; foster the safety, positive growth and development of children, youth, parents, and vulnerable populations; and strengthen families.

    The Division provides guidance, analysis, technical assistance and oversight in ACF on: Parent, child, youth and family development and dynamics; child safety; statistical, policy and program analysis; surveys, research and evaluation methodologies; demonstration testing and model development; synthesis and dissemination of research and evaluation findings; and application of emerging technologies to improve the effectiveness of programs and service delivery.

    The Division conducts, manages, and coordinates major cross-program, leading-edge research, demonstration, and evaluation studies; develops policy-relevant research priorities; and manages and conducts statistical, policy, and program analyses related to strengthening families. Division staff also provides consultation, coordination, direction and support for research and evaluation activities related to strengthening families across ACF programs.

    E. The Division of Data and Improvement, in cooperation with ACF programs and others, works with federal counterparts, states, community agencies, and the private sector to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of programs through improving the quality, usefulness, interoperability, and availability of data. Division staff provide guidance, analysis, technical assistance, and oversight on strategic planning and performance measurement; statistical, policy, and program analysis; continuous improvement; surveys, data collection, and analysis methodologies; application of data analyses to program operations and decision-making; application of emerging technologies to improve the effectiveness of programs and service delivery; privacy and data security; and data sharing. The Division conducts, manages, and coordinates major cross-program, leading-edge research, demonstration, and evaluation studies related to the quality, usefulness, interoperability, and availability of data; develops policy-relevant priorities for data collection and analysis; manages and conducts statistical, policy, and program analyses; provides consultation, coordination, direction, and support for research and evaluation activities related to the quality, usefulness, interoperability, and availability of data; coordinates and develops policies and procedures for reviewing Federal Financial Participation in the cost of automated systems development to support programs funded under the Social Security Act; coordinates and develops systems, policies, and procedures to support data exchange in support of program access and program integrity; coordinates and supports implementation of technologies, strategies, and policies related to systems integration and interoperability systems assessments, systems design and planning, data exchanges, information management, information security, and electronic information exchanges across federal, state, local, tribal, and private systems. It serves as the departmental focal point and coordinator for the development and implementation of strategies and policies related to payment integrity, welfare systems integration, electronic benefit transfer, and related initiatives and programs. The Division provides leadership and guidance to interagency work groups in these areas for the Department.

    II. Under Chapter KP, Office of Administration, Delete Paragraph C, and replace as follows:

    The Office of Financial Services (OFS) supports the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration in fulfilling ACF's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Federal Manager's Financial (FMFIA) Management Control Officer responsibilities, including preparation of the CFO 5-Year Plan; performs audit oversight and liaison activities, including preparing reports to Congress, Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of the Inspector General. OFS writes/interprets financial policy and researches appropriation law issues; oversees and coordinates ACF's FMFIA activities; performs debt management functions; develops and administers quality assurance, training, and certification programs for grants management; and is responsible for the annual preparation and audit of ACF's financial statement requirements.

    The Office develops/interprets internal policies and procedures for ACF components and coordinates the management of ACF's interagency agreement activities. The Office provides agency-wide guidance to program and regional office staff on grant-related issues, including developing and interpreting financial and grants policy, coordinating strategic grants planning, facilitating policy advisory groups, and assuring consistent grant program announcements. The Office prepares, coordinates, and disseminates action transmittals, information memoranda, and other policy guidance on financial and grants management issues; provides financial and grants administration technical assistance to ACF staff; directs and/or coordinates management initiatives to improve financial administration of ACF mandatory and discretionary grant programs. OFS develops and administers grants management training for ACF program and grants staff and administers grants management certification for ACF grants staff.

    III. Continuation of Policy. Except as inconsistent with this reorganization, all statements of policy and interpretations with respect to organizational components affected by this notice within ACF, heretofore issued and in effect on this date of this reorganization are continued in full force and effect.

    IV. Delegation of Authority. All delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.

    V. Funds, Personnel, and Equipment. Transfer of organizations and functions affected by this reorganization shall be accompanied in each instance by direct and support funds, positions, personnel, records, equipment, supplies, and other resources.

    This reorganization will be effective upon date of signature.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14981 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Proposed Projects: Regional Partnership Grants To Increase the Well-Being of and To Improve Permanency Outcomes for Children Affected by Substance Abuse Cross-Site Evaluation and Evaluation-Related Technical Assistance and Evaluation-Related Technical Assistance and Data Collection Support for Regional Partnership Grant Program Round Three Sites

    Title: RPG National Cross-Site Evaluation and Evaluation Technical Assistance

    OMB No.: 0970-0444

    Description: The Children's Bureau within the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeks a renewal of clearance to collect information for the Regional Partnership Grants to Increase the Well-being of and to Improve Permanency Outcomes for Children Affected by Substance Abuse Cross-Site Evaluation and Evaluation-Related Technical Assistance and Evaluation-Related Technical Assistance and Data Collection Support for Regional Partnership Grant Program Round Three Sites or “RPG” projects. Under RPG, the Children's Bureau has issued 21 grants to organizations such as child welfare or substance abuse treatment providers or family court systems to develop interagency collaborations and integration of programs, activities, and services designed to increase well-being, improve permanency, and enhance the safety of children who are in an out-of-home placement or are at risk of being placed in out-of-home care as a result of a parent's or caretaker's substance use dependence. The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-34) includes a targeted grants program (section 437(f) of the Social Security Act) that directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to reserve a specified portion of the appropriation for these Regional Partnership Grants, to be used to improve the well-being of children affected by substance abuse. The overall objective of the Cross-Site Evaluation and Technical Assistance projects (the RPG Cross-Site Evaluation) is to plan, develop, and implement a rigorous national cross-site evaluation of the RPG Grant Program, provide legislatively-mandated performance measurement, furnish evaluation-related technical assistance to the grantees in order to improve the quality and rigor of their local evaluations, and support their participation in the cross-site evaluation. The project will evaluate the programs and activities conducted through the RPG Program. The evaluation is being undertaken by the Children's Bureau and its contractor Mathematica Policy Research. The evaluation is being implemented by Mathematica Policy Research and its subcontractors, WRMA, Inc., and Synergy Enterprises.

    The RPG Cross-Site Evaluation includes the following components:

    1. Implementation and Partnership Study. The RPG cross-site implementation and partnership study will contribute to building the knowledge base about effective implementation strategies by examining the process of implementation in the 21 RPG projects, with a focus on factors shown in the research literature to be associated with quality implementation of evidence-based programs. This component of the study describes the RPG projects' target populations, selected interventions and their fit with the target populations, inputs to implementation, and actual services provided (including dosage, duration, content, adherence to curricula, and participant responsiveness). It examines the key attributes of the regional partnerships that grantees develop (for example, partnerships among child welfare and substance abuse treatment providers, social services, and family courts). It describes the characteristics and roles of the partner organizations, the extent of coordination and collaboration, and their potential to sustain the partnerships after the grant ends. Key data collection activities of the implementation and partnership study are: (1) Conducting site visits during which researchers interview RPG program directors, managers, supervisors, and frontline staff who work directly with families; (2) administering a survey to frontline staff involved in providing direct services to children, adults, and families; (3) asking grantees to provide information about implementation and their partnerships as part of their federally required semi-annual progress reports; (4) obtaining service use data from grantees, enrollment date and demographics of enrollees, exit date and reason, and service participation, which are entered into a web-based system operated by Mathematica Policy Research and its subcontractors; and (5) administering a survey to representatives of the partner organizations.

    2. Outcomes Study. The goal of the outcomes study is to describe the changes that occur in children and families who participate in the RPG programs. This study will describe participant outcomes in five domains: (1) Child well-being, (2) family functioning/stability, (3) adult recovery from substance use disorder, (4) child permanency, and (5) child safety. Two main types of outcome data will be used—both of which are being collected by RPG grantees: (1) Administrative child welfare and adult substance abuse treatment records and (2) standardized instruments administered to the parents and/or caregivers. The Children's Bureau is requiring grantees to obtain and report specified administrative records, and to use a prescribed set of standardized instruments. Grantees will provide these data to the cross-site evaluation team twice a year by uploading them to a data system operated by Mathematica Policy Research and its subcontractors.

    3. Impact Study. The goal of the impact study is to assess the impact of the RPG interventions on child, adult, and family outcomes by comparing outcomes for people enrolled in RPG services to those in comparison groups, such as people who do not receive RPG services or receive only a subset of the services. The impact study will use demographic and outcome data on both program (treatment) and comparison groups from a subset of grantees with appropriate local evaluation designs such as randomized controlled trials or strong quasi-experimental designs; 5 of the 21 grantees have such designs. Site-specific impacts will be estimated for these five grantees. Aggregated impact estimates will be created by pooling impact estimates across appropriate sites to obtain a more powerful summary of the effectiveness of RPG interventions.

    In addition to conducting local evaluations and participating in the RPG Cross-Site Evaluation, the RPG grantees are legislatively required to report performance indicators aligned with their proposed program strategies and activities. A key strategy of the RPG Cross-Site Evaluation is to minimize burden on the grantees by ensuring that the cross-site evaluation, which includes all grantees in a study that collects data to report on implementation, the partnerships, and participant characteristics and outcomes, fully meets the need for performance reporting. Thus, rather than collecting separate evaluation and performance indicator data, the grantees need only participate in the cross-site evaluation. In addition, using the standardized instruments that the Children's Bureau has specified will ensure that grantees have valid and reliable data on child and family outcomes for their local evaluations. The inclusion of an impact study conducted on a subset of grantees with rigorous designs will also provide the Children's Bureau, Congress, grantees, providers, and researchers with information about the effectiveness of RPG programs. This 60-Day Notice covers the following data collection activities: (1) The site visits with grantees; (2) the web-based survey of frontline staff who provide direct services to children, adults, and families, and their supervisors; (3) the semi-annual progress reports; (4) enrollment and service data provided by grantees; (5) the web-based survey of grantee partners; and (6) outcome data provided by grantees.

    Respondents. Respondents include grantee staff or contractors (such as local evaluators) and partner staff. Specific types of respondents and the expected number per data collection effort are noted in the burden table below.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • each year
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • Program director individual interview 4 0.33 2 2.67 Program manager/supervisor group interview 36 0.33 2 24 Program manager/supervisor individual interviews 24 0.33 1 8 Frontline staff individual interviews 24 0.33 1 8 Semi-annual progress reports 21 2.67 16.5 924 Case enrollment data 63 30 0.25 472.5 Service log entries 126 780 0.05 4,914 Staff survey 80 0.33 0.42 11.2 Partner survey 80 0.33 0.33 8.8 Obtain access to administrative data 21 1 42.7 896.7 Report administrative data 21 2.67 144 8,064 Enter data into local database 21 2.67 112.5 6,300 Review records and submit electronically 21 2.67 100 5,600 Data entry for comparison study sites (5 grantees) 5 0.33 .25 361.6 Estimated Total Burden Hours: 27,595.

    In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Children's Bureau within the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington DC 20416, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15010 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Request for Statements of Interest AGENCY:

    Administration for Children and Families.

    ACTION:

    Request for Statements of Interest for the National Advisory Committee on the Trafficking of Children and Youth in the United States.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014, Public Law 113-183, notice is hereby given of an opportunity to submit a Statement of Interest for the National Advisory Committee on Trafficking of Children and Youth in the United States (Committee). The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary and the Attorney General on practical and general policies concerning improvements to the Nation's response to the sex trafficking of children and youth in the United States. The Committee will be composed of not more than 21 members whose diverse experience and background enable them to provide balanced points of view with regard to carrying out the duties of the Committee.

    DATES:

    Statements of Interest must be received by 5 p.m. EST, July 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Kate Cooper, ACF Office on Trafficking in Persons, phone (202) 205-4554 or email [email protected]. Additional information and the Statement of Interest Form are available at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/endtrafficking/forms.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 29, 2014, President Obama signed the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (Pub. L. 113-183). The Act established a National Advisory Committee on the Sex Trafficking of Children and Youth in the United States to advise the Secretary and the Attorney General on practical and general policies concerning the cooperation of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments; child welfare agencies; social service providers; physical health and mental health providers; victim service providers; State or local courts with responsibility for conducting or supervising proceedings relating to child welfare or social services for children and their families; Federal, State, and local police; juvenile detention centers and runaway and homeless youth programs; schools; the gaming and entertainment industry; and businesses and organizations that provide services to youth, on responding to sex trafficking.

    The Secretary shall appoint members of the Committee in consultation with the Attorney General and National Governors Association. At least one Committee member shall be a former sex trafficking victim and two Committee members shall be Governors of States. Each member of the Committee shall be appointed for the 5-year life of the Committee. The Committee will advise on the development and implementation of successful interventions with children and youth who are exposed to conditions that make them vulnerable to, or victims of, sex trafficking; and recommendations for administrative or legislative changes necessary to use programs, properties, or other resources owned, operated, or funded by the Federal Government to provide safe housing for children and youth who are sex trafficking victims.

    The Committee shall develop two tiers of recommended best practices for States to follow in combating the sex trafficking of children and youth based on multidisciplinary research and promising, evidence-based models and programs, including sample training materials, protocols, and screening tools to identify victims of trafficking and those at risk for trafficking; multidisciplinary strategies to identify victims, manage cases, and improve services; sample protocols and recommendations for cross-system collaborations; criteria and guidelines for safe residential placements for foster children who have been sex trafficked; and training guidelines for caregivers serving children and youth outside the home.

    The Committee will share best practices and recommendations with State Governors and child welfare agencies on a quarterly basis.

    The Committee shall submit an interim report to the Secretary, Attorney General, and Congress within 3 years after the establishment of the Committee and a final report within 4 years after the establishment of the Committee.

    The Committee shall convene at least twice a year. This is an unpaid position and Committee members will not be considered employees of the Federal Government other than reimbursement of travel expenses and a per diem allowance in accordance with Federal Government regulations.

    Dated: June 17, 2016. Mark H. Greenberg, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14980 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-47-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects

    Title: TANF Quarterly Financial Report, ACF-196.

    OMB No.: 0970-0247.

    Description: This information collection is authorized under Section 411(a)(3) of the Social Security Act. This request is for renewal of approval to use the Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) 196 form for periodic financial reporting under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. States participating in the TANF program are required by statute to report financial data on a quarterly basis. This form meets the legal standard and provides essential data on the use of Federal funds. Failure to collect the data would seriously compromise ACF's ability to monitor program expenditures, estimate funding needs, and to prepare budget submissions required by Congress. Financial reporting under the TANF program is governed by 45 CFR part 265. This renewal restores columns for reporting Emergency Contingency Fund Grant expenditures.

    Respondents: TANF Agencies.

    ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours per response
  • Total burden hours
    ACF-196 51 4 10 2,040 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,040.

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35) Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14945 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than August 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or mail the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Room 14N-39, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email [email protected] or call the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Outcomes within the Context of the Affordable Care Act, OMB No. 0906-xxxx—New.

    Abstract: The Health Resources and Services Administration's HIV/AIDS Bureau (HRSA/HAB) implements the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP). This program provides HIV-related services in the United States for those who do not have sufficient health care coverage or financial resources for coping with HIV disease. Enacted in 2010, the Affordable Care Act has had profound impacts on health care financing and delivery that are continuing to unfold. The expansion of health care coverage impacted many of RWHAP's traditional clients who are now eligible to receive health care coverage through Medicaid coverage and qualified health plans available on Health Insurance Marketplaces. These changes have required RWHAP sites to adapt in order to fill different gaps in care experienced by clients across the varying health care coverage options. The purpose of this evaluation study is to determine the effect that Affordable Care Act related health care coverage has had on overall health outcomes, service utilization, and gaps in care for people living with HIV. This evaluation seeks to understand how RWHAP provider sites meet the needs of clients under the variety of health care coverage options clients are encountering across the country.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The expansion of health care coverage now offers new options of obtaining health care services for many individuals with HIV. Due to these changes, additional information concerning overall client health outcomes, pharmaceutical and core medical processes and outcomes, and client access to and utilization of support services is needed. Data from this evaluation study will be used to provide HRSA/HAB with the necessary information to understand the changes in primary health care outcomes of RWHAP clients' pre- and post- implementation of the Affordable Care Act. This will inform how the RWHAP can best serve clients in the environment of the health care reform.

    Likely Respondents: RWHAP administrators, RWHAP care providers, and RWHAP clients are the likely respondents.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized burden hours:

    Form na