Federal Register Vol. 81, No.123,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 123 (June 27, 2016)

Page Range41411-41786
FR Document

81_FR_123
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 41466 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for CompressorsPDF
81 FR 41538 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41641 - In the Matter of Coastal Pacific Mining Corp. and Petaquilla Minerals Ltd.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 41590 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University, Pullman, WAPDF
81 FR 41529 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; HEAL Program: Physician's Certification of Borrower's Total and Permanent DisabilityPDF
81 FR 41625 - In the Matter of Caspian International Oil Corporation, Elevate, Inc., Frawley Corporation, Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc., and Logic Devices, Incorporated; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 41629 - In the Matter of Rebornne (USA) Inc.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 41466 - Airworthiness Directives; Zodiac Seats California LLC Seating SystemsPDF
81 FR 41485 - Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal MinesPDF
81 FR 41486 - Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel ExhaustPDF
81 FR 41518 - First Responder Network Authority; First Responder Network Authority Board MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41515 - Notice of New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement ActPDF
81 FR 41525 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Request for NominationsPDF
81 FR 41467 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Third Meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking CommitteePDF
81 FR 41498 - Air Plan Approval; SC Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
81 FR 41605 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2PDF
81 FR 41599 - In the Matter of CampCo, Inc.PDF
81 FR 41531 - Notice of Interim Waiver and Request for Waiver to AGA Marvel From the Department of Energy Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Test ProceduresPDF
81 FR 41529 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41519 - Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific InstrumentsPDF
81 FR 41488 - Air Plan Approval; KY Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
81 FR 41608 - Formation of SES Performance Review BoardPDF
81 FR 41522 - Calcium Hypochlorite From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Intent To Rescind the New Shipper Review of Haixing Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd.PDF
81 FR 41507 - Notice of Extension to Comment Period on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Applications and Program Updates Proposed RulePDF
81 FR 41535 - Preliminary 2016 Effluent Guidelines Program PlanPDF
81 FR 41519 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Critical CircumstancesPDF
81 FR 41536 - Casmalia Resources Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Administrative De Minimis SettlementPDF
81 FR 41521 - Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
81 FR 41597 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed First Amendment to Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
81 FR 41516 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 41592 - Certain Chassis Parts Incorporating Movable Sockets and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Not Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation on the Basis of Settlement; Termination of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 41508 - Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers ProgramPDF
81 FR 41647 - Pipeline Safety: Gaseous Carbon Dioxide PipelinesPDF
81 FR 41526 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41598 - Comment Request for Information Collection for the Cascades Job Corps College and Career Academy Pilot Evaluation, New CollectionPDF
81 FR 41538 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 41539 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 41539 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 41541 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 41567 - Office of Clinical and Preventive Services: National HIV Program; HIV/AIDS Prevention and Engagement in CarePDF
81 FR 41595 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Environmental Information (ATF F 5000.29)PDF
81 FR 41557 - Division of Behavioral Health, Office of Clinical and Preventive Services, Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative-Generation Indigenous (Gen-I) Initiative SupportPDF
81 FR 41644 - Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping RequirementsPDF
81 FR 41574 - Division of Behavioral Health, Office of Clinical and Preventive Services, Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative-Generation Indigenous (Gen-I), Initiative SupportPDF
81 FR 41643 - Request for Transit Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS) NominationsPDF
81 FR 41628 - Investor Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 41524 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Patent Cooperation TreatyPDF
81 FR 41530 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment FormPDF
81 FR 41544 - Special Protocol Assessment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Extension of the Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 41597 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActPDF
81 FR 41517 - Four Forest Restoration Initiative, Rim Country Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Tonto National ForestsPDF
81 FR 41538 - Notice of Termination; 10082 Temecula Valley Bank, Temecula, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 41597 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Walking-Working Surfaces StandardPDF
81 FR 41546 - Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997: Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 043PDF
81 FR 41545 - Quality Metrics Technical Conformance Guide-Technical Specifications Document; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 41553 - Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection: Developing Direct-Acting Antiviral Drugs for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Extension of the Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 41526 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 41524 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18529PDF
81 FR 41543 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41595 - Certain Resealable Packages With Slider Devices; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 41554 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41555 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41444 - Safety Zones; Captain of the Port Boston Fireworks Display Zone, Boston Harbor, Boston, MAPDF
81 FR 41514 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41649 - Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit Review Board; Amended Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41540 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 41589 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 41591 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 41610 - Request for Information on Artificial IntelligencePDF
81 FR 41556 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41537 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 41435 - Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for InflationPDF
81 FR 41596 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
81 FR 41617 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to FeesPDF
81 FR 41638 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to FeesPDF
81 FR 41626 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Order MarkingPDF
81 FR 41641 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding FingerprintingPDF
81 FR 41636 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Price List To Adopt a Fee Waiver and a Fee Cap Related to the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program on the NYSE BondsSMPDF
81 FR 41619 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Provide a Process for an Expedited Suspension Proceeding and Adopt a Rule To Prohibit Disruptive Options Quoting and Trading ActivityPDF
81 FR 41589 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41648 - Hazardous Materials: Information Collection ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 41586 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 41611 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; ISE Gemini, LLC; ISE Mercury, LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, Each as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to a Corporate Transaction in Which Nasdaq, Inc. Will Become the Indirect Parent of ISE, ISE Gemini, and ISE MercuryPDF
81 FR 41634 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE Amex Options Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 41629 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange's Pricing SchedulePDF
81 FR 41584 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41588 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41589 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41584 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41585 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 41588 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 41586 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41587 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41585 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41592 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 41442 - Safety Zone; Bay Village Independence Day Celebration; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OHPDF
81 FR 41444 - Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Cleveland, Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois AreasPDF
81 FR 41497 - Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Cleveland, Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois AreasPDF
81 FR 41528 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41609 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 41447 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur DioxidePDF
81 FR 41609 - Submission for Review: 3206-0140, Representative Payee Application (RI 20-7) and Information Necessary for a Competency Determination (RI 30-3)PDF
81 FR 41497 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur DioxidePDF
81 FR 41608 - Submission for Review: OPM.GOV Feedback Tab SurveyPDF
81 FR 41487 - Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VAPDF
81 FR 41411 - Record Retention RequirementsPDF
81 FR 41422 - Treatment of Financial Assets Transferred in Connection With a Securitization or ParticipationPDF
81 FR 41423 - Affiliation for Business Loan Programs and Surety Bond Guarantee ProgramPDF
81 FR 41453 - Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment of 2015PDF
81 FR 41453 - Radio Broadcasting Services; Bogata, Texas and Wright City, OklahomaPDF
81 FR 41441 - Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Chromium Propionate; Extension of the Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 41432 - Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate Previously Held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) AirplanesPDF
81 FR 41473 - Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area ReformPDF
81 FR 41594 - Aluminum: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Aluminum: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry QuestionnairePDF
81 FR 41451 - Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015PDF
81 FR 41418 - Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) Annual Threshold Adjustments (CARD Act, HOEPA and ATR/QM)PDF
81 FR 41429 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 41468 - Technology Innovation-Personnel ExchangesPDF
81 FR 41651 - Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining RegistrantsPDF
81 FR 41735 - Amendments to Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Cleared SwapsPDF
81 FR 41438 - Penalty Inflation Adjustments for Civil Money PenaltiesPDF

Issue

81 123 Monday, June 27, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

See

Office of Advocacy and Outreach

Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Environmental Information, 41595-41596 2016-15114 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41526, 41528-41529 2016-15043 2016-15122 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 41526-41528 2016-15097 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, 41525-41526 2016-15151 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection RULES Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) Annual Threshold Adjustments (CARD Act, HOEPA and ATR/QM), 41418-41422 2016-14782 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41539-41543 2016-15087 2016-15116 2016-15117 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41543-41544 2016-15094 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Bay Village Independence Day Celebration, Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH, 41442-41443 2016-15052 Captain of the Port Boston Fireworks Display Zone, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA, 41444 2016-15090 PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Grounds: Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA, 41487-41488 2016-15033 Commerce Commerce Department See

First Responder Network Authority

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission RULES Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, 41435-41438 2016-15078 Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Cleared Swaps, 41736-41786 2016-14414 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41529 2016-15140
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Form, 41530 2016-15107 HEAL Program: Physician's Certification of Borrower's Total and Permanent Disability, 41529-41530 2016-15234 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Compressors, 41466 C1--2016--10170
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Department of Energy Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures Waiver Requests: AGA Marvel, 41531-41535 2016-15142 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide, 41447-41450 2016-15038 Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois; Cleveland, OH, and St. Louis, MO-Illinois Areas; Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 41444-41447 2016-15050 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Cleveland, OH and St. Louis, MO-Illinois Areas; Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 41497-41498 2016-15049 Kentucky; Air Plan Approval; KY Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 41488-41497 2016-15138 Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide, 41497 2016-15035 South Carolina; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 41498-41507 2016-15145 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Applications and Program Updates, 41507 2016-15134 NOTICES Preliminary 2016 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, 41535-41536 2016-15133 Proposed Administrative Settlements under CERCLA: Casmalia Resources Superfund Site, 41536-41537 2016-15131 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate Previously Held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes, 41432-41435 2016-14871 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 41429-41432 2016-14752 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Zodiac Seats California LLC Seating Systems, 41466 2016-15209 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Radio Broadcasting Services: Bogata, TX and Wright City, OK, 41453 2016-14934 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41537-41538 2016-15080 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Record Retention Requirements, 41411-41418 2016-15020 Treatment of Financial Assets Transferred in Connection with a Securitization or Participation, 41422-41423 2016-15019 NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: Temecula Valley Bank, Temecula, CA, 41538 2016-15103 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41538 2016-15317 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration PROPOSED RULES Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform, 41473-41485 2016-14854 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment of 2015, 41453-41465 2016-14973 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 41539 2016-15119 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 41538-41539 2016-15120 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration PROPOSED RULES Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform, 41473-41485 2016-14854 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Transit Advisory Committee for Safety, 41643-41644 2016-15110 FIRSTNET First Responder Network Authority NOTICES Meetings: First Responder Network Authority Board, 41518-41519 2016-15158 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals: Chromium Propionate, 41441-41442 2016-14932 NOTICES Guidance: Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection—Developing Direct-Acting Antiviral Drugs for Treatment, 41553-41554 2016-15098 Modernization Act—Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number 043, 41546-41553 2016-15100 Quality Metrics Technical Conformance Guide--Technical Specifications Document, 41545-41546 2016-15099 Special Protocol Assessment, 41544 2016-15106 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41514-41515 2016-15089 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Committee Reestablishment: Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, 41516-41517 2016-15127 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Four Forest Restoration Initiative, Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Tonto National Forests, Rim Country, 41517-41518 2016-15104 New Fee Sites: Siuslaw National Forest, 41515-41516 2016-15156 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41556-41557 2016-15081
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41554-41556 2016-15091 2016-15092 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Funding Availability: Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative—Generation Indigenous Initiative Support, 41557-41567, 41574-41584 2016-15111 2016-15113 National HIV Program HIV/AIDS Prevention and Engagement in Care, 41567-41574 2016-15115 Interior Interior Department See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China, 41522-41524 2016-15135 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, 41521-41522 2016-15130 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the People's Republic of China, 41519-41521 2016-15132 Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments, 41519 2016-15139 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Aluminum: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, 41594-41595 2016-14835 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, 41592-41594 2016-15053 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Chassis Parts Incorporating Movable Sockets, 41592 2016-15126 Certain Resealable Packages with Slider Devices; Request for Statements on the Public Interest, 41595 2016-15093 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

NOTICES Proposed Amendments to Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 41597 2016-15128 Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 41597 2016-15105 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and CERCLA, 41596 2016-15077
Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cascades Job Corps College and Career Academy Pilot Evaluation, 41598-41599 2016-15121 Walking-Working Surfaces Standard, 41597-41598 2016-15102
Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, 41485-41486 2016-15191 Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust, 41486-41487 2016-15190 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41644-41647 2016-15112 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology PROPOSED RULES Technology Innovation—Personnel Exchanges, 41468-41472 2016-14723 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 41585-41586, 41588-41589 2016-15057 2016-15059 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 41585-41588 2016-15054 2016-15055 2016-15056 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 41584 2016-15060 National Eye Institute, 41588-41589 2016-15061 2016-15062 2016-15063 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 41584-41585 2016-15064 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 41586-41589 2016-15068 2016-15070 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 18529, 41524 2016-15095 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 41590-41591 2016-15245 National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 41589-41592 2016-15083 2016-15084 National Science National Science Foundation RULES Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act, 41451-41452 2016-14795 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Meetings: First Responder Network Authority Board, 41518-41519 2016-15158 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Confirmatory Orders: CampCo, Inc., 41599-41605 2016-15143 Exemptions: Exelon Generation Co., LLC; Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 41605-41608 2016-15144 Nuclear Waste Technical Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board NOTICES Formation of SES Performance Review Board, 41608 2016-15137 Advocacy Outreach Office of Advocacy and Outreach NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program, 41508-41514 2016-15124 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Patent Cooperation Treaty, 41524-41525 2016-15108 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: OPM.GOV Feedback Tab Survey, 41608-41609 2016-15034 Representative Payee Application and Information Necessary for a Competency Determination, 41609 2016-15037 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hazardous Materials, 41648-41649 2016-15069 Pipeline Safety: Gaseous Carbon Dioxide Pipelines, 41647-41648 2016-15123 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 41609-41610 2016-15042 Science Technology Science and Technology Policy Office NOTICES Requests for Information: Artificial Intelligence, 41610-41611 2016-15082 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants, 41652-41734 2016-14632 NOTICES Meetings: Investor Advisory Committee, 41628-41629 2016-15109 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 41638-41641 2016-15075 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 41617-41619 2016-15076 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 41626-41628 2016-15074 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 41641-41643 2016-15073 International Securities Exchange, LLC; ISE Gemini, LLC; ISE Mercury, LLC, 41611-41617 2016-15067 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 41619-41625 2016-15071 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 41629-41634 2016-15065 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 41636-41638 2016-15072 NYSE MKT, LLC, 41634-41636 2016-15066 Trading Suspension Orders: Caspian International Oil Corp., Elevate, Inc., Frawley Corp., Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc., and Logic Devices, Inc., 41625-41626 2016-15214 Coastal Pacific Mining Corp. and Petaquilla Minerals Ltd., 41641 2016-15255 Rebornne (USA) Inc., 41629 2016-15210 Small Business Small Business Administration RULES Affiliation for Business Loan Programs and Surety Bond Guarantee Program, 41423-41429 2016-14984 Social Social Security Administration RULES Penalty Inflation Adjustments for Civil Money Penalties, 41438-41441 2016-13241 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PROPOSED RULES Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Meeting, 41467-41468 2016-15147
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit Review Board; Amendments, 41649-41650 2016-15088 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 41652-41734 2016-14632 Part III Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 41736-41786 2016-14414 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.

81 123 Monday, June 27, 2016 Rules and Regulations FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 380 RIN 3064-AE25 Record Retention Requirements AGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) is adopting a final rule that implements section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or the “Act”). This statutory provision requires the promulgation of a regulation establishing schedules for the retention by the FDIC of the records of a covered financial company (i.e., a financial company for which the necessary determination has been made for the appointment of the FDIC as receiver pursuant to Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act) as well as for the records generated or maintained by the FDIC that relate to its exercise of its Title II orderly liquidation authorities as receiver with respect to such covered financial company.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on July 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Legal Division: Elizabeth Falloon, (703) 562-6148; Joanne W. Rose, (703) 562-2175. Division of Resolutions and Receiverships: Teresa Franks, (571) 858-8226; James Horgan, (917) 320-2501; Manuel Ramilo, (571) 858-8227. Office of Complex Financial Institutions: Charlton R. Templeton, (202) 898-6774. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Policy Objectives II. Background III. Comments to the Proposed Rule A. Retention Periods B. Reasonably Accessible C. Bridge or Subsidiary Records IV. The Final Rule A. General B. Section-by-Section Analysis 1. Scope and Definitions 2. Inherited Records 3. Transfer of Records 4. Receivership Records 5. Limits of Effect of Determinations With Respect to Records 6. Duplicate and Transitory Materials 7. Records of Affiliate; Supervisory Materials 8. Policies and Procedures V. Expected Effects of the Final Rule VI. Alternatives Considered VII. Regulatory Analysis and Procedure A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act D. Plain Language E. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 I. Policy Objectives

In enacting Title II 1 of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Title II”), Congress provided for the appointment of the FDIC as receiver for a financial company 2 in order to conduct an orderly liquidation of the financial company if, among other things, resolution of the financial company under bankruptcy (or other applicable insolvency regime) would have serious adverse effects on U.S. financial stability. Title II confers upon the FDIC as the appointed receiver for a financial company (after appointment of the receiver, the company is referred to as a covered financial company) 3 certain powers and authorities to effectuate an orderly liquidation of the covered financial company in a manner that is consistent with the statutory objectives. As part of this statutory undertaking, Congress foresaw the necessity for the FDIC and the public at large to have access to the records that would document the actions of the financial company prior to the FDIC's appointment as receiver and the records of the FDIC itself, in its receivership role. This regulation implements that statutory mandate in a manner promoting consistency and transparency in the maintenance of these records.

1 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) and codified at 12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq. Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act is codified at 12 U.S.C. 5381-5394.

2See 12 U.S.C. 5381(a)(11) (defining financial company) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

3 A “covered financial company” is a financial company (other than an insured depository institution) for which the necessary determinations have been made for the appointment of the FDIC as receiver. 12 U.S.C. 5381(a)(8).

II. Background

Upon appointment of the FDIC as receiver for a financial company, the FDIC succeeds to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of the financial company, including title to the books and records of the financial company.4 In addition, the FDIC necessarily will generate its own records in connection with its appointment as receiver and in connection with exercising the authorities conferred upon it by Title II.

4 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(1)(A).

Section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Dodd-Frank Act 5 requires the FDIC to prescribe such regulations and establish such retention schedules as are necessary to maintain two categories of records: The records of a financial company that were in existence at the time the FDIC is appointed as its receiver, as well as the records generated by the FDIC in connection with its appointment as receiver and in connection with its exercise of its orderly liquidation authorities. Section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act provides guidance as to the types of records that must be retained. Specifically, section 210(a)(16)(D)(i) of the Act requires that the FDIC prescribe the regulations and establish schedules for retention of these records with due regard for the avoidance of duplicative record retention and for the evidentiary needs of the FDIC as receiver and for the public. Once such regulations and retention schedules are prescribed, section 210(a)(16)(D)(ii) prohibits the destruction of records to the extent that they must be retained in accordance with the promulgated regulations and retention schedules.

5 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(16)(D).

Section 210(a)(16)(D)(iii) of the Act, entitled “Records Defined,” describes the forms of documentary material addressed in the regulation and statute, specifying that any document, book, paper, map, photograph, microfiche, microfilm, computer or electronically-created record is included. In addition, that section specifies that records inherited from the failed company are those that were generated or maintained by the covered financial company in the course of and necessary to its transaction of business.

On October 21, 2014, the Board of Directors of the FDIC approved a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Record Retention Requirements,” promulgated pursuant to section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2014 with a 60-day comment period that ended on December 23, 2014.6 In keeping with the statutory mandate, the proposed rule established retention schedules for both records inherited by the FDIC as receiver from the covered financial company and records created by the FDIC as receiver for the covered financial company. The retention schedule for records inherited from the covered financial company was modeled after the treatment of records of a failed insured depository institution pursuant to a regulation entitled “Records of Failed Depository Institutions” 7 (the “FDIA records rule”). The FDIA records rule addresses the retention of records of failed insured depository institutions pursuant to section 11(d)(15)(D) 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

6 79 FR 63585 (October 24, 2014).

7 12 CFR 360.11, 78 FR 54373 (September 4, 2013).

8 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(15)(D).

Generally, the proposed rule required that records inherited from a covered financial company that were created less than ten years before the appointment of the FDIC as receiver be retained for not less than 6 years following the date of the appointment of the receiver. Under the proposed rule, records created by the FDIC in connection with the exercise of its orderly liquidation authority as receiver for a covered financial company were required to be maintained at least six years following the termination of the receivership, regardless of when they were created.

III. Comments to the Proposed Rule

Two comment letters were submitted in response to the proposed rule, both from individuals.

A. Retention Periods

Both commenters stated that the retention periods in the proposed rule were too short, and one of the commenters suggested that all records be kept indefinitely for “analytical purposes.” The requirement in section 210(a)(16)(D)(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act that retention schedules be established suggests that Congress expected that the FDIC would exercise its discretion to identify some appropriate period of time as a minimum period of time to retain records. 9 The periods identified in the proposed rule were based upon the experience of the FDIC as receiver for insured depository institutions. Thus, as noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the FDIC prescribed minimum retention periods in the proposed rule, recognizing that the FDIC may, as it has in the past with regard to the records of failed insured depository institutions, retain certain records for longer periods of time or even indefinitely for analytical, historical, or other purposes. The proposed rule expressly provided for the establishment of policies that are consistent with the minimum schedules established in the proposed rule. With the changes more fully discussed below, the FDIC believes that the minimum retention periods provided in the final rule properly fulfill the intent of section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act and comport with prudent record retention principles.

9 Section 210(a)(16)(D)(ii) of the Act provides that unless otherwise required by applicable Federal law or court order, the FDIC may not, at any time, destroy any records that it is required to retain under Section 210(a)(16)(D)(i) of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

B. Reasonably Accessible

One of the commenters objected to the use of the phrase “reasonably accessible” in the definition of “documentary material,” which forms the basis for the types of materials that constitute a record for purposes of the proposed rule. The commenter suggested that if a party in litigation is willing to pay for the recovery of electronically-stored information, such a record should be made available. Unfortunately, this suggestion does not reflect the reality of record storage and accessibility.

A large component of record storage expense is the cost of maintaining legacy systems that house records, as well as the cost of retrieving and identifying possible relevant information from those systems and sources. To comply with the commenter's suggestion, all records systems, no matter how out-of-date or incompatible with the FDIC's systems, would have to be indefinitely maintained as accessible, together with the technological and staffing capacity to use these systems to retrieve obsolete records. This indefinite maintenance would be attempted on the remote chance that one record, or a portion thereof, stored on a legacy system would be requested by a litigant. The cost to indefinitely maintain an entire legacy system that could house an arguably relevant document would be impossible to calculate and to bill to a litigant. The “reasonably accessible” discovery standard requires maintenance of these systems where it is reasonable and practicable to do so. (See discussion on the “reasonably accessible” discovery standard used in the definition of documentary material in the section-by-section analysis.) Accordingly, the term “reasonably accessible” is included in the definition of “documentary material” in the final rule.

C. Bridge or Subsidiary Records

One of the commenters objected to the exclusion from records of documentary material generated or maintained by a bridge financial company or a subsidiary or affiliate of a covered financial company. This exclusion was included in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of the proposed rule. As required by the statute, the proposed rule addresses only the records of a covered financial company and the records of the FDIC as receiver of such covered financial company. Retention of the records of any other legal entity, including a covered financial company's subsidiaries or affiliates, is beyond the scope of the requirements of the statute. Although bridge financial company records and subsidiary records are not expressly subject to the proposed rule, records generated by the FDIC receiver in its oversight of a bridge financial company, or records sent to the FDIC receiver by the bridge's management and maintained by the FDIC in the course of such oversight would be subject to the applicable minimum retention requirements of the proposed rule. Accordingly, no change was made to the final rule in this respect and the exclusion is found in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of the final rule.

IV. The Final Rule A. General

In response to the comment letters and pursuant to internal agency consideration, the FDIC made certain changes to the final rule. These changes are discussed below.

The proposed rule has been revised to eliminate the set retention period for records created by the FDIC in connection with its appointment as receiver for a covered financial company and in connection with its exercise of its Title II responsibilities. The proposed rule provided for a retention period for these records of not less than six years after the date of the termination of the related receivership. The change in the final rule requires the FDIC to retain these records indefinitely to the extent that there is a present or reasonably foreseeable future evidentiary or historical need for them on the part of the FDIC or the public, but in no event less than six years from the termination of the related receivership. This is in keeping with the suggestions of the commenters who objected to the imposition of specific retention periods, and is consistent with the statutory emphasis on the “expected evidentiary needs of the Corporation 10 . . . and the public” as required by section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act. In addition, the paragraph clarifies that in the case of receivership records that are subject to a litigation hold, 11 a Congressional subpoena, or that relate to an investigation by Congress, the United States Government Accountability Office, or the FDIC's inspector general, such records will be retained pursuant to the conditions of the hold, subpoena, or investigation.

10 The Dodd-Frank Act uses the term “Corporation” to refer to the FDIC.

11 A litigation hold (also known as a “preservation order”, a “legal hold” or a “hold order”) is a stipulation requiring a party to preserve all data that may relate to a legal action involving that party. When in place, it requires that parties preserve records when they learn of pending or imminent litigation, or when litigation is reasonably anticipated. This requirement ensures that documentary material will be available for the litigation's discovery process.

Two definitions have been added and appear in the final rule: “Inherited records” in paragraph (b)(2) and “receivership records” in paragraph (b)(3). Although the proposed rule separately addressed these two kinds of records, the wording used to describe these records (“records of a covered financial company for which the Corporation is appointed receiver” and “records of the Corporation as receiver for a covered financial company”) was unnecessarily repetitive. The use of the defined terms, which are both accurate and descriptive, results in more succinct language in the final rule.

Inherited records may be transferred to a third-party transferee in connection with a transfer, acquisition, or sale of a covered financial company's assets and liabilities. Paragraph (b)(4) of the proposed rule has been slightly expanded in the final rule (and is now paragraph (c)(3) of the final rule). The final rule requires that in order for the transfer of inherited records to satisfy the record retention requirements of the final rule and section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act, the transferee must agree not only to maintain the inherited records for at least six years from the date of appointment of the FDIC as receiver for the covered financial company, as provided in the proposed rule, but must also agree that, prior to the destruction of any such inherited records, it will provide the FDIC with notice and the opportunity to cause the return of such inherited records to the FDIC.

B. Section-by-Section Analysis 1. Scope and Definitions

Paragraph (a) sets forth the scope of the final rule. It makes clear that the final rule applies to the two categories of records addressed by section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act, i.e., those records of a financial company that are inherited by the FDIC upon its appointment as receiver for the covered financial company and those records generated by the FDIC in connection with its appointment as receiver and the exercise of its orderly liquidation authorities.

Paragraph (b) provides definitions for terms used in the final rule that are not otherwise defined in the Dodd-Frank Act. Part 380 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations concerns the FDIC's orderly liquidation authorities conferred by Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 380.1 contains the definition of the term covered financial company which is defined as a financial company for which the necessary determinations have been made for the FDIC to be appointed receiver and the term financial company.12 Thus it is unnecessary to include definitions of the terms covered financial company and financial company in the final rule.

12 12 U.S.C. 5381(a)(11).

Paragraph (b) sets forth three definitions. The first is that of documentary material. This definition follows closely the text of section 210(a)(16)(D)(iii) of the Act and describes the universe of forms and formats in which materials subject to the final rule may appear, including books, paper, maps, photographs, microfiche, microfilm, or writing regardless of physical form or characteristics and includes any computer or electronically-created data or file. The definition of documentary material included in the final rule is slightly different from the definition included in the proposed rule to make it clearer that the term documentary material covers material regardless of the physical form or characteristics of the material and includes any computer or electronically-created data or file.

The definition of documentary material clarifies that only documentary material that is reasonably accessible is included in the scope of the final rule. This reflects the policy behind Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B), which provides that a party from whom discovery is sought need not provide electronically-stored information from sources that are not reasonably accessible because of undue cost or burden. For example, a party may be excused from restoring electronically-stored information from aging back-up tapes in order to produce it in response to a discovery request. Thus, the use of the phrase “reasonably accessible” would align the concept of material subject to the final rule with the discovery standard and would protect the FDIC as receiver from incurring inordinate expenses associated with restoring or maintaining the legacy system of a covered financial company in order to extract documentary material from those systems that is not otherwise needed by the FDIC to carry out its receivership functions.

Two definitions have been added and appear in the final rule in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3): Inherited records and receivership records. Although the proposed rule separately addressed these two kinds of records, they were described rather than defined (“records of a covered financial company for which the Corporation is appointed receiver” and “records or the Corporation as receiver for a covered financial company”). The final rule uses defined terms for conciseness and clarity, as discussed above.

2. Inherited Records

Paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule defines, and addresses the retention schedule for, inherited records. Under the final rule the term inherited record means documentary material of a covered financial company that existed on the date of the appointment of the FDIC as receiver for such financial company and was generated or maintained by the covered financial company in the course of, and necessary to, the transaction of its business. The final rule provides additional guidance with respect to determining whether documentary material was generated or maintained by the covered financial company in the course of, and necessary to, the transaction of its business and therefore constitutes an inherited record that is subject to the retention requirements of the final rule. The final rule sets forth three factors which the FDIC will consider in determining whether documentary material, as defined in paragraph (b)(1), was generated or maintained by the covered financial company in the course of, and necessary to, the transaction of its business.

The first factor is whether the documentary material was generated or maintained in accordance with the covered financial company's own practices and procedures (including the document retention policies of the covered financial company) or pursuant to standards established by the covered financial company's regulators. In general, a company's own policies and procedures will reflect the significance of its records to its business and regulatory requirements and the importance of documentary material generated or maintained by the company. Thus, the FDIC will consider whether documentary material was created or maintained in accordance with the covered financial company's own practices and procedures (including its document retention policies) when determining whether specific documentary material is an inherited record for the purposes of section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act and the final rule. Likewise, the FDIC will consider whether documentary material was generated or maintained pursuant to standards imposed by the covered financial company's regulators when determining whether specific documentary material is an inherited record for the purposes of section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act and the final rule.

The second factor is whether the documentary material is necessary for the FDIC to carry out its obligations as receiver for the covered financial company. This inquiry would permit the classification of documentary material as an inherited record if it is necessary for the FDIC to maintain such documentary material in order to carry out its functions as receiver for the covered financial company, for example, where the documentary material is necessary in order for the FDIC to (i) transfer the covered financial company's assets or liabilities, (ii) assume or repudiate the covered financial company's contracts, (iii) determine claims against the receivership of the covered financial company, or (iv) collect obligations owed to the covered financial company.

The third factor is whether there is a present or reasonably foreseeable evidentiary need for such documentary material by the FDIC as receiver for the covered financial company or the public. The wording of this factor closely follows the wording of section 210(a)(16)(D)(i)(II) of the Dodd-Frank Act. That section emphasizes that the FDIC must retain documentary materials that have evidentiary value to the FDIC as receiver and to the public. The final rule reflects this statutory direction and makes it clear that in making any determination of future evidentiary value a “reasonably foreseeable” standard should be applied.

Paragraph (c)(1) of the final rule establishes the record retention schedule for inherited records. The time period included in the final rule is modeled on the time period contained in the FDIA statutory provision and the FDIA records rule.13 Under the final rule, the FDIC shall retain any inherited record of a covered financial company that was created fewer than ten years before the date of the appointment of the FDIC as receiver for the covered financial company for a period of no less than six years from the date of such appointment, provided however that an inherited record shall be retained indefinitely so long as it is (i) subject to a litigation hold imposed by the FDIC, (ii) subject to a Congressional subpoena or relates to an ongoing investigation by Congress, the United States Government Accountability Office, or the FDIC's Inspector General, or (iii) an inherited record that the FDIC has determined is necessary for a present or reasonably foreseeable evidentiary need of the FDIC or the public. Therefore, similar to the FDIA final rule, paragraph (c)(1) of the final rule expressly provides that the FDIC will maintain inherited records subject to a litigation hold imposed by the FDIC in order to ensure retention of documentary material that is relevant to ongoing litigation matters. The final rule goes farther than the FDIA records rule, however, by expressly requiring the indefinite maintenance of inherited records subject to a Congressional subpoena or that relate to an ongoing investigation by Congress, the United States Government Accountability Office, or the FDIC's Office of Inspector General; or that otherwise have been deemed by the FDIC as necessary for a present or reasonably foreseeable evidentiary need of the FDIC or the public.

13 The FDIC has been required to retain records inherited from failed insured depository institutions for a minimum of six years since the enactment of the FDIA provision which was added to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act by section 212(a) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) in 1989 (Pub. L. 101-73).

Paragraph (c)(2) provides a non-exclusive list of examples of material that would constitute inherited records to provide additional guidance and clarity with respect to the sorts of documentary material that are subject to the retention requirements of the final rule. Included examples are correspondence; tax forms; accounting forms and related work papers; internal audits; inventories; board of directors or committee meeting minutes; personnel files and employee benefits information; general ledger and financial reports; financial data; litigation files; loan documents including records relating to intercompany debt; contracts and agreements to which the covered financial company was a party; customer accounts and transactions; qualified financial contracts and related information; and reports or other records of subsidiaries or affiliates of the covered financial company that were provided to the covered financial company.

3. Transfer of Records

Paragraph (c)(3) of the final rule addresses the transfer of inherited records to a third party (including a bridge financial company) that acquires assets or liabilities of the covered financial company from the FDIC as receiver for the covered financial company. In a resolution of a covered financial company, the FDIC may transfer inherited records to the custody of a third party, including a bridge financial company, in connection with the transfer, acquisition, or sale of assets or liabilities of the covered financial company to such third party. Paragraph (c)(3) of the final rule provides that such a transfer will satisfy the records retention obligations under paragraph (c)(1) and section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act so long as the transferee agrees, in writing, that it will maintain the inherited records for at least six years from the date of the appointment of the FDIC as receiver for the covered financial company unless otherwise notified in writing by the FDIC. In addition, the third party must agree that prior to the destruction of any such inherited records it will provide the FDIC with notice and the opportunity to cause return of such inherited records to the FDIC as receiver. The final rule differs from the proposed rule in that it adds the language emphasizing that prior to the destruction of any transferred records such transferee will be required to give the FDIC the opportunity to cause the return of such records to the FDIC as receiver.

4. Receivership Records

In fulfilling its duties and responsibilities as receiver for a covered financial company pursuant to Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC itself would generate, receive, and maintain documentary material in connection with and after its appointment as receiver, records that would be separate and apart from the inherited records. Section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act specifically requires that the FDIC develop policies to maintain the documents and records of the FDIC generated in exercising its authorities under Title II to assure that receivership records would be available for review following the exercise of the extraordinary authority granted to the FDIC under Title II. Paragraph (b)(3) sets forth the definition of receivership records. Receivership records are defined to include documentary material that is generated or maintained by the FDIC in accordance with the policies and procedures of the FDIC (including the document retention policies of the FDIC) that relates to the FDIC's appointment as receiver for a covered financial company or the exercise of its authorities as receiver for the covered financial company under Title II. Receivership records would include documentary material generated or maintained by the FDIC as receiver with respect to its appointment under section 202 of the Dodd-Frank Act,14 as well as documentary material generated or maintained by the FDIC as receiver for a covered financial company in connection with the exercise of its orderly liquidation authorities. This definition makes it clear that only documentary material that is related to the duties and functions of the FDIC as receiver and the exercise of its orderly liquidation authorities is subject to the retention requirements of section 210(a)(16)(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

14 12 U.S.C. 5382.

To be a receivership record the documentary material must be generated or maintained in accordance with policies and procedures of the FDIC, including the record retention policies and procedures of the FDIC. The FDIC will look to its internal procedures and guidance for generating and maintaining all of its own records, including corporate and bank receivership records, and use them as a guideline to determine whether documentary material generated or maintained as receiver for a covered financial company comport with these procedures and, thus, constitute receivership records under the final rule. Like private companies and other governmental organizations, the FDIC has established protocols for the efficient and effective generation and maintenance of files, records, and non-record documentary materials. These protocols reflect the importance of these materials and their relevance to the work of the FDIC.

Paragraph (d)(1) of the final rule sets forth the retention requirements for the receivership records described in paragraph (b)(3). The final rule clarifies that receivership records are likely to be valuable and consequential, given the significance of an orderly liquidation under Title II. Thus, the final rule emphasizes that receivership records, those records generated and maintained by the FDIC as it conducts a receivership, shall be retained indefinitely for as long as there is a present or reasonably foreseeable future evidentiary or historical need for them. In addition, the final rule sets a minimum retention standard during which, in effect, evidentiary need is conclusively presumed. That minimum period is a six-year minimum retention period for all receivership records measured from the termination of the receivership. In the case of a three-year receivership,15 that would establish a minimum retention period of nine years.

15 See 12 U.S.C. 5382(d) (providing for a three-year initial time limit on receivership authority, subject to extensions as provided in that section).

Receivership records that are subject to a litigation hold by the FDIC or are subject to a Congressional subpoena or relate to an ongoing investigation by Congress, the United States Government Accountability Office or the FDIC's Office of Inspector General will be retained pursuant to the conditions of such subpoena, hold, or investigation under paragraph (d)(1) of the final rule.

Paragraph (d)(2) makes it clear that receivership records are those that are generated or maintained by the FDIC as receiver in connection with a Title II orderly liquidation and do not include the inherited records generated or maintained by the financial company which are addressed in paragraph (c) of the final rule.

Paragraph (d)(3) of the final rule sets forth a non-exclusive list of examples of receivership records in order to provide additional guidance and clarity with respect to the types of documentary material that are subject to the retention requirements of the final rule. Included examples are: Correspondence; tax forms; accounting forms and related work papers; inventories; contracts and other information relating to the management and disposition of the assets of the covered financial company; documentary material relating to the appointment of the FDIC as receiver; administrative records and other information relating to administrative proceedings; pleadings and similar documents in civil litigation, criminal restitution, forfeiture litigation, and all other litigation matters in which the FDIC as receiver is a party; the charter and formation documents of a bridge financial company; contracts, other documents and information relating to the role of the FDIC as receiver in overseeing the operations of the bridge financial company; reports or other records of the bridge financial company and its subsidiaries or affiliates that were provided to the FDIC as receiver; and documentary material relating to the administration, determination, and payment of claims by the FDIC as receiver.

5. Limits of Effect of Determinations With Respect to Records

Paragraph (e) of the final rule applies to any documentary material that falls within the scope of the retention requirements of the final rule as that scope is described in paragraphs (c) and (d). Paragraph (e)(1) of the final rule makes clear that the FDIC's designation of documentary material as inherited records or receivership records pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) is solely for the purpose of identifying documentary material subject to the retention requirements of section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act and the final rule has no effect on whether the documentary material is discoverable or admissible in any court, tribunal, or other adjudicative proceeding, nor on whether such material is subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act,16 the Privacy Act of 1974,17 or other law or court order. Thus, whether specific documentary material is an inherited record or a receivership record pursuant to the final rule does not alter its status under evidentiary rules such as the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”). For example, FRE 803(1) provides that “records of regularly conducted activity” (business record) are not excluded from evidence by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness. If certain documentary material meets the requirements of a business record pursuant to FRE 803(1), then whether or not the FDIC determines that specific documentary material constitutes an inherited record or a receivership record pursuant to the final rule will not affect the determination of whether the documentary material is a business record under FRE 803(1). In addition, whether specific material is or is not designated as an inherited record or a receivership record for purposes of section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act and the final rule does not determine whether it is subject to a litigation hold or a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, or any other law.

16 5 U.S.C. 552.

17 5 U.S.C. 552a.

Paragraph (e)(1) also clarifies that any designation made by the FDIC under the final rule will not prevent full compliance with any applicable legal or regulatory requirement or court order that establishes particular requirements with respect to certain records, such as a requirement that specific records be preserved, maintained, destroyed, or kept under seal.

6. Duplicate and Transitory Materials

Paragraph (e)(2) of the final rule lists three categories of documentary material that are excluded from the definition of inherited records and receivership records and thus will not be subject to the retention requirements of section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act and the final rule. The first category includes duplicate copies, as required by the mandate in section 210(a)(16)(D)(I) of the Act to accord due regard to the avoidance of duplicative record retention. Also in the first category is documentary material such as reference materials, drafts of documents that are superseded by later drafts or revisions, documentary material provided to the FDIC by other parties in concluded litigation for which all appeals have expired, transitory information including routine system messages or system-generated log files, notes and other material of a personal nature, or other documentary material not routinely maintained under the standard record retention policies and procedures of the FDIC. The term “transitory information” or “transitory record” is commonly used in record retention systems to describe records of temporary usefulness required only for a limited period of time for the completion of an action by an employee or official and that are not essential to the fulfillment of statutory obligations or the documentation of government or business functions.18

18 For example, the Texas Administrative Code, title 13, Chapter 6, Section 6.91 (2005) provides that transitory information are records of temporary usefulness that are not an integral part of a records series of an agency, that are not regularly filed within an agency's recordkeeping system, and that are required only for a limited period of time for the completion of an action by an official or employee of the agency or in the preparation of an on-going records series. According to the Texas Administrative Code, transitory records are not essential to the fulfillment of statutory obligations or to the documentation of agency functions. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Bulletin 2013-02 (August 29, 2013), Guidance on a New Approach to Managing Email Records provides that agencies must determine whether end users may delete non-record, transitory, or personal email from their accounts. The Sedona Conference Commentary on Information Governance (December 2013) refers to the defensible deletion of transitory, non-substantive or non-record content. A World Health Organisation publication refers to the need to differentiate between records of substantive, fixed-term and transitory value. Deserno, Ineke and Kynaston, Donna, A Records Management Program that Works for Archives, The Information Management Journal, May/June 2005.

7. Records of Affiliate; Supervisory Materials

The second category of exclusions from the final rule encompasses documentary material generated or maintained by a bridge financial company 19 or by a subsidiary or affiliate of a covered financial company. The exclusion of this documentary material emphasizes the separate legal status of the covered financial company and its subsidiaries and of the FDIC as receiver and any bridge financial company the FDIC may organize for the purpose of resolving a covered financial company. The final rule addresses only inherited records and receivership records. Information provided to the FDIC in connection with the formation or oversight of the bridge financial company or by a covered financial company's subsidiaries or affiliates would be within the scope of the regulation; however, documentary material generated or maintained by a bridge financial company or a covered financial company's subsidiaries or affiliates in the ordinary course of business that is not provided to the FDIC would fall outside the scope of the retention requirements of this final rule.

19 This term is defined in 12 U.S.C. 5381(a)(3) and 12 CFR 380.1.

The third category of exclusions from the scope of the final rule and section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Act is non-publicly available supervisory information and operating or condition reports that were prepared by, on behalf of, or at the requirement of any agency responsible for the supervision or regulation of the covered financial company or its subsidiaries. This is consistent with the federal common law bank examination privilege, many state statutes, and the FDIC's long-standing policy that reports of examination or other confidential supervisory correspondence or information prepared by FDIC examiners or for the use of the FDIC and other regulatory agencies with respect to a financial company or an insured depository institution or other regulated subsidiary of a financial company belong exclusively to such regulators and not to the institution, even though institutions may retain copies.

8. Policies and Procedures

Paragraph (f) of the final rule provides that the FDIC may establish policies and procedures with respect to the retention of inherited records and receivership records that are consistent with the final rule. It is expected that these policies and procedures will address specific matters related to the capture, processing, and storage of inherited records such as collecting computer hard drives, email databases, and backup and disaster recovery tapes, as well as establishing standard policies with respect to the retention of receivership records by the FDIC in its own files, information systems, and databases.

V. Expected Effects of the Final Rule

Immediately following the FDIC's appointment as receiver of a covered financial company pursuant to Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC's retention determinations and collections must begin with respect to both the records of the covered financial company and the FDIC's own records. The final rule will provide transparency and consistency with respect to these determinations and will ensure that records of a financial company that fails in a manner that would present systemic risk (absent the exercise of the Title II orderly liquidation authority), as well as the records generated in connection with the orderly liquidation of that financial company under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, will be available for as long as there is a reasonably foreseeable evidentiary need for such records. At the same time, the application of the factors described in the final rule will appropriately limit the costs of the maintenance of documentary material that is not covered by the statute.

VI. Alternatives Considered

The FDIC considered a range of alternatives from requiring permanent retention of all documentary material to providing for clear dates upon which records could be destroyed. The permanent retention of all documentary material is impractical, if not impossible. The FDIC deemed it important to include a broad definition of documentary material that could be considered inherited records or receivership record for the purpose of the final rule in light of the rapidly changing nature, forms, and format of data. At the same time, this explosion of data and changes in form and media make it important to differentiate between meaningful data and irrelevant information. In addition, as formats change the difficulty and expense of retrieving useful information becomes more complex. Accordingly, the FDIC identified factors that could be used to determine what documentary material comprised meaningful records that should be retained. At the same time, a hard-and-fast date for destruction is inappropriate where it is possible that some documentary material may have evidentiary significance longer than a specified time period. Accordingly, the final rule adopts a flexible determination that takes into account the nature of the records and their likely evidentiary value.

VII. Regulatory Analysis and Procedure A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires that each Federal agency either certify that a rule will not have any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the rule and publish the analysis for comment. For purposes of the RFA analysis or certification, financial institutions with total assets of $550 million or less are considered to be “small entities.” The FDIC hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule refines the definition of the term “records” under section 210(a)(16)(D) of the Dodd-Frank Act and establishes retention schedules that the FDIC must use in connection with its retention of inherited records and receivership. Accordingly, the final rule affects only the internal operations of the FDIC and there will be no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of this final rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

No new collections of information within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., are contained in the final rule as it addresses only the FDIC's obligation to maintain certain records.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule is not a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which provides for agencies to report rules to Congress and for Congress to review such rules.20 As required by SBREFA, the FDIC will file the appropriate reports with Congress and the Government Accountability Office so that the final rule may be reviewed.

20 Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857.

D. Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471), requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has presented the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner.

E. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

The FDIC has determined that the final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999.21

21 Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 380

Financial companies, Holding companies, Insurance companies, Records and records retention.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends 12 CFR part 380 as follows:

PART 380—ORDERLY LIQUIDATION AUTHORITY 1. The authority citation for part 380 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 5389; 12 U.S.C. 5390(s)(3); 12 U.S.C. 5390(b)(1)(C); 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(7)(D); 12 U.S.C. 5381(b); 12 U.S.C. 5390(r); 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(16)(D).

2. Add § 380.14 to read as follows:
§ 380.14 Record retention requirements.

(a) Scope. 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(16)(D) requires that the Corporation establish retention schedules for the maintenance of certain documents and records of a covered financial company for which the Corporation has been appointed receiver and certain documents and records generated by the Corporation as receiver for a covered financial company in connection with the exercise of its authorities under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5381 through 5397. This section addresses retention of those two categories of documents and records.

(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(1) Documentary material. The term documentary material means any reasonably accessible document, book, paper, map, photograph, microfiche, microfilm, or writing regardless of physical form or characteristics and includes any computer or electronically-created data or file.

(2) Inherited record. The term inherited record means documentary material of a covered financial company, provided that such documentary material existed on the date of the appointment of the Corporation as receiver for such covered financial company and was generated or maintained by the covered financial company in the course of, and necessary to, the transaction of its business. The determination of whether documentary material was generated or maintained by the covered financial company in the course of, and necessary to, the transaction of its business shall be based on an analysis of the following factors;

(i) Whether such documentary material was generated or maintained in accordance with the covered financial company's own practices and procedures (including the document retention policies of the covered financial company) or pursuant to standards established by the covered financial company's regulators;

(ii) Whether such documentary material is necessary for the Corporation to carry out its obligations as receiver for the covered financial company; and

(iii) Whether there is a present or reasonably foreseeable evidentiary need for such documentary material by the Corporation as receiver for the covered financial company or the public.

(3) Receivership record. The term receivership record means documentary material generated or maintained by the Corporation in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Corporation (including the document retention policies of the Corporation) that relates to the Corporation's appointment as receiver for a covered financial company or the exercise of its authorities as receiver for the covered financial company under 12 U.S.C. 5381 through 5397.

(c) Inherited records.—(1) Retention schedule for inherited records. The Corporation shall retain any inherited record of a covered financial company that was created fewer than ten years before the date of the appointment of the Corporation as receiver for the covered financial company for a period of no less than six years from the date of such appointment, provided however that an inherited record shall be retained indefinitely so long as it is:

(i) Subject to a litigation hold imposed by the Corporation;

(ii) Subject to a Congressional subpoena or relates to an ongoing investigation by Congress, the United States Government Accountability Office, or the Corporation's Inspector General; or

(iii) An inherited record that the Corporation has determined is necessary for a present or reasonably foreseeable future evidentiary need of the Corporation or the public.

(2) Examples. Examples of inherited records include, without limitation: Correspondence; tax forms, accounting forms, and related work papers; internal audits; inventories; board of directors or committee meeting minutes; personnel files and employee benefits information; general ledger and financial reports; financial data; litigation files; loan documents including records relating to intercompany debt; contracts and agreements to which the covered financial company was a party; customer accounts and transactions; qualified financial contracts and related information; and reports or other records of subsidiaries or affiliates of the covered financial company that were provided to the covered financial company.

(3) Transfer of an inherited record to an acquirer of assets or liabilities of a covered financial company. If the Corporation transfers an inherited record of a covered financial company to a third party (including a bridge financial company) in connection with the acquisition of assets or liabilities of the covered financial company by such third party, the record retention requirements of 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(16)(D) and paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be satisfied if the third party agrees, in writing, that:

(i) It will maintain the inherited record for at least six years from the date of the appointment of the Corporation as receiver for the covered financial company unless otherwise notified in writing by the Corporation; and

(ii) Prior to destruction of such inherited record it will provide the Corporation with notice and the opportunity to cause the inherited record to be returned to the Corporation.

(d) Receivership records—(1) Retention schedule for receivership records. (i) A receivership record shall be retained indefinitely to the extent that there is a present or reasonably foreseeable future evidentiary or historical need for such receivership record.

(ii) A receivership record that is subject to a litigation hold imposed by the Corporation, is subject to a Congressional subpoena, or relates to an ongoing investigation by Congress, the United States Government Accountability Office, or the Corporation's Office of Inspector General shall be retained pursuant to the conditions of such hold, subpoena, or investigation.

(iii) In no event shall a receivership record be retained by the Corporation for a period of less than six years following the termination of the receivership to which it relates.

(2) Not included in receivership records. Receivership records do not include inherited records.

(3) Examples. Examples of receivership records include, without limitation: Correspondence; tax forms, accounting forms and related work papers; inventories; contracts and other information relating to the management and disposition of the assets of the covered financial company; documentary material relating to the appointment of the Corporation as receiver; administrative records and other information relating to administrative proceedings; pleadings and similar documents in civil litigation, criminal restitution, forfeiture litigation, and all other litigation matters in which the Corporation as receiver is a party; the charter and formation documents of a bridge financial company; contracts, other documents, and information relating to the role of the Corporation as receiver in overseeing the operations of the bridge financial company; reports or other records of the bridge financial company and its subsidiaries or affiliates that were provided to the Corporation as receiver; and documentary material relating to the administration, determination, and payment of claims by the Corporation as receiver.

(e) General provisions. With respect to any documentary material described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the following applies:

(1) Impact on discoverability, admissibility, or release; compliance with court orders. The Corporation's determination that documentary material must be maintained pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(16)(D) and this section shall not bear on the discoverability or admissibility of such documentary material in any court, tribunal, or other adjudicative proceeding nor on whether such documentary material is subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, or any other law. The Corporation shall comply with any applicable court order concerning mandatory retention or destruction of any documentary material subject to this section.

(2) Exclusions. Documentary material is not an inherited record nor a receivership record and is not subject to the record retention requirements of section 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(16)(D) and this section if it is:

(i) A duplicate copy of retained documentary material, reference material, a draft of a document that is superseded by later drafts or revisions, documentary material provided to the Corporation by other parties in concluded litigation for which all appeals have expired, transitory information including routine system messages and system-generated log files, notes and other material of a personal nature, or other documentary material not routinely maintained under the standard record retention policies and procedures of the Corporation;

(ii) Documentary material generated or maintained by a bridge financial company, or by a subsidiary or affiliate of a covered financial company, that was not provided to the covered financial company or to the Corporation as receiver; or

(iii) Non-publicly available confidential supervisory information or operating or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or at the requirement of any agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial companies or their subsidiaries.

(f) Policies and procedures. The Corporation may establish policies and procedures with respect to the retention of inherited records and receivership records that are consistent with this section.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 21st day of June, 2016.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15020 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 12 CFR Parts 1026 Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) Annual Threshold Adjustments (CARD Act, HOEPA and ATR/QM) AGENCY:

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION:

Final rule; official interpretation.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing this final rule amending the regulatory text and official interpretations for Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The Bureau is required to calculate annually the dollar amounts for several provisions in Regulation Z; this final rule revises, as applicable, the dollar amounts for provisions implementing amendments to TILA under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). In addition to adjusting these amounts, where appropriate, based on the annual percentage change reflected in the Consumer Price Index in effect on June 1, 2016, the Bureau is correcting a calculation error pertaining to the 2016 subsequent violation penalty safe harbor fee.

DATES:

This final rule is effective January 1, 2017, except for the amendment to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) which is effective on June 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jaclyn Maier, Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552 at (202) 435-7700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Bureau is amending the regulatory text and official interpretations for Regulation Z, which implements TILA, to update the dollar amounts of various thresholds that are adjusted annually based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index. Specifically, for open-end consumer credit plans under the CARD Act, the threshold that triggers requirements to disclose minimum interest charges will remain unchanged in 2017. The adjusted dollar amount for the safe harbor for a first violation penalty fee will remain unchanged at $27 in 2017; the adjusted dollar amount for the safe harbor for a subsequent violation penalty fee will remain unchanged in 2017 from the corrected amount of $38 applicable in 2016, as discussed in this notice. For HOEPA loans, the adjusted total loan amount threshold for high-cost mortgages in 2017 will be $20,579. The adjusted points and fees dollar trigger for high-cost mortgages will be $1,029. For the general rule to determine consumers' ability to repay mortgage loans, the maximum threshold for total points and fees for qualified mortgages in 2017 will be 3 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $102,894; $3,087 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $61,737 but less than $102,894; 5 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $20,579 but less than $61,737; $1,029 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $12,862 but less than $20,579; and 8 percent of the total loan amount for a loan amount less than $12,862.

I. Background A. CARD Act Annual Adjustments

In 2010, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) published amendments to Regulation Z implementing the CARD Act, which amended TILA. Public Law 111-24, 123 Stat. 1734 (2009). Pursuant to the CARD Act, the Board's Regulation Z amendments established new requirements with respect to open-end consumer credit plans, including requirements for the disclosure of minimum interest charge amounts and the establishment of a safe harbor provision allowing card issuers to impose penalty fees for violating account terms without violating the restrictions on penalty fees established by the CARD Act. See 75 FR 7658, 7799 (Feb. 22, 2010) and 75 FR 37526, 37527 (June 29, 2010). The final rule issued by the Board required that these thresholds be calculated annually using the Consumer Price Index as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).1

1 The responsibility for promulgating rules under TILA was generally transferred from the Board to the Bureau effective July 21, 2011. The Bureau restated Regulation Z on December 22, 2011, and on April 28, 2016, adopted as final the December 22, 2011, notice as subsequently amended. See 76 FR 79768 (Dec. 22, 2011) and 81 FR 25323 (April 28, 2016), respectively. The Bureau's Regulation Z is located at 12 CFR part 1026. See sections 1061 and 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). Section 1029 of the Dodd-Frank Act excludes from this transfer of authority, subject to certain exceptions, any rulemaking authority over a motor vehicle dealer that is predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.

Minimum Interest Charge Disclosure Thresholds

Sections 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) of the Bureau's Regulation Z provide that the minimum interest charge thresholds will be re-calculated annually using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) that was in effect on the preceding June 1. When the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual CPI-W level to the current amounts in §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) has risen by a whole dollar, the minimum interest charge amounts set forth in the regulation will be increased by $1.00. The BLS publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the month. This adjustment is based on the CPI-W index in effect on June 1, 2016, which was reported on May 17, 2016, and reflects the percentage change from April 2015 to April 2016. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. The adjustment accounts for a 0.8 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2015 to April 2016. This increase in the CPI-W when applied to the current amounts in §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) did not trigger an increase in the minimum interest charge threshold of at least $1.00, and therefore the Bureau is not amending §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3).

Penalty Fees Safe Harbor

The Bureau's Regulation Z provides that the safe harbor provision which establishes the permissible fee thresholds in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) will be re-calculated annually using the CPI-W that was in effect on the preceding June 1. The BLS publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the month. On September 21, 2015, the Bureau published an adjustment, effective January 1, 2016, based on the CPI-W index in effect on June 1, 2015, which was reported on May 22, 2015. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. When the cumulative change in the adjusted value derived from applying the annual CPI-W level to the current amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) has risen by a whole dollar, those amounts will be increased by $1.00. Similarly, when the cumulative change in the adjusted value derived from applying the annual CPI-W level to the current amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) has decreased by a whole dollar, those amounts will be decreased by $1.00. See comment 52(b)(1)(ii)-2.

In the September 21, 2015, notice, 80 FR 56895, the subsequent violation penalty safe harbor fee amount in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) was miscalculated, as it did not fully account for situations in which the CPI-W decreased, as occurred in 2015. The published subsequent violation penalty safe harbor fee amount was $37. Effective immediately, the Bureau is amending § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) to reflect the correct subsequent violation penalty safe harbor fee amount of $38.

The 2017 adjustment is based on the CPI-W index in effect on June 1, 2016, which was reported on May 17, 2016, and reflects the percentage change from April 2015 to April 2016. The 0.8 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2015 to April 2016 did not trigger an increase in the first violation penalty safe harbor fee of $27 or the corrected subsequent violation penalty safe harbor fee of $38, and therefore, the Bureau is not further amending § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) for the 2017 calendar year.

B. HOEPA Annual Threshold Adjustments

On January 10, 2013, the Bureau issued a final rule pursuant to, inter alia, section 1431 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which revised the loan amount threshold for HOEPA loans. 78 FR 6856 (Jan. 31, 2013) (2013 HOEPA Final Rule). The 2013 HOEPA Final Rule adjusted the dollar amount threshold to $20,000. Under § 1026.32(a)(1)(ii)(A) and (B), when determining whether a transaction is a high-cost mortgage, the determination of the applicable points and fees coverage test is based upon whether the total loan amount is for $20,000 or more, or less than $20,000. The HOEPA 2013 Final Rule provides that this threshold amount be recalculated annually and the Bureau uses the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) index, as published by the BLS, as the index for adjusting the $20,000 figure. The CPI-U is based on all urban consumers and represents approximately 88 percent of the U.S. population. The BLS publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of each month. The adjustment to the CPI-U index reported by BLS on May 17, 2016, was the CPI-U index in effect on June 1, and reflects the percentage change from April 2015 to April 2016. The adjustment to the $20,000 figure being adopted here reflects a 1.1 percent increase in the CPI-U index for this period and is rounded to whole dollars for ease of compliance.

Pursuant to section 1431 of the Dodd Frank Act and § 1026.32(a)(1)(ii)(B) as amended by the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule, implementation of the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule also changed the HOEPA points and fees dollar trigger to $1,000. The HOEPA 2013 Final Rule provides that this threshold amount will be recalculated annually and the Bureau uses the CPI-U index, as published by the BLS, as the index for adjusting the $1,000 figure. The adjustment to the CPI-U index reported by BLS on May 17, 2016, was the CPI-U index in effect on June 1, and reflects the percentage change from April 2015 to April 2016. The adjustment to the $1,000 figure being adopted here reflects a 1.1 percent increase in the CPI-U index for this period and is rounded to whole dollars for ease of compliance.

C. Ability To Repay and Qualified Mortgages Annual Threshold Adjustments

On January 10, 2013, the Bureau issued a final rule pursuant to, inter alia, sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which implemented laws requiring mortgage lenders to determine consumers' ability to repay mortgage loans before extending them credit. 78 FR 6407 (Jan. 31, 2013) (2013 ATR/QM Final Rule). The 2013 ATR/QM Final Rule established the points and fees limits that a loan must not exceed in order to satisfy the requirements for a qualified mortgage. Specifically, a covered transaction is not a qualified mortgage if the transaction's points and fees exceed 3 percent of the total loan amount for a loan amount greater than or equal to $100,000; $3,000 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $60,000 but less than $100,000; 5 percent of the total loan amount for loans greater than or equal to $20,000 but less than $60,000; $1,000 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $12,500 but less than $20,000; and 8 percent of the total loan amount for loans less than $12,500. The 2013 ATR/QM Final Rule provides that the limits and loan amounts in § 1026.43(e)(3)(i) be recalculated annually for inflation and the Bureau uses the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) index, as published by the BLS, as the index for adjusting the figures. The CPI-U is based on all urban consumers and represents approximately 88 percent of the U.S. population. The BLS publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of each month. The adjustment to the CPI-U index reported by BLS on May 17, 2016, was the CPI-U index in effect on June 1, and reflects the percentage change from April 2015 to April 2016. The adjustment to the 2016 figures being adopted here reflects a 1.1 percent increase in the CPI-U index for this period and is rounded to whole dollars for ease of compliance.

II. Adjustment and Commentary Revision A. CARD Act Annual Adjustments Minimum Interest Charge Disclosure Thresholds—§§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3)

The minimum interest charge amounts for §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) will remain unchanged for the year 2017. Accordingly, the Bureau is not amending these sections.

Penalty Fees Safe Harbor—§ 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B)

As discussed above, effective immediately, the permissible safe harbor fee amount in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) is $38. Accordingly, the Bureau is revising § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) to reflect the corrected subsequent violation penalty safe harbor fee amount of $38.

Effective January 1, 2017, the permissible safe harbor fee amounts are $27 for § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $38 for § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B). These amounts did not change based on the increase in CPI-W from April 2015 to April 2016. Thus, they remain the same as the 2016 amount for § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and the 2016 amount corrected in this notice for § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B). The Bureau is amending comment 52(b)(1)(ii)-2.i to preserve a list of the historical thresholds for this provision.

B. HOEPA Annual Threshold Adjustment—Comments 32(a)(1)(ii)-1 and -3

Effective January 1, 2017, for purposes of determining under § 1026.32(a)(1)(ii) the points and fees coverage test under HOEPA to which a transaction is subject, the total loan amount threshold is $20,579, and the adjusted points and fees dollar trigger under § 1026.32(a)(1)(ii)(B) is $1,029. When the total loan amount for a transaction is $20,579 or more, and the points and fees amount exceeds 5 percent of the total loan amount, the transaction is a high-cost mortgage. When the total loan amount for a transaction is less than $20,579, and the points and fees amount exceeds the lesser of the adjusted points and fees dollar trigger of $1,029 or 8 percent of the total loan amount, the transaction is a high-cost mortgage. Comments 32(a)(1)(ii)-1 and -3, which list the adjustments for each year, are amended to reflect for 2017 the new dollar threshold amount and the new points and fees dollar trigger, respectively.

C. Ability To Repay and Qualified Mortgages Annual Threshold Adjustments

Effective January 1, 2017, for purposes of determining whether a covered transaction is a qualified mortgage under § 1026.43(e), a covered transaction is not a qualified mortgage if, pursuant to § 1026.43(e)(3), the transaction's total points and fees exceed 3 percent of the total loan amount for a loan amount greater than or equal to $102,894; $3,087 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $61,737 but less than $102,894; 5 percent of the total loan amount for loans greater than or equal to $20,579 but less than $61,737; $1,029 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $12,862 but less than $20,579; and 8 percent of the total loan amount for loans less than $12,862. Comment 43(e)(3)(ii)-1, which lists the adjustments for each year, is amended to reflect the new dollar threshold amounts for 2017.

III. Procedural Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule, in Regulation Z, § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) in subpart E is amended and comments 32(a)(1)(ii)-1.iii and -3.iii, 43(e)(3)(ii)-1.iii, and 52(b)(1)(ii)-2.i.D in supplement I are added to update the exemption thresholds. Comments 32(a)(1)(ii)-1.iii and -3.iii, 43(e)(3)(ii)-1.iii, and 52(b)(1)(ii)-2.1.D added by this final rule are technical and non-discretionary, and they merely apply the method previously established in Regulation Z for determining adjustments to the thresholds. The amendment to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) merely applies a necessary correction to address an inadvertent calculation error for the 2016 safe harbor fee. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form. The Bureau also finds that there is good cause for making the technical calculation correction to the safe harbor fee amount in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) in this final rule effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This portion of the final rule does not establish any new requirements; instead, it corrects an inadvertent error in the September 21, 2015, notice, 80 FR 56895, regarding the subsequent violation penalty safe harbor fee. Making the rule effective immediately will allow the correct amount to be used upon publication.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320), the Bureau reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1026

Advertising, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:

PART 1026—TRUTH IN LENDING (REGULATION Z) 1. The authority citation for part 1026 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.

Subpart G—Special Rules Applicable to Credit Card Accounts and Open End Credit Offered to College Students 2. Effective on June 27, 2016, § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) is revised to read as follows:
§ 1026.52 Limitation on fees.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) * * *

(B) $38 if the card issuer previously imposed a fee pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section for a violation of the same type that occurred during the same billing cycle or one of the next six billing cycles; or

3. Effective on January 1, 2017, in Supplement I to Part 1026—Official Interpretations: a. Under Section 1026.32—Requirements for High-Cost Mortgages, under 32(a)—Coverage, under Paragraph 32(a)(1)(ii), paragraphs 1.iii and 3.iii are added. b. Under Section 1026.43—Minimum Standards for Transactions Secured by a Dwelling, under 43(e)—Qualified mortgages, under Paragraph 43(e)(3)(ii), paragraph 1.iii is added. c. Under Section 1026.52—Limitations on Fees, under 52(b)—Limitations on penalty fees, under 52(b)(1)(ii)—Safe harbors, paragraph 2.i.D is added.

The additions read as follows:

SUPPLEMENT I TO PART 1026—OFFICIAL INTERPRETATIONS Subpart E—Special Rules for Certain Home Mortgage Transactions Section 1026.32—Requirements for Certain Closed-End Home Mortgages

32(a) Coverage.

Paragraph (a)(1).

Paragraph 32(a)(1)(ii).

1. * * *

iii. For 2017, $1,029, reflecting a 1.1 percent increase in the CPI-U from June 2015 to June 2016, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

3. * * *

iii. For 2017, $20,579, reflecting a 1.1 percent increase in the CPI-U from June 2015 to June 2016, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Section 1026.43—Minimum Standards for Transactions Secured by a Dwelling

43(e) Qualified mortgages.

43(e)(3) Limits on points and fees for qualified mortgages.

Paragraph 43(e)(3)(ii).

1. * * *

iii. For 2017, reflecting a 1.1 percent increase in the CPI-U that was reported on the preceding June 1, a covered transaction is not a qualified mortgage unless the transactions total points and fees do not exceed:

A. For a loan amount greater than or equal to $102,894: 3 percent of the total loan amount;

B. For a loan amount greater than or equal to $61,737 but less than $102,894: $3,087;

C. For a loan amount greater than or equal to $20,579 but less than $61,737: 5 percent of the total loan amount;

D. For a loan amount greater than or equal to $12,862 but less than $20,579: $1,029;

E. For a loan amount less than $12,862: 8 percent of the total loan amount.

Subpart G—Special Rules Applicable to Credit Card Accounts and Open-End Credit Offered to College Students Section 1026.52—Limitations on Fees

52(b) Limitations on penalty fees.

52(b)(1) General rule.

52(b)(1)(ii) Safe harbors.

2. * * *

i. * * *

D. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $27 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A), through December 31, 2016. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $37 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through June 26, 2016, and $38 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) from June 27, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

Dated: June 14, 2016. Richard Cordray Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2016-14782 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 360 RIN 3064-AE38 Treatment of Financial Assets Transferred in Connection With a Securitization or Participation AGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The FDIC is revising a provision of its Securitization Safe Harbor Rule, which relates to the treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation, in order to clarify a requirement as to loss mitigation by servicers of residential mortgage loans.

DATES:

Effective July 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George H. Williamson, Manager, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, (571) 858-8199. Phillip E. Sloan, Counsel, Legal Division, (703) 562-6137.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Background

The FDIC, in its regulation codified at 12 CFR 360.6 (the “Securitization Safe Harbor Rule”), set forth criteria under which, in its capacity as receiver or conservator of an insured depository institution, it will not, in the exercise of its authority to repudiate contracts, recover or reclaim financial assets transferred in connection with securitization transactions. Asset transfers that, under the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule, are not subject to recovery or reclamation through the exercise of the FDIC's repudiation authority include those that pertain to certain grandfathered transactions, such as, for example, asset transfers made prior to December 31, 2010 that satisfied the conditions (except for the legal isolation condition addressed by the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule) for sale accounting treatment under generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) in effect for reporting periods prior to November 15, 2009 and that pertain to a securitization transaction that satisfied certain other requirements. In addition, the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule provides that asset transfers that are not grandfathered, but that satisfy the conditions (except for the legal isolation condition addressed by the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule) for sale accounting treatment under GAAP in effect for reporting periods after November 15, 2009 and that pertain to a securitization transaction that satisfies all other conditions of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule (such asset transfers, together with grandfathered asset transfers, are referred to collectively as Safe Harbor Transfers) will not be subject to FDIC recovery or reclamation actions through the exercise of the FDIC's repudiation authority. For any securitization transaction in respect of which transfers of financial assets do not qualify as Safe Harbor Transfers but which transaction satisfies all of its other requirements, the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule provides that, in the event the FDIC as receiver or conservator remains in monetary default for a specified period under a securitization due to its failure to pay or apply collections or repudiates the securitization asset transfer agreement and does not pay damages within a specified period, certain remedies can be exercised on an expedited basis.

Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule sets forth conditions relating to the servicing of residential mortgage loans. This paragraph includes a condition that the securitization documents must require that the servicer commence action to mitigate losses no later than ninety days after an asset first becomes delinquent unless all delinquencies on such asset have been cured.

In January, 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) adopted mortgage loan servicing requirements that became effective on January 10, 2014. One of the requirements, set forth in Subpart C to Regulation X, at 12 CFR 1024.41, in general prohibits a servicer from commencing a foreclosure unless the borrower's mortgage loan obligation is more than 120 days delinquent. This section of Regulation X also provides additional rules that, among other things, require a lender to further delay foreclosure if the borrower submits a loss mitigation application before the lender has commenced the foreclosure process and requires a lender to delay a foreclosure for which it has commenced the foreclosure process if a borrower has submitted a complete loss mitigation application more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale.1

1See 12 CFR 1024.41(f) and (g).

II. The Proposed Rule

While the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule does not define what constitutes action to mitigate losses, the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking that accompanied an earlier amendment to the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule stated, “action to mitigate losses may include contact with the borrower or other steps designed to return the asset to regular payments, but does not require initiation of foreclosure or other formal enforcement proceedings.” 2 Accordingly, it should be unlikely that the 90-day loss mitigation requirement of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule would conflict with the foreclosure commencement delays mandated by the CFPB under Regulation X. However, as there may be circumstances where commencement of foreclosure is the only available and reasonable loss mitigation action, the FDIC recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (the “NPR”) to amend the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule to clarify that the documents governing a securitization transaction need not require an action prohibited by Regulation X in order to satisfy the loss mitigation conditions for safe harbor. The NPR was published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2015 with a 60-day comment period.3 No comments were received by the FDIC in response to the NPR.

2 75 FR 27471, 27479 (May 17, 2010).

3 80 FR 73680 (November 25, 2015).

III. The Final Rule

Having received no comments on the NPR, the FDIC is adopting the amendment set forth in the NPR as a final rule (the “Final Rule”). Specifically, § 360.6(b)(3)(ii)(A) is being revised to include language stating that the loss mitigation action requirement thereunder “shall not be deemed to require that the documents include any provision concerning loss mitigation that requires any action that may conflict with the requirements of Regulation X . . .”

IV. Policy Objective

One of the FDIC's general policy objectives is to facilitate regulatory compliance and ease regulatory burden by ensuring that regulations are clear and consistent with other regulatory initiatives. In particular, the objective of this rulemaking is to harmonize the residential loan servicing condition of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule with the CFPB's loan servicing requirements. Adopting the Final Rule accomplishes that objective.

V. Administrative Law Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) (“PRA”), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) control number. The amendment set forth in the Final Rule would not revise the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule information collection (OMB No. 3064-0177) or create any new information collection pursuant to the PRA. Consequently, no submission will be made to the Office of Management and Budget with respect to the PRA.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) (“RFA”) requires each federal agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the promulgation of a final rule, or certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.4 Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the FDIC certifies that the Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

4See 5 U.S.C. 603, 604 and 605.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.) (“SBREFA”). As required by the SBREFA, the FDIC will file the appropriate reports with Congress and the Government Accountability Office so that the Final Rule may be reviewed.

D. Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471) requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the Final Rule in a simple and straightforward manner.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 360

Banks, Banking, Bank deposit insurance, Holding companies, National banks, Participations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securitizations.

For the reasons stated above, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends 12 CFR part 360 as follows:

PART 360—RESOLUTION AND RECEIVERSHIP RULES 1. The authority citation for part 360 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(1),1821(d)(10)(C), 1821(d)(11), 1821(e)(1), 1821(e)(8)(D)(i), 1823(c)(4), 1823(e)(2); Sec. 401(h), Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 357.

2. Revise § 360.6(b)(3)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
§ 360.6 Treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation.

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) Servicing and other agreements must provide servicers with authority, subject to contractual oversight by any master servicer or oversight advisor, if any, to mitigate losses on financial assets consistent with maximizing the net present value of the financial asset. Servicers shall have the authority to modify assets to address reasonably foreseeable default, and to take other action to maximize the value and minimize losses on the securitized financial assets. The documents shall require that the servicers apply industry best practices for asset management and servicing. The documents shall require the servicer to act for the benefit of all investors, and not for the benefit of any particular class of investors, that the servicer maintain records of its actions to permit full review by the trustee or other representative of the investors and that the servicer must commence action to mitigate losses no later than ninety (90) days after an asset first becomes delinquent unless all delinquencies have been cured, provided that this requirement shall not be deemed to require that the documents include any provision concerning loss mitigation that requires any action that may conflict with the requirements of Regulation X (12 CFR part 1024), as Regulation X may be amended or modified from time to time.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 21st day of June, 2016.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15019 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Parts 109, 115, 120, and 121 RIN 3245-AG73 Affiliation for Business Loan Programs and Surety Bond Guarantee Program AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the regulations pertaining to the determination of size eligibility based on affiliation by creating distinctive requirements for small business applicants for assistance from the Business Loan, Disaster Loan and Surety Bond Guarantee Program (“SBG”). For purposes of this rule, the Business Loan Programs consist of the 7(a) Loan Program, the Microloan Program, the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program (“ILP”), and the Development Company Loan Program (“504 Loan Program”). Note: the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program was inadvertently left out of the proposed rule. There are currently intermediaries with revolving funds for eligible small businesses, so the program has been included in this final rule. The Disaster Loan Programs consist of Physical Disaster Business Loans, Economic Injury Disaster Loans, Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans, and Immediate Disaster Assistance Program loans. This rule redefines and establishes separate affiliation guidance applicable only to small business applicants in these Programs.

DATES:

This rule is effective July 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dianna Seaborn, Office of Financial Assistance, Office of Capital Access, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; telephone 202-205-3645.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

SBA is revising its regulations on affiliation for the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs by separating and distinguishing the rules from the Agency's government contracting, business development and other programs. This change streamlines the rules to comply with Executive Order 13563. This Executive Order “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” provides that agencies “must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.” (Emphasis added). Executive Order 13563 further provides that “[t]o facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” (Emphasis added).

The loan programs authorized by the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 631 et seq., that are affected by this final rule are: (1) The 7(a) Loan Program authorized by Section 7(a) of the Act; (2) the Business Disaster Loan (“BDL”) Program authorized by Sections 7(b) and 42 of the Act; (3) the Microloan Program authorized by Section 7(m) of the Act; and (4) the ILP Program authorized by Section 7(l) of the Act. The 504 Loan Program, which is authorized by Title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (the “SBIA”), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 695 et seq., is also affected. Finally, this rule affects the Surety Bond Guarantee (“SBG”) Program, authorized by section 411 of the SBIA. A detailed description of each program was included in the proposed rule.

On October 2, 2015, SBA published a proposed rule with request for comments in the Federal Register to identify changes to the rules on to simplify and streamline the application review process for the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs. (80 FR 59667, October 2, 2015). These proposed affiliation changes apply only to applicants and not to SBA participants or CDCs in the programs. The comment period ended December 1, 2015.

II. Summary of Comments

The Agency received and reviewed the public comments on its affiliation rules for 13 CFR parts 115, 120 and 121 in a proposed rule (80 FR 59667, October 2, 2015). The following narrative summarizes the comments reviewed and specifies the final rule changes regarding size standards based on principles of affiliation involving applicants to the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs.

Size based on affiliation for applicants to the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs will be addressed separately in a new § 121.301(f) to distinguish them from affiliation requirements for government contracting, business development, and SBA's other programs. These changes impact only the small business applicants and not lenders, CDCs, and surety bond companies.

SBA received 160 comments related to the proposed affiliation standards for the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs. Of the comments received, 128 comments were from financial institutions (lenders and Certified Development Companies), 15 comments were from lender service providers, 4 comments were from businesses (accounting and consulting firms), 7 comments were from trade associations, 3 comments were from law firms, 2 comments were from franchises, and 1 comment was from an individual that did not disclose an organizational type. All but 5 commenters indicated support for the majority of the proposed affiliation rule. There were 4 opposing comments related only to proposed changes to 121.301(f)(5), affiliation based on franchise and license agreements, and a 5th comment expressing concern about compliance regarding the affiliation rules for Surety Bonds in conjunction with federal contracts.

Thirty-four commenters requested modification of the defined management officials in § 121.301(f)(1) and (f)(3).

Ninety-six commenters requested additional clarification in the language proposed defining who SBA includes for the identity of interest test in § 121.301(f)(4), while 36 requested that it be eliminated in its entirety.

One hundred thirty-eight commenters supported changes to 121.301(f)(5), “Affiliation based on franchise and license agreements,” specifically requesting further modifications and clarity as to how SBA aggregates franchisees/licensees with franchisors/licensors as affiliates to determine whether the small business applicant (franchisee/licensee) is a small, independent business. The comments opposing franchise affiliation changes were received from a consulting group, an individual, a law firm, and one lender. These comments revolved around franchise disclosures and relationship issues under the jurisdiction of the FTC, and the lack of clarity

Thirty-seven commenters requested removal of the “totality of circumstances” analysis in § 121.301(f)(6), while 92 commenters recommended examples and/or greater clarity for when and how SBA will apply this analysis. SBA's responses to these comments are detailed in the following sections.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis of Comments and Changes

Section 109.20. In § 109.20 Definitions, SBA proposes to include an amendment for the definition of Affiliate for the ILP Program from 13 CFR 121.103 to § 121.301. SBA did not receive comments regarding this program as it is not currently funded.

Section 115.10. In § 115.10 Definitions, SBA proposed to amend the definition of Affiliate for the SBG Program from the general 13 CFR 121 to the more specific § 121.301. One comment expressed concern about the potential necessity for small business contractors to comply with the affiliation rules for contracting, as well as the separate rules for Surety Bond Guarantees.

SBA data indicates that the significant majority of surety bond guarantees are for non-federal contracts which will benefit from this simplified rule. For the federal contract recipients, the existing contract rules will still apply, and if eligible thereunder, would also be eligible under this rule for the Surety Bond Guarantee. The provision is adopted as proposed.

Section 120.1700. Definitions used in subpart J. SBA proposed to amend the definition of Affiliate in § 121.1700 for purposes of the First Lien Position 504 Loan Pooling Program. However, after further review, SBA determined that this affiliation rule for the Business Loan, Disaster Loan and Surety Bond Programs does not apply to 13 CFR 120.1700. SBA is not adopting the proposed change.

Section 121.103(a)(8). SBA proposed establishing the new § 121.103(a)(8) to advise the public that the principles of affiliation for applicants in the Business Loan, Disaster Loan and SBG Programs will be moved to a new § 121.301(f). The final rule clarifies that § 121.301(f) applies only to applicants for these specific programs. Affiliation for SBA's other programs remains unchanged.

Section 121.301(f). SBA proposed establishing the new § 121.301(f) where the principles for determining affiliation to qualify applicant business concerns as small, and therefore eligible to apply for the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs would be located. The SBA has established this separate subsection because the analysis of affiliation under the Business Loan, Disaster Loan and Surety Bond Programs is different from the analysis for contracting programs. The affiliation guidance for all other SBA programs, including the government contracting and business development programs, remains unchanged.

Section 121.301(f)(1). SBA proposed establishing the new § 121.301(f)(1) Affiliation Based on Ownership, where SBA would determine that control exists based on ownership when: (1) A person owns or has the power to control more than 50% of the voting equity of a concern; or (2) if no one person owns or has the power to control more than 50% of the voting equity of the concern, SBA would deem the small business to be controlled by either the President, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the concern, or other officers, managing members, partners, or directors who control the management of the concern. A total of 155 commenters supported a change in the rule, with 34 of the commenters proposing further modification to limit the scope to only the President, CEO, Managing Partner, or Principal Manager. The comments for limiting scope were not adopted as it would not include all potential management and ownership organizational structures. Based on the elimination of the totality of circumstances, more fully discussed in § 121.301(f)(6), SBA proposes to include in this section that SBA finds control when a minority shareholder has the ability, under the concern's charter, by-laws, or shareholder's agreement, to prevent a quorum or otherwise block action by the board of directors or shareholders. SBA is adopting the regulation with the inclusion of the Board and other shareholders.

Section 121.301(f)(2). SBA is establishing the new § 121.301(f)(2) Affiliation arising under stock options, convertible securities, and agreements to merge, where SBA would duplicate language from § 121.103(d). Other than duplicating the language in a different section of the regulation, SBA did not change the existing principles regarding affiliation arising under stock options, convertible securities, and agreements to merge currently found in § 121.103(d). A total of 155 commenters supported keeping this the same, and repeating the language in § 121.301(f)(2) for the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs. There were no opposing comments. SBA is adopting the rule as proposed.

Section 121.301(f)(3). SBA proposed establishing the new § 121.301(f)(3) Affiliation based on management, where SBA will utilize the same principles of affiliation for common management set forth in § 121.103. Thirty-four commenters proposed limiting the scope of common management consideration to only the President, CEO, Managing Partner, or Principal Manager. Commenters did not include reasons for the requested elimination of Board members. SBA does not adopt the request for limiting scope, as they do not include consideration of all potential management organizational structures. In addition, SBA has modified the language to clarify that management agreements are included in the types of managers and management subject to consideration under this regulation. Details on the types of management agreements that result in determinations of affiliation will be provided in SBA Loan Program Requirements. SBA is adopting the rule with refinements that include management by agreement.

Section 121.301(f)(4). SBA proposed establishing the new § 121.301(f)(4) Affiliation based on identity of interest, where SBA would re-define the presumptions underlying the principles of establishing an identity of interest. The proposed rule provided that SBA would presume affiliation between two or more persons with an identity of interest, and the presumption could be rebutted with evidence showing that the interests are separate. The proposed rule provided further that SBA would presume an identity of interest between close relatives, as defined in 13 CFR 120.10. The proposed rule deviated from the existing rule in 13 CFR 121.103(f) by not specifically citing common investments and economic dependence as bases for finding an identity of interest. There were 155 commenters supporting a separate affiliation rule for identity of interest for the Business Loan and SBG Programs. Ninety-six commenters recommended additional clarity from SBA on the definition on “identity of interest,” as to the aggregation of unrelated parties and former employers. Thirty-six commenters requested elimination of the “identity of interest” regulation. SBA reviewed the language and disagrees with the request to eliminate the language related to identity of interest between close relatives, but otherwise agrees with the commenters' suggestion to remove other bases for affiliation through identity of interest. SBA has revised the proposed rule by retaining identity of interest between close relatives but otherwise eliminating discussion of identity of interest for other reasons.

Section 121.301(f)(5). SBA proposed establishing the new § 121.301(f)(5) Affiliation based on franchise and license agreements, where SBA proposed language that would limit franchise or license agreement reviews to the applicant franchisee or licensee and the franchisor, and not consider any franchise or license relationship of an affiliate of the applicant. A total of 138 commenters supported this change to SBA's treatment of franchisee affiliation with franchisors. The majority of commenters, however, expressed concern that the proposed rule was confusing, and others commented that the proposed rule did not go far enough to resolve the challenges and costs involved in the review of franchise relationships. Some commenters stated the proposed rule would not eliminate inconsistent determinations of franchise affiliation by SBA. Partnering with internal and external stakeholders, SBA made an extensive effort to better understand the burden imposed by existing processes, to identify relevant risks and to develop meaningful improvements. Along with public comments, SBA received specific comment from the office of Steve Chabot, Chairman of the House Small Business Committee, encouraging SBA to streamline and improve how best to address franchised business size relative to affiliation.

The current regulatory language in § 121.103(f) recognizes that “the restraints imposed on a franchisee or licensee by its franchise or license agreement relating to standardized quality, advertising, accounting format, and other similar provisions, generally will not be considered in determining whether the franchisor or licensor is affiliated with the franchisee or licensee provided the franchisee or licensee has the right to profit from its efforts and bears the risk of loss commensurate with ownership.” The current regulation continues, stating that “affiliation may arise, however, through other means, such as common ownership, common management, or excessive restrictions upon the sale of the franchise interest.” Commenters indicated that SBA's determination of the types of controls that do or do not constitute affiliation is not clear and is inconsistent with the overarching concept that many restraints are generally not considered when determining affiliation. Some commenters recommended that the regulation be amended to delete the provision that affiliation would be found based on restrictions in the agreement so long as the franchisee continues to have the right to profit from its efforts and bears the risk of loss commensurate with ownership. Additionally, many commenters recommended language be included in the regulatory text to clarify SBA's intent to only review agreements of the “applicant” and not review any agreements of affiliated entities. These commenters recommended adding language to the regulatory text similar to what was included in the Supplementary Information in the proposed rule.

Based on the volume of comments received in the current and previous rulemaking requests, and to provide consistency in its application of the principles of affiliation involving franchise or license agreements, SBA is removing regulatory text that only addressed certain types of restraint. The regulatory changes clarify that SBA does not consider that franchise or license relationships create affiliation, provided the franchisee/licensee has the right to profit from its efforts, and bears the risk of loss commensurate with ownership. SBA will provide guidance on the franchisee/licensee's right to profit from its efforts and bear the risk of loss commensurate with ownership in its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10.

SBA also is adding a sentence to the end of the regulatory text to clarify its intent that only franchise or license relationships of the applicant will be considered, not those of any of the applicant's affiliates.

Section 121.301(f)(6). SBA proposed establishing the new § 121.301(f)(6) Affiliation based on SBA's determination of the totality of circumstances, where SBA proposed to retain finding of affiliation based on the totality of circumstances similar to the regulations currently found in § 121.103(a)(5). There were 97 commenters requesting elimination of this rule, and 37 commenters indicated that including this requirement as a factor for determining affiliation would contravene SBA's stated intent of providing a bright line test of affiliation. Commenters requested examples of when SBA would apply the test so that participants could better understand how this factor would impact eligibility decisions. SBA reviewed and considered the concerns identified regarding the potential overarching but undefined aggregation of circumstances. SBA agrees that the prior rules in proposed § 121.301(f)(1)-(5) and (7)-(8) provide specificity. Generally examples reviewed are negative control, and control through management agreement. Rather than include examples here, SBA is removing the totality of the circumstances criterion, but provides specific guidance in § 121.301(f)(1) and (f)(3) to address negative control, and control through management agreements that would have been included in this section. SBA agrees with the commenters' suggestions and will remove this paragraph from the final rule. Therefore proposed § 121.301(f)(7) and (f)(8) are renumbered § 121.301(f)(6) and (f)(7).

Section 121.301(f)(7). SBA proposed establishing the new § 121.301(f)(7) Determining the concern's size, where SBA states that SBA counts receipts, employees, or alternate size standards of a concern and its affiliates. There were no specific objections regarding this provision. SBA is adopting the rule as proposed, and renumbered as § 121.301(f)(6).

Section 121.301(f)(8). SBA proposed establishing the new § 121.301(f)(8) Exceptions to affiliation, where SBA would incorporate the exceptions to affiliation set forth in 13 CFR 121.103(b). There were no specific objections regarding this provision. The proposed rule is adopted as written, and renumbered as § 121.301(f)(7).

Finally, SBA proposed not to apply several current principles of affiliation that apply in the federal contracting and business development programs to the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs. Specifically, SBA proposed to eliminate applying affiliation based on a newly organized concern (see § 121.103(g)) and joint ventures (see § 121.103(h)). One purpose of the newly organized concern rule is to prevent former small businesses from creating spin-off companies in order to continue to perform on small business contracts or receive other contracting benefits. While this affiliation principle is appropriate for federal contracting, it is generally not applicable to the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, or SBG Programs. The only responsible party or parties for an SBA loan are the owners or guarantors executing debt instruments on behalf of the applicant business. Generally, former employers of small business applicants are not obligors nor are they guarantors on extensions of credit to SBA applicants. There were no specific objections to the elimination of newly organized concerns or joint ventures as affiliates for purposes of these programs. SBA adopts the proposed exclusion from the rule on affiliation for the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBA Programs.

With respect to joint ventures, these partnerships form when two or more businesses combine their efforts in order to perform on a federal contract or receive other contract assistance. SBA does not consider affiliation based on the joint venture to be of significant concern to the Business Loan or Disaster Loan Programs because a loan to any joint venture will require all members of the joint venture to accept full responsibility for loan guarantee liability. Also, agency records indicate that applicants for assistance under SBA Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs are rarely, if ever, joint ventures, and, therefore, this provision is unnecessary. For the Surety Bond Guarantee Program, the guarantee is on the bond, not a contract. In any joint venture where the surety company requests a bond guarantee, each member of the joint venture is required to accept full responsibility for the bond guarantee liability.

SBA also proposed to omit “negative control” as a stand-alone factor in determining affiliation for the purpose of loan eligibility. Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.103(a)(3), negative control may exist where a minority shareholder can block certain actions by the board of directors. SBA received many comments requesting clarity or removal of § 121.301(f)(6) Affiliation based on SBA's determination of the totality of circumstances. SBA agreed to the removal of § 121.301(f)(6), and included additional specific guidance as to negative control through minority ownership and by management agreement in § 121.301(f)(1) and (f)(3) respectively.

IV. Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 12988, and 13132, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this final rule is a “significant” regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the next section contains SBA's Regulatory Impact Analysis. However, this is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800.

Regulatory Impact Analysis 1. Is there a need for this regulatory action?

The Agency believes it needs to reduce regulatory burdens and expand its Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs by streamlining delivery, lowering costs, and facilitating job creation. As noted above, responses received from the Federal Register proposed rule notice regarding SBA rules on affiliation were in favor of simplified rules that enhance understanding and align with normal commercial industry practices. Specifically of the 160 commenters for the proposed rule on affiliation, 4 comments were from businesses (accounting and consulting firms), 3 comments were from law firms, and 1 comment was from an individual that did not disclose their organizational type. All of the small business comments showed support for the affiliation rule. Small business applicants will be assisted by this streamlining of requirements because it will be easier and more cost effective for a lender to research whether the applicant small business controls or is controlled by large companies which would jeopardize their eligibility. Higher lender costs potentially result in greater costs to the applicant small business. No comments were received from small businesses on the regulatory impact analysis during the proposed rule comment period.

2. What are the potential benefits and costs of this regulatory action?

This rule will eliminate unnecessary cost burdens on loan applicants' and lenders' participation in SBA-guaranteed loans. This final rule exempts the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs from certain government contracting rules that determine whether an entity is deemed affiliated with an applicant. These general affiliation rules apply to federal contracting to ensure that small businesses (and not another entity) receive and perform a federal contract when a preference for small businesses is provided. Many of these general principles of affiliation (e.g., newly organized concern) are not applicable to the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, or SBG Programs. SBA reviewed five years of data from the SBA Loan Guaranty Processing Center. The data specifically tracked reasons each loan would have been screened out. During the five-year period, based on the screen out reasons specific to affiliation, 1,379 small businesses failed to submit affiliate financials, and 1,363 needed clarifications or additional information to complete processing. SBA has determined that the proposed simplification of size based on affiliation will eliminate confusion, and save time and costs for the small business applicants and the lenders. Additionally this regulatory action will improve SBA processing efficiency and turnaround times.

3. What alternatives have been considered?

As indicated above, on October 2, 2015, the Agency issued a proposed rule for comment in the Federal Register to identify several changes intended to reinvigorate the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and SBG Programs by eliminating unnecessary compliance burdens and loan eligibility restrictions. The Agency previously published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2013, a prior proposed rule for comment on 7(a) and 504 loan program requirements which had also included proposed changes to the affiliation rules for loan programs. See Proposed Rule: 504 and 7(a) Loan Programs Updates, 78 FR 12633 (February 25, 2013). Included in these proposals was an alternate affiliation definition. After a full comment period ending April 26, 2013, and careful consideration of all comments, SBA decided to further deliberate and consider issues of redefining affiliation for the Business Loan Programs and SBG Program. As a result, no changes were adopted regarding affiliation in the 7(a) and 504 loan program final rule. See Final Rule: 504 and 7(a) Loan Programs Updates, 78 FR 15641 (March 21, 2014).

This final rule presents a set of requirements to determine affiliation based on the precedent separating the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs from the government contracting standards. SBA has reviewed extensive public comments and suggestions in developing this final rule and considered changes needed to mitigate identified economic risk to the taxpayers and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.

Executive Order 13563

A description of the need for this regulatory action and benefits and costs associated with this action, including possible distributional impacts that relate to Executive Order 13563, are included above in the Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866. The Business Loan Programs operate through the Agency's lending partners, which are 7(a) Lenders for the 7(a) Loan Program, Intermediaries for the Microloan Program and ILP Program, and CDCs for the 504 Loan Program. The Agency participated in public forums and meetings with NAGGL board members and program participants at industry conferences from the Fall of 2014 through Spring of 2015 which allowed it to reach trade associations and hundreds of its lending partners from which it gained valuable insight, guidance, and suggestions. The Agency's outreach efforts to engage stakeholders before proposing this rule was extensive, and concluded with the comment period.

Executive Order 12988

This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

Executive Order 13132

SBA has determined that this final rule 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. Therefore, for the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.Ch. 35

The SBA has determined that this final rule would not impose additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). In fact, those individuals and entities that SBA considers potential affiliates has been refined and reduced for the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and the SBG Programs, which could result in reduced reporting and recordkeeping. Participants in SBA's 7(a) Loan Program will continue to report any affiliates of their business on SBA Form 1919 (OMB Control No. 3245-0348), and participants in SBA's 504 Loan Program will continue to report affiliates on SBA Form 1244 (OMB Control No. 3245-0071). EIDL Program participants will continue to report affiliates on SBA Form 5 (OMB Control No. 3245-0017), and SBG Program participants will continue to report affiliates on SBA Form 994 (OMB Control No. 3245-0007).

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601- 612

When an agency issues a rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment a final regulatory analysis” which will “describe the impact of the final rule on small entities.” Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The rulemaking will positively impact all of the approximately 4,000 7(a) Lenders (some of which are small), 35 Intermediary Lending Pilot lenders, approximately 260 CDCs (all of which are small), 145 Microloan Intermediaries, and 23 Sureties in the SBG Program. The final rule will reduce the burden on program participants. SBA has determined that the streamlining of certain program process requirements through this modification of eligibility based on affiliation will present no adverse or significant impact, including costs for the small business borrower, lender, or CDC. This proposal presents a best practice rule that removes unnecessary regulatory burdens, increases access to capital for small businesses and facilitates American job preservation and creation. SBA has determined that there is no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Small business applicants will be assisted by this streamlining of requirements because it will be easier and more cost effective for lenders to identify whether applicant small businesses control or are controlled by other companies that would jeopardize eligibility. SBA reviewed five years of data from the SBA Loan Guaranty Processing Center. The data specifically tracked reasons for loan screen outs that delayed processing. During the five-year period based on the screen out reasons specific to affiliation, the processing was delayed for over 2,600 loan applicants. SBA believes that the proposed simplified rules on affiliation provide participants with needed clarity that results in reduction of the paperwork and review time required to make accurate determinations. The time/cost benefit for business applicants and participants is substantial. Additionally this regulatory action will improve SBA processing efficiency and turnaround times.

The SBA Administrator certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, the Chief Counsel certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects 13 CFR Part 109

Community development, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

13 CFR Part 115

Claims, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Surety bonds.

13 CFR Part 120

Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

13 CFR Part 121

Grant programs—business, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—business, Small businesses.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Small Business Administration amends 13 CFR parts 109, 115, 120, and 121 as follows:

PART 109—INTERMEDIARY LENDING PILOT PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for 13 CFR part 109 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (b)(7), and 636(1).

2. Amend § 109.20 to revise the definition of “Affiliate” to read as follows:
§ 109.20 Definitions.

Affiliate is defined in § 121.301(f) of this chapter.

PART 115—SURETY BOND GUARANTEE 3. The authority citation for 13 CFR part 115 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. app 3; 15 U.S.C. 687b, 687c, 694a, 694b note; and Pub. L. 110-246, Sec. 12079, 122 Stat. 1651.

4. Amend § 115.10 to revise the definition of “Affiliate” to read as follows:
§ 115.10 Definitions.

Affiliate is defined in § 121.301(f) of this chapter.

PART 120—BUSINESS LOANS 5. The authority citation for 13 CFR part 120 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(14), (h), and note, 636(a), (h), and (m), 650, 687(f), 696(3), and 697(a) and (e); Pub. L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504.

6. Revise the first sentence of § 120.151 to read as follows:
§ 120.151 What is the statutory limit for total loans to a Borrower?

The aggregate amount of the SBA portions of all loans to a single Borrower, including the Borrower's affiliates as defined in § 121.301(f) of this chapter, must not exceed a guaranty amount of $3,750,000, except as otherwise authorized by statute for a specific program. * * *

PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS 7. The authority citation for 13 CFR part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 662, and 694a(9).

8. Amend § 121.103 to add paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:
§ 121.103 How does SBA determine affiliation?

(a) * * *

(8) For applicants in SBA's Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and Surety Bond Guarantee Programs, the size standards and bases for affiliation are set forth in § 121.301.

9. Amend § 121.301 to revise the section heading and to add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 121.301 What size standards and affiliation principles are applicable to financial assistance programs?

(f) Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both. It does not matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power to control exists. Affiliation under any of the circumstances described below is sufficient to establish affiliation for applicants for SBA's Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and Surety Bond Programs. For this rule, the Business Loan Programs consist of the 7(a) Loan Program, the Microloan Program, the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program, and the Development Company Loan Program (“504 Loan Program”). The Disaster Loan Programs consist of Physical Disaster Business Loans, Economic Injury Disaster Loans, Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans, and Immediate Disaster Assistance Program loans. The following principles apply for the Business Loan, Disaster Loan, and Surety Bond Guarantee Programs:

(1) Affiliation based on ownership. For determining affiliation based on equity ownership, a concern is an affiliate of an individual, concern, or entity that owns or has the power to control more than 50 percent of the concern's voting equity. If no individual, concern, or entity is found to control, SBA will deem the Board of Directors or President or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (or other officers, managing members, or partners who control the management of the concern) to be in control of the concern. SBA will deem a minority shareholder to be in control, if that individual or entity has the ability, under the concern's charter, by-laws, or shareholder's agreement, to prevent a quorum or otherwise block action by the board of directors or shareholders.

(2) Affiliation arising under stock options, convertible securities, and agreements to merge. (i) In determining size, SBA considers stock options, convertible securities, and agreements to merge (including agreements in principle) to have a present effect on the power to control a concern. SBA treats such options, convertible securities, and agreements as though the rights granted have been exercised.

(ii) Agreements to open or continue negotiations towards the possibility of a merger or a sale of stock at some later date are not considered “agreements in principle” and are thus not given present effect.

(iii) Options, convertible securities, and agreements that are subject to conditions precedent which are incapable of fulfillment, speculative, conjectural, or unenforceable under state or Federal law, or where the probability of the transaction (or exercise of the rights) occurring is shown to be extremely remote, are not given present effect.

(iv) An individual, concern or other entity that controls one or more other concerns cannot use options, convertible securities, or agreements to appear to terminate such control before actually doing so. SBA will not give present effect to individuals', concerns', or other entities' ability to divest all or part of their ownership interest in order to avoid a finding of affiliation.

(3) Affiliation based on management. Affiliation arises where the CEO or President of the applicant concern (or other officers, managing members, or partners who control the management of the concern) also controls the management of one or more other concerns. Affiliation also arises where a single individual, concern, or entity that controls the Board of Directors or management of one concern also controls the Board of Directors or management of one of more other concerns. Affiliation also arises where a single individual, concern or entity controls the management of the applicant concern through a management agreement.

(4) Affiliation based on identity of interest. Affiliation arises when there is an identity of interest between close relatives, as defined in 13 CFR 120.10, with identical or substantially, identical business or economic interests (such as where the close relatives operate concerns in the same or similar industry in the same geographic area). Where SBA determines that interests should be aggregated, an individual or firm may rebut that determination with evidence showing that the interests deemed to be one are in fact separate.

(5) Affiliation based on franchise and license agreements. The restraints imposed on a franchisee or licensee by its franchise or license agreement generally will not be considered in determining whether the franchisor or licensor is affiliated with an applicant franchisee or licensee provided the applicant franchisee or licensee has the right to profit from its efforts and bears the risk of loss commensurate with ownership. SBA will only consider the franchise or license agreements of the applicant concern.

(6) Determining the concern's size. In determining the concern's size, SBA counts the receipts, employees (§ 121.201), or the alternate size standard (if applicable) of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its domestic and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the affiliates are organized for profit.

(7) Exceptions to affiliation. For exceptions to affiliation, see 13 CFR 121.103(b).

Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-14984 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4210; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-067-AD; Amendment 39-18567; AD 2016-13-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that certain splice plate locations of the aft pressure bulkhead web are hidden and cannot be inspected using existing manufacturer service information. This AD requires repetitive open-hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could result in rapid airplane decompression and loss of structural integrity.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 1, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4210.

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-2015-4210, 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:

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6447; fax: 425-917-6590; 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 The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2015 (80 FR 66841) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that certain splice plate locations of the aft pressure bulkhead web are hidden and cannot be inspected using existing manufacturer service information. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive open-hole HFEC inspections for cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could result in rapid airplane decompression and loss of structural integrity.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support of the AD

FedEx, United Airlines, and United Parcel Service comments supported the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added a new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/59027f43b9a7486e86257b1d006591ee/$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request for Clarification of Applicability in the Service Information

Vision Airlines requested clarification on the effectivity in the service information. Vision Airlines stated that the airplane group numbers, line numbers, and configurations do not cover all airplanes that are identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015. More specifically, Vision Airlines stated that there is no mention in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, of airplane line numbers 1-175 that have not had the aft pressure bulkhead replaced. Vision Airlines did receive guidance from Boeing stating that line numbers 1-175 without the replaced aft pressure bulkhead should use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0026, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2004, which is mandated by AD 2005-03-11, Amendment 39-13967 (70 FR 7174, February 11, 2005); corrected March 11, 2005 (70 FR 12119).

We partially agree. We agree that the table on page 7 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, may be confusing. However, page 7 is part of the Summary section of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, and is not mandated by this AD. This AD requires using the effectivity information specified in paragraph 1.E.,”Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, which is correct in the identification of the Group 1 airplanes. The Group 1 airplanes are all line number 1-175 airplanes on which the aft pressure bulkhead was replaced in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0139, November 12, 2009. If any of these airplanes have not yet had the aft pressure bulkhead replaced as required by AD 2012-09-08, Amendment 39-17043, (77 FR 28240, May 14 2012) (“AD 2012-09-08”), then they are not yet a Group 1 airplane and are not subject to the requirements this of this AD until the aft pressure bulkhead is replaced. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Add ADs to Paragraph (b) of the Proposed AD

Boeing requested that we add AD 2004-05-16, Amendment 39-13511, (69 FR 10917, March 9, 2004) (“AD 2004-05-16”), AD 2012-09-08, and AD 2014-14-04, Amendment 39-17899 (79 FR 44673, August 1, 2014) (“AD 2014-14-04”) to paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that these ADs do not specifically address the splice plate locations, but the inspection areas defined in these ADs can be interpreted to cover these locations. Boeing noted that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, provides information on FAA-approved AMOCs for ADs 2004-05-16, 2012-09-08, and 2014-14-04.

We partially agree. We agree that ADs 2004-05-16, 2012-09-08, and 2014-14-04 are “related” to this AD because Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, provides information on FAA-approved AMOCs that could be used for compliance with ADs 2004-05-16, 2012-09-08, and 2014-14-04. However, we do not agree to revise paragraph (b) of this AD because it identifies “affected” ADs, and ADs 2004-05-16, 2012-09-08, and 2014-14-04 are not affected by the requirements of this AD. For example, the requirements of ADs 2004-05-16, 2012-09-08, and 2014-14-04 are not terminated by any requirements of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request for Clarification of the Terminating Actions in Paragraph (h) of the Proposed AD

Boeing requested that we clarify the terminating actions in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the existing AD language is vague, and suggested changing the last sentence of paragraph (h) to specify the type of repair as a “reinforcing repair.” Boeing pointed out that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, provides information on specific AMOCs for existing repairs with damage tolerance evaluation and approval from Boeing. Boeing asserted that under the existing language non-reinforcing repairs such as hole enlargements and blending would terminate any inspections in the area and might not be correctly evaluated per 14 CFR 26.43.

We agree that non-reinforcing repairs are not an acceptable method to terminate the repetitive inspections. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD accordingly.

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 and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015. The service information describes procedures for removing the aft row of fasteners from each of the splice plates and doing an open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead at station 1582. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 430 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Repetitive inspections Up to 46 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,910 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $3,910 per inspection cycle Up to $1,681,300 per inspection cycle.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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): 2016-13-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18567; Docket No. FAA-2015-4210; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-067-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective August 1, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) [STC ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/59027f43b9a7486e86257b1d006591ee/$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by a determination that certain splice plate locations of the aft pressure bulkhead web are hidden and cannot be inspected using existing manufacturer service information. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could result in rapid airplane decompression and loss of structural integrity.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections of Station (STA) 1582 Aft Pressure Bulkhead Web Under the Pressure Slice Plates

At the applicable times specified in Table 1 and Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Do an open-hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead web at STA 1582, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles.

(h) Repair

If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the crack in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Accomplishing a reinforcing repair terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD in the area under the repair only.

(i) Exceptions to the Service Information

Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified time after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) apply.

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

(k) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6447; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0266, dated April 20, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 14, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-14752 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8432; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-100-AD; Amendment 39-18570; AD 2016-13-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate Previously Held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of ruptured horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots. This AD requires a revision of the applicable airplane flight manual (AFM), repetitive inspections of the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage of the de-icing boot; such damage could lead to a ruptured boot, severe vibrations, and possible reduced control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 1, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8432.

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-2015-8432; 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 street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket 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:

Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1112; fax (425) 227-1149.

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 certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1588) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of ruptured horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots. The NPRM proposed to require a revision of the applicable AFM, repetitive inspections of the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage of the de-icing boot; such damage could lead to a ruptured boot, severe vibrations, and possible reduced control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0129, dated July 6, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The MCAI states:

There have been some reported events of ruptured horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots. In-flight rupture of a de-icing boot will result in complete loss of the de-icing function within its associated zone. In addition, in some of these events, the de-icing boot had formed a large open scoop.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to severe vibrations, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

To address this potential unsafe condition, SAAB issued Alert Operations Bulletin (AOB) No. 12 and AOB No. 23 as a temporary measure, recommending performing a flap 0 landing in the event of a suspected rupture of the de-icing boot on the horizontal stabilizer.

In addition, SAAB issued SB 340-30-094 to provide instructions to inspect the affected de-icing boots.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an amendment of the applicable Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) and, pending the development of a modification by SAAB, repetitive inspections of the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action and further AD action may follow.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8432.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Paragraph (g) To Allow Later Approved Revisions of AFMs

Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to state that the use of later-approved revisions of the applicable AFMs is also acceptable for compliance with the proposed AD.

We do not agree. When referring to specific service information in an AD, using the phrase, “or later FAA-approved revisions,” violates Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference. However, affected operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced service information as an alternative method of compliance, under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Expand Description of Inspection

Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics also requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to explain that the inspection is not only for damage, but also for existing repairs. The commenter stated that the inspection of existing repairs is described in Saab Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015, but missing from paragraph (h) of the proposed AD.

We agree with the request. The referenced service information specifies inspecting for damage of the de-icing boots, and a sub-step specifies to “make sure that already made repairs are within specified limits.” That action was not specifically stated in the proposed AD. We have clarified the requirement by changing paragraph (h) of this AD to ensure that de-icing boots as well as existing repairs are within specified limits.

Request To Change the Repetitive Inspection Interval to 600 Flight Hours

PenAir requested a change to the repetitive inspection interval. The commenter requested that the repetitive inspection interval be increased from the proposed 400-flight-hour interval to a 600-flight-hour interval. The commenter also stated that in the event that a 600-flight-hour interval is determined to be unsuitable, then a 450-flight-hour interval should be used. The commenter stated that this change would align with scheduled E-check inspections, alleviate the undue burden of creating maintenance outside of scheduled computerized aircraft maintenance program inspections, and maintain safe operation of the airplane.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time. We have determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents the maximum interval of time allowable for the affected airplanes to continue to operate safely before the next inspection is required. In addition, since maintenance schedules vary among operators, there would be no assurance that a different interval would satisfy all operators' schedules. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

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 and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Saab Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the de-icing boots installed on the horizontal stabilizers, and repair and replacement of damaged de-icing boots.

We also reviewed the following AFMs, which describe performance limitations and general data:

• Saab AFM 340A 001, Revision 57, dated March 27, 2015.

• Saab AFM 340B 001, Revision 35, dated March 27, 2015.

• Saab AFM 340B 010, Revision 28, dated March 27, 2015.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 92 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $46,920, or $510 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $9,500, for a cost of $10,010 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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

We determined that 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 the 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): 2016-13-06 Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate Previously Held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems): Amendment 39-18570. Docket No. FAA-2015-8432; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-100-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective August 1, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Type Certificate Previously Held by Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

(1) Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, serial numbers(S/Ns) 004 through 138 inclusive, on which Saab Modification 1462 has been embodied in production, or Saab Service Bulletin 340-55-008 has been embodied in service, except those on which Saab Modification 1793 has also been embodied in production, or Saab Service Bulletin 340-55-010 has been embodied in service; and Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, S/Ns 139 through 159 inclusive. Applicable Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes S/N 004-138, Post Modification No. 1462 but Pre Modification No. 1793, have a maximum flap setting of 35 degrees instead of 20 degrees, and horizontal stabilizer boots with spanwise tubes instead of chordwise tubes.

(2) Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 340B airplanes, S/Ns 160 through 459 inclusive.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of ruptured horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage of the de-icing boot; such damage could lead to a ruptured boot, severe vibrations, and possible reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the “Abnormal Procedures” section of the applicable Saab 340 AFM to incorporate the revision specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD.

(1) For Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, revise AFM 340A 001 by incorporating Revision 57, dated March 27, 2015.

(2) For Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 340B airplanes, revise AFM 340B 001 by incorporating Revision 35, dated March 27, 2015.

(3) For Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 340B airplanes with extended wing tips, revise AFM 340B 010 by incorporating Revision 28, dated March 27, 2015.

(h) Inspection/Replacement

Within 400 flight hours or 6 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for damage of the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, and existing repairs of horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours. If, during any inspection required by this paragraph, any damage or existing repair outside the limits specified in Saab Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015, is found, before further flight, repair or replace the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015. Repair or replacement on an airplane of the horizontal stabilizer de-icing boots, as required by this paragraph, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph for that airplane.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0129, dated July 6, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8432.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Saab Service Bulletin 340-30-094, dated March 27, 2015.

(ii) Saab AFM 340A 001, Revision 57, dated March 27, 2015.

(iii) Saab AFM 340B 001, Revision 35, dated March 27, 2015.

(iv) Saab AFM 340B 010, Revision 28, dated March 27, 2015.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-14871 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 143 RIN 3038-AE45 Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation AGENCY:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION:

Interim final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) is amending its rule that governs the maximum amount of civil monetary penalties, to adjust for inflation. This rule sets forth the maximum, inflation-adjusted dollar amount for civil monetary penalties (CMPs) assessable for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and Commission rules, regulations and orders thereunder. The rule, as amended, implements the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended.

DATES:

Effective Date: This interim final rule is effective August 1, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward J. Riccobene, Associate Chief Counsel, Division of Enforcement, at (202) 418-5327 or [email protected], Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (FCPIAA) 1 requires the head of each Federal agency to periodically adjust for inflation the minimum and maximum amount of CMPs provided by law within the jurisdiction of that agency.2 On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act),3 which further amended the FCPIAA to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Act requires agencies to: (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking; and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation.4 Agencies are required to publish interim final rules with the initial penalty adjustment amounts by July 1, 2016, and the new penalty levels must take effect no later than August 1, 2016.5

1 The FCPIAA, Public Law 101-410 (1990), as amended, is codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. The FCPIAA states that the purpose of the act is to establish a mechanism that (1) allows for regular adjustment for inflation of civil monetary penalties; (2) maintains the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties and promote compliance with the law; and (3) improves the collection by the Federal Government of civil monetary penalties.

2 For the relevant CMPs within the Commission's jurisdiction, the Act provides only for maximum amounts that can be assessed for each violation of the Act or the rules, regulations and orders promulgated thereunder; the Act does not set forth any minimum penalties. Therefore, the remainder of this release will refer only to CMP maximums.

3See 2015 Act, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (2015), title VII, Section 701.

4Id., Section 701(b). Rule 143.8(b) is amended to reflect the change to annual adjustments from “once every four years.”

5 2015 Act, Section 701(b).

II. Commodity Exchange Act Civil Monetary Penalties

The inflation adjustment requirement applies to any penalty, fine or other sanction that (A) is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; (B) is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and (C) is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts. 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. The CEA provides for CMPs that meet the above definition and are, therefore, subject to the inflation adjustment in the following instances: Sections 6(c), 6(d), 6b, and 6c of the CEA.6

6 7 U.S.C. 9, 13a, 13a-1, 13b.

Section 6(c) of the CEA,7 as adjusted by the FCPIAA,8 currently sets the maximum CMP that may be imposed by the Commission in an administrative proceeding on “any person (other than a registered entity)” for: (1) Each violation of Section 6(c) of the CEA or any other provisions of the Act or of the rules, regulations, or orders of the Commission thereunder to the greater of $140,000 or triple the monetary gain to the violator; and (2) any manipulation or attempted manipulation in violation of Section 6(c) or 9(a)(2) of the CEA to the greater of $1,000,000 or triple the monetary gain to the violator.

7 7 U.S.C. 9.

8See 17 CFR 143.8(a)(1).

Section 6(d) of the CEA,9 as adjusted by the FCPIAA,10 currently sets the maximum CMP that may be imposed by the Commission in an administrative proceeding on “any person (other than a registered entity)” 11 for violations of the CEA or any other provisions of the CEA or of the rules, regulations, or orders of the Commission thereunder to the greater of $140,000 or triple the monetary gain to the violator.

9 7 U.S.C. 13b.

10See 17 CFR 143.8(a)(2).

11 The term “registered entity” is a defined term under the CEA. Section 1a(40) provides that the term “registered entity” means (A) a board of trade designated as a contract market under section 7 of the act; (B) a derivatives clearing organization registered under section 7a-1 of the act; (C) a board of trade designated as a contract market under section 7b-1 of the act; (D) a swap execution facility registered under section 7b-3 of the act; (E) a swap data repository registered under section 24a of the act; and (F) with respect to a contract that the Commission determines is a significant price discovery contract, any electronic trading facility on which the contract is executed or traded. 7 U.S.C. 1a(40).

Section 6b of the CEA 12 provides that the Commission in an administrative proceeding may impose a CMP on: (1) Any registered entity for not enforcing or has not enforced its rules of government made a condition of its designation or registration as set forth in the CEA, or (2) any registered entity, or any director, officer, agent, or employee of any registered entity, for violations of the CEA or any rules, regulations, or orders of the Commission thereunder. For each violation for which a CMP is assessed pursuant to Section 6b, the current, FCPIAA-adjusted maximum penalty is set at: The greater of $1,025,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for manipulation or attempted manipulation in violation of Section 6(c), 6(d), or 9(a)(2) of the CEA; and the greater of $700,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for all other violations.13

12 7 U.S.C. 13a.

13 17 CFR 143.8(a)(3).

Section 6c of the CEA 14 provides that Commission may bring an action in the proper district court of the United States or the proper United States court of any territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the court may impose on a CMP on “any registered entity or other person” found by the court to have committed any violation of any provision of the CEA or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, or is restraining trading in any commodity for future delivery or any swap. For each violation for which a CMP is assessed pursuant to Section 6c(d), the current, FCPIAA-adjusted maximum penalty is set at: The greater of $1,000,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for manipulation or attempted manipulation in violation of Section 6(c), 6(d), or 9(a)(2) of the CEA; and the greater of $140,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for all other violations.15

14 7 U.S.C. 13a-1.

15 17 CFR 143.8(a)(2).

III. Inflation Adjustment for Commodity Exchange Act Civil Monetary Penalties A. Methodology

The inflation adjustment under the FCPIAA, in the context of the CFTC's CMPs, is determined by increasing the maximum penalty by a “cost-of-living adjustment,” rounded to the nearest multiple of $1.16 For purposes of this initial, catch-up adjustment, the cost-of-living adjustment means the percentage (if any) for each civil monetary penalty by which the Consumer Price Index for the month of October, 2015 exceeds the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) 17 for the month of October of the calendar year during which the amount of such civil monetary penalty was established or adjusted under a provision of law other than the FCPIAA.18 The amount of the CMP increase is capped at 150 percent of the amount of that civil monetary penalty on the date of enactment of the 2015 Act.19

16 FCPIAA Sections 4 and 5.

17 The CPI-U is published by the Department of Labor. Interested parties may find the relevant Consumer Price Index on the Internet. To access this information, go to the Consumer Price Index Home Page at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. Under the “CPI Databases” heading, select “All Urban Consumers (Current Series)”, “Top Picks.” Then check the box for “U.S. All Items, 1967=100 - CUUR0000AA0”, and click the “Retrieve data” button.

After this initial catch-up adjustment, subsequent annual inflation adjustments will be based on the percent change between the October CPI-U preceding the date of the adjustment, and the prior year's October CPI-U. FCPIAA Section 4(b)(2).

18 FCPIAA Section 5(b)(2).

19Id.

B. Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments

Applying the FCPIAA catch-up adjustment methodology results in the following amended CMPs:

Citation Description Year CMP last set by law other than under the FCPIAA 1 CMP amount last set by law other than under the FCPIAA Current CMP amount
  • (including
  • prior FCPIAA
  • adjustments)
  • Inflation
  • adjusted
  • CMP amount 2
  • Section 6(c) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 9 Prohibition Regarding Manipulation and False Information [Other Violation (Non-Manipulation)] 2010 $140,000 $140,000 $152,243 Section 6(c) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 9 Prohibition Regarding Manipulation and False Information [Manipulation or Attempted Manipulation] 2008 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,098,190 Section 6(d) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 13b Manipulations or Other Violations; Cease and Desist Orders Against Persons Other Than Registered Entities; Punishment; Misdemeanor or Felony; Separate Offenses 2010 140,000 140,000 152,243 Section 6b of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 13a Nonenforcement of Rules of Government or Other Violations; Cease and Desist Orders; Fines and Penalties; Imprisonment; Misdemeanor; Separate Offenses [Other Violation (Non-Manipulation)] 1992 500,000 700,000 838,640 Section 6b of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 13a Nonenforcement of Rules of Government or Other Violations; Cease and Desist Orders; Fines and Penalties; Imprisonment; Misdemeanor; Separate Offenses [Manipulation or Attempted Manipulation] 2008 1,000,000 1,025,000 1,098,190 Section 6c of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 13a-1 Enjoining or Restraining Violations [Other Violation (Non-Manipulation)] 1992 100,000 140,000 167,728 Section 6c of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 13a-1 Enjoining or Restraining Violations [Manipulation or Attempted Manipulation] 2008 1,000,000 1,025,000 1,098,190 1 Sections 212 and 221 of the Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992, Public Law 102-546, 106 Stat. 3590 (1992), set maximum CMPs for Sections 6b and 6c of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 13a, 13a-1, with respect to non-manipulation violations. Section 13103 of the CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008, Title XIII of Public Law 110-234, 122 Stat. 923 (2008), set maximum CMPs for Sections 6(c), 6b and 6c of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 9, 13a, 13a-1, with respect to manipulation violations. Section 753 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), set maximum CMPs for Sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 9, 13b, with respect to non-manipulation violations. 2 The catch-up cost-of-living adjustment for CMPs last set by law 1992 is 67.728%. The cost-of-living adjustment for CMPs last set by law 2008 is 9.819%. The cost-of-living adjustment for CMPs last set by law 2010 is 8.745%.

    The FCPIAA, as amended by the 2015 Act, provides that any increase under the FCPIAA in a civil monetary penalty shall apply only to civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such increase, which are assessed after the date the increase takes effect.20 Thus, the new CMP amounts may be applied only in Commission administrative or civil injunctive enforcement proceedings that are initiated on or after the effective date of this amendment, August 1, 2016.21

    20 FCPIAA Section 6.

    21 Prior to the 2015 Act, the date of the violation determined the inflation-adjusted penalty applicable to the violation. 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, Section 6 (2012) (inflation-adjusted penalty increases applied “only to violations which occur after the date the increase takes effect”). Consequently, rule 143.8 as revised will continue apply the prior violation date specific penalty amount with respect to CFTC enforcement proceedings initiated prior to August 1, 2016. Further, the Commission will strike rule 143.8(c), which memorialized the prior intent of Congress regarding the application of inflation-adjusted penalties, which was amended by the 2015 Act.

    IV. Administrative Compliance A. Notice Requirement

    The notice and comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply to this rulemaking because the Commission is acting herein pursuant to statutory language which mandates that the Commission act in a nondiscretionary matter. Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. E.P.A., 652 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2011).22

    22 The Commission has determined that the amendment to rule 143.8 is exempt from the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, which generally require notice of proposed rulemaking and provide other opportunities for public participation, but excludes rules of agency practice, such as those found in part 143 of the Commission's regulations, and in particular rule 143.8 being revised herein.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act 23 requires agencies with rulemaking authority to consider the impact of certain of their rules on small businesses. A regulatory flexibility analysis is only required for rule(s) for which the agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 553(b) or any other law. Because the Commission is not obligated by section 553(b) or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the revisions being made to regulation 143.8, the Commission additionally is not obligated to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    23 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),24 which imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies, including the Commission, in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA, does not apply to this rule. This rule amendment does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

    24 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

    D. Consideration of Costs and Benefits

    Section 15(a) of the CEA 25 requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing a new regulation. Section 15(a) further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations.

    25 7 U.S.C. 19(a).

    The Commission believes that benefits of this rulemaking greatly outweigh the costs, if any. As the Commission understands, the statutory provisions by which it is making cost-of-living adjustments to the CMPs in regulation 143.8 were enacted to ensure that CMPs do not lose their deterrence value because of inflation. An analysis of the costs and benefits of these adjustments were made before enactment of the statutory provisions under which the Commission is operating, and limit the discretion of the Commission to the extent that there are no regulatory choices the Commission could make that would supersede the pre-enactment analysis with respect to the five factors enumerated in section 15(a), or any other factors.

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 143

    Civil monetary penalties, Claims.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 143 as follows:

    PART 143—COLLECTION OF CLAIMS OWED THE UNITED STATES ARISING FROM ACTIVITIES UNDER THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION 1. The authority citation for part 143 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 9, 15, 9a, 12a(5), 13a, 13a-1(d), 13(a), 13b; 31 U.S.C. 3701-3720E; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Amend § 143.8 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and (b); and b. Remove paragraph (c).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 143.8 Inflation-adjusted civil monetary penalties.

    (a) * * *

    (1) For a civil penalty assessed pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 9, against any person (other than a registered entity):

    (i) In an administrative proceeding before the Commission or a civil action in Federal court initiated prior to August 1, 2016:

    (A) For manipulation or attempted manipulation violations:

    (1) Committed on or after May 22, 2008, not more than the greater of $1,000,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (2) [Reserved]

    (B) For all other violations:

    (1) Committed between November 27, 1996 and October 22, 2000, not more than the greater of $110,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation;

    (2) Committed between October 23, 2000 and October 22, 2004, not more than the greater of $120,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation;

    (3) Committed between October 23, 2004 and October 22, 2008, not more than the greater of $130,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (4) Committed on or after October 23, 2008, not more than the greater of $140,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation;

    (ii) In an administrative proceeding before the Commission or a civil action in Federal court initiated on or after August 1, 2016:

    (A) For manipulation or attempted manipulation violations, not more than the greater of $1,098,190 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (B) For all other violations:

    (1) Not more than the greater of $152,243 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (2) [Reserved]

    (2) For a civil monetary penalty assessed pursuant to Section 6(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 13b, against any person (other than a registered entity):

    (i) In an administrative proceeding before the Commission or a civil action in Federal court initiated prior to August 1, 2016, for violations committed on or after August 15, 2011, not more than the greater of $140,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (ii) In an administrative proceeding before the Commission or a civil action in Federal court initiated prior or after August 1, 2016, not more than the greater of $152,243 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (3) For a civil monetary penalty assessed pursuant to Section 6b of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 13a, against any registered entity or any director, officer, agent, or employee of any registered entity:

    (i) In an administrative proceeding before the Commission or a civil action in Federal court initiated prior to August 1, 2016:

    (A) For manipulation or attempted manipulation violations:

    (1) Committed between May 22, 2008 and August 14, 2011, not more than the greater of $1,000,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation;

    (2) Committed on or after August 15, 2011, not more than the greater of $1,025,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (B) For all other violations:

    (1) Committed between November 27, 1996 and October 22, 2000, not more than $550,000 for each such violation;

    (2) Committed between October 23, 2000 and October 22, 2004, not more than $575,000 for each such violation;

    (3) Committed between October 23, 2004 and October 22, 2008, not more than $625,000 for each such violation;

    (4) Committed between October 23, 2008 and October 22, 2012, not more than the greater of $675,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (5) Committed on or after October 23, 2012, not more than the greater of $700,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (ii) In an administrative proceeding before the Commission or a civil action in Federal court initiated on or after August 1, 2016:

    (A) For manipulation or attempted manipulation violations, not more than the greater of $1,098,190 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (B) For all other violations, not more than the greater of $838,640 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation;

    (4) For a civil monetary penalty assessed pursuant to Section 6c of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 13a-1, against any registered entity or other person:

    (i) In an administrative proceeding before the Commission or a civil action in Federal court initiated prior to August 1, 2016:

    (A) For manipulation or attempted manipulation violations:

    (1) Committed between May 22, 2008 and August 14, 2011, not more than the greater of $1,000,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (2) Committed on or after August 15, 2011, not more than the greater of $1,025,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (B) For all other violations:

    (1) Committed between November 27, 1996 and October 22, 2000, not more than the greater of $110,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation;

    (2) Committed between October 23, 2000 and October 22, 2004, not more than the greater of $120,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation;

    (3) Committed between October 23, 2004 and October 22, 2008, not more than the greater of $130,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (4) Committed on or after October 23, 2008, not more than the greater of $140,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation;

    (ii) In an administrative proceeding before the Commission or a civil action in Federal court initiated on or after August 1, 2016:

    (A) For manipulation or attempted manipulation violations, not more than the greater of $1,098,190 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation; and

    (B) For all other violations, not more than the greater of $167,728 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation.

    (b) The Commission will adjust for inflation the maximum penalties set forth in this section on a yearly basis.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2016, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Note:

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendix to Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    [FR Doc. 2016-15078 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Part 498 [Docket No. SSA-2016-0009] RIN 0960-AH99 Penalty Inflation Adjustments for Civil Money Penalties AGENCY:

    Social Security Administration.

    ACTION:

    Interim Final Rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and further amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, section 701: Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, this interim final rule incorporates the penalty inflation adjustments for the civil money penalties contained in the Social Security Act.

    DATES:

    This interim final rule is effective on August 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph E. Gangloff, Chief Counsel to the Inspector General, Room 3-ME-1, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-4440, both directly and for IPTTY. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call the Social Security Administration's national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit the Social Security Administration's Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Social Security Administration (SSA) was established as an independent agency, effective March 31, 1995, under Public Law 103-296, the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (SSIPIA). The SSIPIA also created an independent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to which the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) delegated certain authority for civil monetary penalty (CMP) cases on June 28, 1995.

    On November 27, 1995, the OIG published a final rule at 60 FR 58225 establishing a new Part 498 in Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This Part serves as a repository for SSA's existing CMP regulations, which implemented section 1140 of the Social Security Act (the Act). These regulations were previously located at 42 CFR part 1003.

    On April 24, 1996, the OIG published a final rule at 61 FR 18078 to implement SSA's new CMP authority provided under section 206(b) of the SSIPIA, which added section 1129 to the Act, effective October 1, 1994. This authority allows for imposition of penalties and assessments against any individual, organization, agency, or other entity that makes, or causes to be made, a false or misleading statement or representation of a material fact for use in determining initial or continuing rights to Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income benefit payments, if the person knew, or should have known, that such statement or representation was false or misleading, or omitted a material fact.

    In addition, on May 17, 2006, the OIG published a final rule at 71 FR 28579 implementing the changes in the CMP program required by section 251(a) of Public Law 106-169, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA), enacted December 14, 1999, and by sections 111, 201, 204, and 207 of Public Law 108-203, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA), enacted March 2, 2004. Section 251(a) of FCIA expanded the authority under section 1129 to impose a civil monetary penalty and assessment for fraud involved in the receipt of benefits by certain World War II veterans. Sections 111, 201, 204, and 207 of SSPA broadened the scope under section 1129 by adding new categories of penalties against (1) representative payees with respect to wrongful conversions, and (2) individuals who withhold the disclosure of material facts to the SSA.

    I. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996

    In an effort to maintain the remedial impact of civil money penalties (CMPs) and promote compliance with the law, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410) was amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134) to require Federal agencies to regularly adjust certain CMPs for inflation. As amended, the law requires each agency to make an initial inflationary adjustment for all applicable CMPs, and to make further adjustments at least once every four years thereafter for these penalty amounts. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 further stipulates that any resulting increases in a CMP due to the calculated inflation adjustments (i) should apply only to the violations that occur after October 23, 1996—the Act's effective date—and (ii) should not exceed 10 percent of the penalty indicated. In addition to those penalties that fall under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, CMPs that come under the Social Security Act were specifically exempted from the requirements of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.

    II. Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Section 701: Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015

    The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Section 701: Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74) (the 2015 Adjustment Act) amends the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 to require Federal agencies that impose CMPs subject to inflation adjustments to adjust the penalties for inflation annually instead of at least once every four years. The 2015 Act expanded the categories of penalties that require adjustment for inflation to include CMPs under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Social Security Act. The 2015 Adjustment Act further requires affected agencies to adjust the level of CMPs with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through the publication of this interim final rule no later than July 1, 2016, to be effective no later than August 1, 2016. We will identify, for each penalty, the year and corresponding amount(s) for which the maximum penalty level or range of minimum and maximum penalties was established or last adjusted in statute or regulation.

    III. Initial Catch-Up Adjustment and Calculation for Annual Inflation Adjustments

    Based on guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),1 we will modify the penalty level or range that we identify as needing an initial catch-up based on the percent change between the non-seasonally adjusted Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October in the year in which the penalty was established or previously adjusted and the October 2015 CPI-U.2 We also will use OMB-published multipliers to make these adjustments.3 This initial catch-up adjustment may not exceed 150 percent of the amount of that penalty on the date of enactment of the 2015 Adjustment Act.4 The annual inflation adjustment in subsequent years must be a cost-of-living adjustment based on any increases in the October CPI-U (not seasonally adjusted) each year.5 Inflation adjustment increases must be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1.6

    1 On February 24, 2016, OMB published its memorandum “Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015” (OMB Memorandum M-16-06). The memorandum can be found at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-06.pdf. The memorandum provides guidance to implement the civil monetary penalty adjustment requirements of Section 701 of Public Law 114-74.

    2Id. at 3.

    3Id. at 6.

    4Id. at 3 and 8.

    5Id. at 1.

    6Id. at 3.

    IV. Social Security Administration's New Penalty Levels Under the Initial Catch-Up Adjustment

    The Social Security Act currently includes three different CMP levels, one under Section 1129, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-8, and two under Section 1140, 42 U.S.C. 1320b-10. The Section 1129 CMP was established in Section 206(b) of the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law 103-296, 108 Stat. 1509. The Section 1140 CMPs were established in Sec. 428(a) of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, Public Law 100-360, 102 Stat. 815.

    Our current maximum CMP is $5,000.00 for each violation under Section 1129 of the Social Security Act, $25,000.00 per broadcast or telecast under Section 1140 of the Social Security Act, and $5,000.00 for all other violations under Section 1140 of the Social Security Act. In OMB Memorandum, M-16-06, OMB instructed affected agencies to add an initial inflationary adjustment amount (a “catch-up” amount) to relevant CMPs based on the percent change between the CPI-U for the month of October in the year of the previous adjustment and the October 2015 CPI-U. Based on OMB's guidance, our adjustments to the existing maximum CMPs result in the following new maximum penalties, which will be effective as of August 1, 2016. The information below serves as public notice of the new maximum penalty amounts for 2016; we will not be publishing a separate Federal Register Notice for this change. For any future adjustments, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to announce the new amounts.

    Section 1129 CMPs

    $5,000.00 (current maximum) × 1.59089 (OMB-issued initial adjustment multiplier) = $7,954.00 (new maximum CMP amount-rounded to the nearest dollar).

    Section 1140 CMPs

    $25,000.00 (current maximum per broadcast or telecast) × 1.97869 (OMB-issued initial adjustment multiplier) = $49,467.00 (new maximum CMP amount-rounded to the nearest dollar).

    $5,000.00 (current maximum for all other violations) × 1.97869 (OMB-issued initial adjustment multiplier) = $9,893.00 (new maximum CMP amount-rounded to the nearest dollar).

    Regulatory Procedures Good Cause for Exception to Rulemaking Procedures

    Pursuant to sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1631(d)(1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(a), 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), and 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1), the Social Security Administration follows the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 in the development of our regulations.

    The APA provides exceptions to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) procedures when an agency finds that there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In the case of these interim final rules, we have determined that under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), good cause exists for waiving the NPRM procedures because doing so would have been impractical given the Congressional mandates.

    Public Law 114-74 was signed into law on November 2, 2015. Section 701(b)(1)(D) requires that the Commissioner issue regulations to adjust CMPs through an interim final rulemaking, and requires the initial catch up adjustment to take effect no later than August 1, 2016. Accordingly, to issue these rules as a NPRM would have delayed issuance of final rules well past the required August 1, 2016 effective date. In light of the Congressional mandate that we issue regulations to adjust CMPs through an interim final rulemaking, and that the initial catch up adjustment take effect no later than August 1, 2016, we believe good cause exists for waiver of the NPRM procedures under the APA.

    Executive Order 12866 as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We generally prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis consistent with Public Law 96-354, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, unless the Inspector General certifies that a regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. While the increase in the civil monetary penalties provided for under sections 1129 and 1140 of the Social Security Act might have a slight impact on small entities, it is the nature of the violation and not the size of the entity that will result in an action by the OIG. In either case, we do not anticipate that a substantial number of small entities will be significantly affected by this revised rulemaking. These final rules reflect legislative amendments affecting previously existing sections of the Social Security Act, and do not substantially alter the effect of these sanctions on small business entities. Therefore, we have concluded, and the Inspector General certifies, that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this interim final rule.

    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; and 96.006, Supplemental Security Income) List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 498

    Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud.

    Gale Stallworth Stone, Deputy Inspector General of Social Security.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend 20 CFR part 498 as set forth below:

    PART 498—CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDED EXCLUSIONS 1. The authority citation for part 498 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 702(a)(5), 1129, and 1140 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1320a-8, and 1320b-10).

    2. Amend § 498.103 by adding and reserving paragraph (f), and adding paragraph (g), to read as follows:
    § 498.103 Amount of penalty.

    (f) [Reserved]

    (g) (1) The amount of the penalties described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are the maximum penalties which may be assessed under these paragraphs for violations made after June 16, 2006, but before August 1, 2016.

    (2) (i) After August 1, 2016 penalties are adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134), as further amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Section 701: Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Section 701 of Pub. L. 114-74).

    (ii) The maximum penalties which may be assessed under this section is the larger of:

    (A) The amount for the previous calendar year; or

    (B) An amount adjusted for inflation, calculated by multiplying the amount for the previous calendar year by the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for the month of October preceding the current calendar year exceeds the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for the month of October of the calendar year two years prior to the current calendar year, adding that amount to the amount for the previous calendar year, and rounding the total to the nearest dollar.

    (iii) Notice of the maximum penalty which may be assessed under this section for calendar years after 2016 will be published in the Federal Register on an annual basis on or before January 15 of each calendar year.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13241 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 573 [Docket No. FDA-2014-F-0232] Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Chromium Propionate; Extension of the Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; extension of the comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the comment period for the final rule, published in the Federal Register of June 3, 2016, amending the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and drinking water of animals to provide for the safe use of chromium propionate as a source of chromium in broiler chicken feed. This action is in response to a food additive petition filed by Kemin Industries, Inc. We are taking this action due to maintenance on the Federal eRulemaking portal from July 1 through July 5, 2016.

    DATES:

    The FDA confirms the June 3, 2016, effective date of the final rule that published on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35610). The comment period for the final rule is extended. Submit either electronic or written comments by July 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2014-F-0232 for “Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Chromium Propionate.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6729, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35610), FDA amended the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and drinking water of animals to provide for the safe use of chromium propionate as a source of chromium in broiler chicken feed. This action is in response to a food additive petition filed by Kemin Industries, Inc. (Kemin). FDA found no significant environmental impact of this action based on its evaluation of evidence contained in an environmental assessment submitted by Kemin.

    Interested persons were originally given until July 5, 2016, to submit comments or written objections and a request for a hearing.

    From July 1 through July 5, 2016, the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov, is undergoing maintenance. Therefore, we are extending the comment period for the regulations permitting the use of chromium propionate as a source of chromium in broiler chicken feed and for FDA's finding of no significant environmental impact. The extended comment period will close on July 19, 2016.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Tracey Forfa, Acting Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14932 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0550] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Bay Village Independence Day Celebration; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Bay Village Independence Day Celebration fireworks display on July 4, 2016. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0550 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 rulemaking, call or email LT Stephanie Pitts, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0128, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency finds good cause that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not provided to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard issues this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. On July 4, 2016, between 9:45 p.m. and 10:45 p.m., a fireworks display will be held on the shoreline of Lake Erie in Bay Village, OH, in the vicinity of Cahoon Memorial Park. It is anticipated that numerous vessels will be in the immediate vicinity of the launch point. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that potential hazards associated with this fireworks display poses a significant risk to public safety and property within a 560-foot radius of the launch point. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Bay Village, OH within a 560-foot radius of position 41°29′23.9″ N. and 081°55′44.5″ W. (NAD 83). The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Bay Village Independence Day Celebration fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    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.

    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, and will not: Interfere with other agencies; adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients; or raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Under certain conditions, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    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 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.

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

    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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13132.

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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 above.

    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 safety zone lasting for one (1) hour that will prohibit entry within a small area on Lake Erie. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) 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 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T09-0550 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0550 Safety Zone; Bay Village Independence Day Celebration; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH.

    (a) This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Bay Village, OH within a 560 foot radius of position 41°29′23.9″ N. and 081°55′44.5″ W. (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. B.W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15052 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0415] Safety Zones; Captain of the Port Boston Fireworks Display Zone, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Boston Harborfest in Boston Inner Harbor on July 2, 2016, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks. Our regulation for Captain of the Port Boston Fireworks display zone, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA identifies the regulated area for this fireworks display. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulation in 33 CFR 165.119(a)(2) will be enforced Saturday, July 2, 2016 from 9 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 165.119(a)(2) Saturday, July 2, 2016 from 9 p.m. to 9:45 p.m., for the Boston Harborfest in Boston Inner Harbor. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Captain of the Port Boston Fireworks display zone, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA, § 165.119(a)(2), specifies the location of the regulated area as all U.S. navigable waters of Boston Inner Harbor within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 42°21′41.2″ N. 071°02′36.5″ W. (NAD 1983), located off of Long Wharf, Boston MA. As specified in § 165.119(e), during the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Sector Boston (COTP) or a COTP designated representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.119 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: June 17, 2016. C.C. Gelzer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15090 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0276; FRL-9948-19-Region 5] Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Cleveland, Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois Areas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a determination, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), that the Cleveland, Ohio (OH) and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois (MO-IL) areas attained the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016. This determination for each area is based on complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data for 2013-2015.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective August 26, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 27, 2016. If adverse comments are received by EPA for an affected area, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule for that area in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect there.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0276 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For 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:

    Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767, [email protected]

    Deborah Bredehoft, Air Planning and Development Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, Kansas 66219, (913) 551-7164, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. Background II. How does EPA determine whether an area has attained the 2008 ozone standard? III. What action is EPA taking and what is the rationale? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On April 30, 2012, the Cleveland, OH and St. Louis, MO-IL areas were designated as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and were classified as marginal, effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), in the final 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP requirements rule, EPA established an attainment deadline for marginal areas of July 20, 2015.

    The CAA section 181(b)(2) requires the EPA to determine, based on an area's ozone design value 1 as of the area's attainment deadline, whether the area has attained the ozone standard by that date. The statute provides a mechanism by which states that meet certain criteria may request and be granted by the EPA Administrator a 1-year extension of an area's attainment deadline.

    1 An area's ozone design value for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is the highest 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations of all monitors in the area. To determine whether an area has attained the ozone NAAQS prior to the attainment date, EPA considers the monitor-specific ozone design values in the area for the most recent three years with complete, quality-assured, and certified ozone monitoring data prior to the attainment deadline (or for an earlier 3-year period if the area attains the ozone standard ahead of the attainment deadline).

    On May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), based on EPA's evaluation and determination that the areas met the attainment date extension criteria of CAA section 181(8)(5), EPA granted the Cleveland and St. Louis areas a 1-year extension of the marginal area attainment date to July 20, 2016.

    II. How does EPA determine whether an area has attained the 2008 ozone standard?

    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, appendix P, the 2008 ozone NAAQS is attained at a site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). This 3-year average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm at each ambient air quality monitoring site within the area, then the area is deemed to be meeting the NAAQS. The rounding convention under 40 CFR part 50, appendix P, dictates that concentrations shall be reported in ppm to the third decimal place, with additional digits to the right being truncated. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.076 ppm is greater than 0.075 ppm and, therefore, over the standard.

    EPA's determination of attainment is based upon data that have been collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System database (formerly known as the Aerometric Information Retrieval System). Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of required monitoring days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined according to appendix P of part 50.

    III. What action is EPA taking and what is the rationale?

    EPA is taking this action pursuant to the agency's statutory obligation under CAA section 181(b)(2) to determine whether the Cleveland and St. Louis nonattainment areas have attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016. In this action, EPA is making a determination that the Cleveland and St. Louis areas attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable deadline of July 20, 2016, based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data for 2013-2015.2

    2 These determinations of attainment do not constitute a redesignation to attainment. Redesignations require states to meet a number of additional criteria, including EPA approval of a state plan to maintain the air quality standard for 10 years after redesignation.

    EPA evaluated data from air quality monitors in the Cleveland and St. Louis areas in order to determine the areas' attainment status as of the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016. The data were supplied and quality-assured by state and local agencies responsible for monitoring ozone air monitoring networks. Table 1 displays the 2013-2015 design value for each monitor as well as the fourth high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration for each of the three years used to calculate the design value.

    Table 1—Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentration and Design Value by Monitor Area County Monitor 2013
  • 4th high
  • 2014
  • 4th high
  • 2015
  • 4th high
  • 2013-2015
  • design value
  • St. Louis, MO-IL Madison, IL Alton 171190008 0.072 0.072 0.069 0.071 Maryville 171190009 0.075 0.070 0.064 0.069 Wood River 171193007 0.069 0.070 0.069 0.069 5403 State Road 160 171199991 0.071 0.068 0.067 0.068 Saint Clair, IL East Saint Louis 171630010 0.066 0.067 0.066 0.066 Jefferson, MO Arnold 290990019 0.069 0.072 0.069 0.070 Saint Charles, MO West Alton 291831002
  • Orchard Farm 291831004
  • 0.071
  • 0.071
  • 0.072
  • 0.072
  • 0.070
  • 0.066
  • 0.071
  • 0.069
  • Saint Louis, MO Pacific 291890005
  • Maryland Heights 291890014
  • 0.067
  • 0.070
  • 0.065
  • 0.072
  • 0.065
  • 0.069
  • 0.065
  • 0.070
  • St. Louis City, MO St. Louis 295100085 0.066 0.066 0.063 0.065 Cleveland, OH Ashtabula Conneaut 390071001 0.070 0.069 0.070 0.069 Cuyahoga 891 E. 152 St. 390350034 0.069 0.071 0.067 0.069 E. 14th & Orange 390350060 0.057 0.066 0.063 0.062 Berea 390350064 0.064 0.059 0.066 0.063 Mayfield 390355002 0.065 0.061 0.072 0.066 Geauga 13000 Auburn 390550004 0.065 0.065 0.073 0.067 Lake Eastlake 390850003 0.070 0.075 0.074 0.073 Painesville 390850007 0.068 0.062 0.070 0.066 Lorain Sheffield 390930018 0.060 0.067 0.062 0.063 Medina Ballash Road 391030004 0.065 0.064 0.063 0.064 Portage 1570 Ravenna Rd. 391331001 0.058 0.061 0.064 0.061 Summit Akron 391530020 0.060 0.058 0.065 0.061

    All monitoring sites in the Cleveland and St. Louis areas had design values less than 0.075 ppm based on the 2013-2015 monitoring period. Thus, EPA is determining, in accordance with section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and the provisions of the SIP Requirements Rule (40 CFR 51.1103), that these areas attained the standard by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016. EPA's determination is based upon three years of complete, quality-assured and certified data.

    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve each determination if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective August 26, 2016 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by July 27, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action, for any affected area, before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that, if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective August 26, 2016.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, a determination of attainment is a factual determination based upon air quality considerations. These determinations of attainment would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Determinations of attainment do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because a determination of attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards in tribal lands.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 26, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 15, 2016. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. Dated: June 3, 2016. Mark Hague, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Section 52.726 is amended by adding paragraph (qq) to read as follows:
    § 52.726 Control strategy: Ozone.

    (qq) Determination of attainment. As required by section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has determined that the St. Louis, MO-IL marginal 2008 ozone nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016.

    3. Section 52.1342 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 52.1342 Control strategy: Ozone.

    (d) Determination of attainment. As required by section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has determined that the St. Louis, MO-IL marginal 2008 ozone nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016.

    4. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (oo) to read as follows:
    § 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.

    (oo) Determination of attainment. As required by section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has determined that the Cleveland, OH marginal 2008 ozone nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016.

    5. Section 52.1892 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 52.1892 Determination of attainment.

    (g) As required by section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has determined that the Cleveland, OH marginal 2008 ozone nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016. This determination is based on complete, quality-assured and certified data for the 3-year period 2013-2015.

    [FR Doc. 2016-15050 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0366; FRL-9948-21-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Flint Hills Resources, LLC Pine Bend Refinery (FHR) as submitted on May 1, 2015. The revision will consolidate existing permanent and enforceable SO2 SIP conditions into the facility's joint Title I/Title V SIP document. This action highlights process modifications necessary to meet EPA's Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards; a comprehensive monitoring strategy to better quantify SO2 emissions from fuel gas-fired emission units; a new restrictive flaring procedure for refinery process units, and other updates and administrative changes. This revision results in a modeled reduction in SO2 emissions from FHR and modeled SO2 ambient air concentrations less than half of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective August 26, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 27, 2016. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0366 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section. For 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:

    Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. What is the background for this action? A. EPA's Tier 3 Gasoline Standards B. Administrative Order and Title I SO2 SIP Conditions II. What is EPA's analysis of the SIP revision? A. EPA's Tier 3 Gasoline Standards B. Administrative Order and Title I SO2 SIP Conditions C. Miscellaneous Revisions III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action? A. EPA's Tier 3 Gasoline Standards

    On April 28, 2014 (79 FR 23414 and amended on April 22, 2016, at 81 FR 23641), EPA established more stringent vehicle emissions standards to reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning January 1, 2017. The Tier 3 gasoline fuel standards (Tier 3 standards) will reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from both new and existing passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. This will result in significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics across the country and help state and local agencies in their efforts to attain and maintain health-based NAAQS.

    In order to meet the Tier 3 standards, FHR plans to increase its use of hydrotreating to remove sulfur from intermediate fuel products. The increased hydrotreating will also increase the removal of nitrogen. To address the increased removal of nitrogen and sulfur, FHR proposes to install a process to convert gas containing sulfur and nitrogen into a salable, non-hazardous, aqueous liquid fertilizer: ammonium thiosulfate (ATS).

    B. Administrative Order and Title I SO2 SIP Conditions

    Minnesota also requested EPA's approval of the transfer of Title I SO2 SIP conditions from an Administrative Order (Order) into the FHR Title I/Title V SO2 SIP document. Until 1990, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) had placed SIP control measures in permits issued to culpable sources. In 1990, EPA determined that limits in state-issued permits were not federally enforceable because the permits expired. Subsequently, MPCA then issued permanent Orders to affected sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.

    In 1995, EPA approved into the Minnesota SIP Minnesota's consolidated permitting regulations. (60 FR 21447, May 2, 1995). The consolidated permitting regulations included the term “Title I condition” which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements that SIP control measures remain permanent. A “Title I condition” is defined, in part, as “any condition based on source-specific determination of ambient impacts imposed for the purpose of achieving or maintaining attainment with a national ambient air quality standards and which was part of a [SIP] approved by the EPA or submitted to the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act . . . .” MINN. R. 7007.1011 (2013). The regulations also state that “Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the other conditions of the permit.” Further, “any title I condition shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.” MINN. R. 7007.0450 (2007).

    Minnesota has initiated using the joint Title I/Title V document as the enforceable document for imposing emission limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in the joint Title I/Title V document submitted by MPCA are cited as “Title I conditions,” therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain permanent and enforceable. EPA reviewed the state's procedure for using joint Title I/Title V documents to implement site-specific SIP requirements and found it to be acceptable under both Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky, MPCA).

    FHR's SIP obligations are currently contained in an Order that was adopted by MPCA on August 29, 2011, and approved by EPA on May 15, 2013 (78 FR 28501) (FHR Order). On May 1, 2015, MPCA submitted revisions to the Minnesota SO2 SIP for FHR. MPCA requested that EPA approve into the SIP, the Title I SO2 SIP conditions contained in the joint Title I/Title V document while removing the FHR Order from the SIP. In addition to incorporating FHR's current SO2 SIP obligations into the facility's joint Title I/Title V document, MPCA requested approval of additional changes to the Minnesota SO2 SIP.

    II. What is EPA's analysis of the SIP revision? A. EPA's Tier 3 Gasoline Standards

    Title I SO2 SIP conditions have been created for the ATS process unit, which include hourly and annual emissions limits, as well as monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements for the ATS process unit. The ATS unit will take H2S and ammonia from sour water streams and convert them into ATS, which will then be sold as fertilizer. The unit is being constructed in conjunction with FHR's plan to meet EPA's Tier 3 fuel standards. The ATS unit will allow FHR to utilize the increased amounts of sulfur and nitrogen removed from intermediate fuel products by gas-oil hydrotreaters by combining them into ATS.

    Review of the technical support document and computer modeling reports submitted by MPCA shows that installation of the ATS unit in conjunction with the other updates to the facility will not cause an exceedance of the modeled SO2 standards. The data show that SO2 emissions will be between 6 and 8 percent less than emissions from the facility modeled under the last SIP revision. Using AERMOD and including FHR and nearby sources, the modeled ambient air concentrations of SO2 for the 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual SO2 NAAQS for these revisions are at 41.5%, 48.5%, and 27.5% of the standards, respectively. Therefore, the addition of Title I SO2 SIP requirements for the ATS unit is acceptable and the revisions to the FHR SIP are approvable.

    B. Administrative Order and Title I SO2 SIP Conditions

    On March 17, 2015, MPCA amended the operating permit for FHR (Air Emissions Permit No. 03700011-012). This joint Title I/Title V document incorporates, as Title I SO2 SIP conditions, FHR's SIP obligations which had previously been listed in the FHR Order. This is approvable because those conditions have already been approved into Minnesota's SO2 SIP and are merely being moved into the FHR joint Title I/Title V document to provide the source with a single enforceable document. Upon the effective date of EPA approval of the Title I SO2 SIP conditions into the FHR SIP, the Order will be revoked as stipulated in a May 1, 2015, Administrative Order from MPCA. As part of this action, EPA is approving the revocation of the Order from the Minnesota SO2 SIP.

    C. Miscellaneous Revisions

    Finally, Minnesota is requesting that EPA approve several changes to the existing SIP for FHR. These changes include:

    —Changing “company” to “permittee” which is acceptable because moving the pertinent Title I SO2 SIP conditions from the Order to the FHR permit means the term to describe FHR would change to reflect the move. —Amendments to allow the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel, which can be considered fuel oil, to be combusted at FHR. This revision clarifies the rule, and is acceptable. —Removing operating hour limits on diesel powered units because, with the availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel, these units qualify as insignificant sources of SO2. Therefore the operating hours limits on these units are no longer required. This revision is approvable. —Inclusion of the phrase “in conjunction with oxidation gases from OSWTP equipment” to indicate that the oil separation and waste treatment plant gases, which are allowed to be combusted from one oxidizer at a time, are able to be combusted along with natural gas. This amendment merely clarifies the requirement, and is acceptable. —Changing `continuous monitoring system (CMS)' to `continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS)', and by adding a total sulfur CEMS on the 45-unit mix drum as an operating condition. The revision and addition are approvable because they clarify the rule language, and the addition of the CEMS on the 45-unit mix drum helps FHR more accurately quantify the sulfur emissions from the unit. —Inclusion of more restrictive language that indicates the flare system is to be used only for unplanned and infrequent events resulting from malfunctions. The amended language also excludes flaring gases from normal operation, including gases from scheduled startups and shutdowns of refinery process units. This amendment is acceptable since it clarifies the condition's applicability and creates more stringent conditions for flare use at FHR. —Removing the Merox process incinerator from the Title I SO2 SIP conditions because the Merox process incinerator was decommissioned and removed. The removal of the unit was approved by EPA in a prior rulemaking (78 FR 28501). The conditions were also amended to add the new ATS unit, which will be discussed in more detail later in this document. These revisions are acceptable because SO2 emissions will be reduced at the facility as a result of these changes. —Replacing the phrase “total reduced sulfur CMS” with “reduced sulfur and total sulfur CEMS,” reflecting the more comprehensive fuel gas sulfur continuous emission monitoring system installed at the facility. This revision is approvable. —Replacing the acronym “CMS” with “CEMS,” which is approvable because it clarifies that the acronym stands for a continuous emission monitoring system. Continuous monitoring requirements were also amended to include language to show that FHR will maintain a CEMS for the 45-unit mix drum that will measure total sulfur from the mix drum fuel gas stream, and that the CEMS will provide a continuous record of measurement in parts per million. This revision is approvable because it ensures that the 45-unit mix drum will be comprehensively monitored for sulfur emissions. Lastly, this section was revised to clarify the list of fuels that would require contract guarantees for H2S and heat content for compliance demonstration purposes, which is approvable because it clarifies the requirement for the facility. —Updating the language of the quarterly reporting requirements to reflect current emissions monitoring and report submittal requirements. This revision is acceptable because it clarifies what FHR must submit in its reporting to MPCA. —Throughout the joint document, the term “the Company” has been replaced with “the Permittee” which is acceptable because it reflects the location of FHR's Title I SO2 SIP conditions within the joint document instead of within Orders. —In the portions of the joint document dealing with continuous monitoring requirements and recordkeeping requirements, references to the term “hydrogen sulfide” have been replaced with “sulfur content” to reflect the more comprehensive monitoring strategy approved for FHR. —Requirements for fuel gas SO2 emissions from the 41- and 45-unit mix drums have been made Title I SO2 SIP conditions, including use of SO2 CEMS monitoring systems and associated recordkeeping requirements. The revisions are acceptable because the new CEMS monitor sulfur emissions more comprehensively, providing a more accurate analysis of FHR's SO2 emissions from the 41- and 45-unit mix drums. In a related revision, continuous monitoring requirements for H2S in SIP emission units have been revised to become total reduced sulfur, which is approvable because the new monitors more comprehensively indicate SO2 emissions from these units. It should be noted that H2S monitoring required for new source performance standards (NSPS) for petroleum refineries are not affected by these revisions as H2S monitoring will continue for these units in addition to the comprehensive sulfur monitoring described above. —Removal of H2S CMS requirements from FHR's Title I SO2 SIP, because the new SO2 and total sulfur CEMS supersede the need for H2S CMSs for the facility and because the H2S monitor requirements will remain as non-SIP level requirements in order to meet the NSPS for petroleum refineries. Therefore, this revision is approvable. —The H2S 3-hour rolling average limit for the 45H6 stack has been made a Title I SO2 SIP condition, which is approvable because the condition becomes permanent and federally enforceable. —Language has been removed from the SO2 limits for the #1 Vac Heater, #1 Crude Heater atmospheric distillation unit, and #1 and #2 Coker Heaters that had indicated the limits were effective as of EPA's approval of the ninth revision to the Order (which EPA approved on May 15, 2013 at 78 FR 28501). Because the revision simply removes language that is no longer necessary, the revision is acceptable. —The recordkeeping requirements for start and stop times for emissions units 032, 033, 037, and 038 (Steam/Air Heater Decoking units 21H-1, 21H-2, 23H-1, and 23H-2, respectively) have been made Title I SO2 SIP conditions. This is acceptable because it allows recordkeeping requirements for these units to be federally enforceable. —The diesel fuel certification recordkeeping requirement for the plan air compressor diesel engine has been made a Title I SO2 SIP condition, and a typo was corrected in the requirement. These revisions are approvable because it allows federal enforceability of recordkeeping to show FHR uses ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel in the plant air compressor diesel engine. —An amendment to the requirements for the Oil Separation and Waste Treatment Plant to streamline the requirements for burning natural gas in conjunction with oxidation of gases from the treatment plant equipment. The revision does not decrease the stringency of the requirements but makes the requirements easier to understand, and is therefore acceptable. —Requirements for Boiler B-10, including Title I SO2 SIP conditions, have been removed from the FHR SIP because the boiler was never installed. This revision is acceptable because the source that the regulation is meant to address does not exist and will not exist. III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving a revision to the SIP for FHR, as submitted by MPCA on May 1, 2015. The revision will consolidate existing permanent and enforceable SO2 SIP conditions into the facility's joint Title I/Title V SIP document and simultaneously remove the existing FHR Order from the SIP. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective August 26, 2016 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by July 27, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective August 26, 2016.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Minnesota Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 26, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Robert Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising the entry for “Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC” to read as follows:
    § 52.1220 Identification of plan.

    (d) * * *

    EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits Name of source Permit No. State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA
  • approval
  • date
  • Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC 03700011-012 03/17/15 06/27/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] Only conditions cited as “Title I Condition: 40 CFR Section 50.4, SO2 SIP; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y”. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-15038 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 45 CFR Parts 672 and 681 RIN 3145-AA58 Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF or Foundation) is adjusting the maximum civil monetary penalties that may be imposed for violations of the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (ACA), to reflect the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act). The 2015 Act further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect.

    DATES:

    Effective August 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3145-AA58. Comments should be submitted by any of the following methods:

    1. Internet—Send comments via email to [email protected]

    2. Fax—(703)292-9242.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bijan Gilanshah, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, at 703-292-8060, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 2015 Act requires agencies to: (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking; and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. Inflation adjustments will be based on the percent change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, relative to the October CPI-U in the year of the previous adjustment. The only civil monetary penalties within NSF's jurisdiction are those authorized by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (ACA), 16 U.S.C. 2401, et seq., and the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA), 31 U.S.C. 3801, et seq.

    Initial Adjustments Under the ACA and PFCRA

    For the first adjustment made in accordance with the 2015 Act, the amount of the adjustment is calculated based on the percent change between the CPI-U for October of the last year in which penalties were previously adjusted (not including any adjustment made pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act before November 2, 2015), and the CPI-U for October 2015. The 10 percent cap on adjustments imposed by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 has been eliminated by the 2015 Act. Instead, the 2015 Act imposes a cap on the amount of this initial adjustment, such that the amount of the increase may not exceed 150 percent of the pre-adjustment penalty amount or range. As a result, the total penalty amount or range after the initial adjustment under the 2015 Act may not exceed 250 percent of the pre-adjustment penalty amount or range.

    For purposes of the initial adjustment of the ACA's penalties under the 2015 Act, Congress last set or adjusted the amount of civil penalties in 1978. Between October 1978 and October 2015, the CPI-U has increased by 354.453 percent. The post-adjustment penalty amount or range is obtained by multiplying the pre-adjustment penalty amount or range by the percent change in the CPI-U over the relevant time period, and rounding to the nearest dollar. Therefore, the new, post-adjustment maximum penalty under the ACA for violations is $5,000 × 3.54453 = $17722.65, which rounds to $17723. The new, post-adjustment maximum penalty for knowing violations is $10,000 × 3.54453= $35,445.30, which rounds to $35,445. The new, post-adjustment penalties are greater than 250 percent of the pre-adjustment penalties, so the limitation on the amount of the adjustment is implicated. Therefore, the maximum penalty under the ACA after August 1, 2016 will be $16,250 ($6500 × 2.5) for violations and $27,500 ($11,000 × 2.5) for knowing violations.

    For purposes of the initial adjustment under the 2015 Act, Congress last set or adjusted the amount of PFCRA civil penalties in 1986. Between October 1986 and October 2015, the CPI-U has increased by 215.628 percent. The post-adjustment penalty amount or range is obtained by multiplying the pre-adjustment penalty amount or range by the percent change in the CPI-U over the relevant time period, and rounding to the nearest dollar. Therefore, the new, post-adjustment maximum penalty under the PFCRA is $5,000 × 2.15628 = $10,781.40, which rounds to $10,781. The new, post-adjustment penalties are less than 250 percent of the pre-adjustment penalties, so the limitation on the amount of the adjustment is not implicated. Therefore, the maximum penalty under the PFCRA for claims or statements made after August 1, 2016 will be $10,781.

    Subsequent Annual Adjustments

    The 2015 Act also requires agencies to make annual adjustments to civil penalty amounts no later than January 15 of each year following the initial adjustment described above. For subsequent adjustments made in accordance with the 2015 Act, the amount of the adjustment is based on the percent increase between the CPI-U for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment and the CPI-U for the October one year prior to the October immediately preceding the date of the adjustment. If there is no increase, there is no adjustment of civil penalties. Therefore, if NSF adjusts penalties in January 2017, the adjustment will be calculated based on the percent change between the CPI-U for October 2016 (the October immediately preceding the date of adjustment) and October 2015 (the October one year prior to October 2016). NSF will publish the amount of these annual inflation adjustments in the Federal Register no later than January 15 of each year, starting in 2017.

    Public Participation

    This interim final rule is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comments. The 2015 Act's amendments to the Inflation Adjustment Act require the agency to adjust penalties initially through an interim final rulemaking, which does not require the agency to complete a notice and comment process prior to promulgating the interim final rule. The amendments also explicitly require the agency to make subsequent annual adjustments notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553 (the section of the Administrative Procedure Act that normally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment). Additionally, the formula used for adjusting the amount of civil penalties is given by statute, with no discretion provided to the NSF regarding the substance of the adjustments. NSF is charged only with performing ministerial computations to determine the amount of adjustment to the civil penalties due to increases in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

    Environmental Impact

    This interim final rule only makes conforming changes to the Foundation's regulations to reflect inflationary adjustments to its civil monetary penalties required by the 2015 Act.

    No Takings Implications

    NSF has determined that this interim final rule will not involve the taking of private property pursuant to E.O. 12630.

    Civil Justice Reform

    NSF has considered this interim final rule under E.O. 12988 on civil justice reform and determined the principles underlying and requirements of E.O. 12988 are not implicated.

    Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    NSF has considered this interim final rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132 on federalism and has determined that the interim final rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Foundation has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary.

    Moreover, NSF has determined that promulgation of this interim final rule does not require advance consultation with Indian Tribal officials as set forth in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.

    Energy Effects

    NSF has reviewed this interim final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use and has determined that this final rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the E.O.

    Regulatory Planning and Review

    This interim final rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. The interim final rule only makes inflation adjustments to NSF's civil monetary penalties.

    Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), NSF has assessed the effects of this interim final rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This interim final rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or Tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.

    Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This interim final rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

    List of Subjects 45 CFR Part 672

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica.

    45 CFR Part 681

    Civil remedies; Program fraud.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 45 CFR parts 672 and 681 are amended as follows:

    PART 672—ENFORCEMENT AND HEARING PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 672 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 2401 et seq., 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Revise § 672.24 to read as follows:
    § 672.24 Maximum civil monetary penalties for violations.

    (a) For violations occurring prior to August 1, 2016, the maximum civil penalty is $6500 for any violation and $11,000 for knowing violations.

    (b) For violations occurring after August 1, 2016, but before January 1, 2017, the maximum civil penalty is adjusted to $16,250 for any violation and $27,500 for knowing violations.

    (c) For violations occurring on or after January 1, 2017, the maximum penalty, which may be assessed under Part 672 of the title, is the larger of:

    (1) The amount for the previous calendar year, or

    (2) An amount adjusted for inflation, calculated by multiplying the amount for the previous calendar year by the percentage by which the CPI-U for the month of October preceding the current calendar year exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October of the calendar year two years prior to the current calendar year, adding that amount to the amount for the previous calendar year, and rounding the total to the nearest dollar.

    (d) Notice of the maximum penalty which may be assessed under Part 672 of this title for calendar years after 2016 will be published by the NSF in the Federal Register on an annual basis on or before January 15 of each calendar year.

    PART 681—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT REGULATIONS 3. The authority citation for part 681 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.

    4. In § 681.3, add paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:
    § 681.3 What is the basis for the imposition of civil penalties and assessments?

    (f) For claims or statements made on or after August 1, 2016, but before January 1, 2017, the maximum penalty which may be assessed under Part 681 of the title is $10,781. For claims or statements made on or after January 1, 2017, the maximum penalty which may be assessed under Part 681 of the title is the larger of:

    (1) The amount for the previous calendar year, or

    (2) An amount adjusted for inflation, calculated by multiplying the amount for the previous calendar year by the percentage by which the CPI-U for the month of October preceding the current calendar year exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October of the calendar year two years prior to the current calendar year, adding that amount to the amount for the previous calendar year, and rounding the total to the nearest dollar.

    (g) Notice of the maximum penalty, which may be assessed under Part 681 of this title for calendar years after 2016, will be published by NSF in the Federal Register on an annual basis on or before January 15 of each calendar year.

    National Science Foundation. Dated: June 16, 2016. Lawrence Rudolph, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14795 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 16-648; MB Docket No. 14-236; RM-11739 and MB Docket No. 14-257; RM-11743] Radio Broadcasting Services; Bogata, Texas and Wright City, Oklahoma AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    At the request of Charles Crawford, the Audio Division amends the FM Table of Allotments, by allotting Channel 247A at Bogata, Texas and Channel 295A at Wright City, Oklahoma. A staff engineering analysis indicates that FM Channel 247A can be allotted at Bogata, Texas at the following reference coordinates: 33-33-21 NL and 95-18-28 WL. FM Channel 295A can be allotted at Wright City, Oklahoma, at the following reference coordinates: 34-04-44 NL and 94-51-15 WL.

    DATES:

    Effective July 25, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nazifa Sawez, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 14-236 and 14-257, adopted July 9, 2016, and released July 10, 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. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    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 amends 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, is amended by: a. Under Oklahoma, adding, in alphabetical order, Wright City, Channel 295A. b. Under Texas, adding, in alphabetical order, Bogata, Channel 247A.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14934 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 386 [Docket Number: FMCSA-2016-0128] RIN 2126-AB93 Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment of 2015 AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA amends the civil penalties listed in its regulations to ensure that the civil penalties assessed or enforced by the Agency reflect the statutorily mandated ranges as adjusted for inflation. Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), FMCSA is required to promulgate a catch-up adjustment through an interim final rule. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, FMCSA finds that good cause exists for immediate implementation of this interim final rule because prior notice and comment are unnecessary, per the specific provisions of the 2015 Act.

    DATES:

    This interim rule is effective on August 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. LaTonya Mimms, Enforcement Division, by email at [email protected] or phone at 202-366-0991. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Executive Summary A. Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

    This interim final rule (IFR) adjusts the amount of FMCSA's civil penalties to account for inflation as directed by the 2015 Act. The specific inflation adjustment methodology is described later in this document.

    B. Benefits and Costs

    The changes imposed by this IFR affect the civil penalty amounts, which are considered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, as transfer payments, not costs. Transfer payments are payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources available to society. By definition they are not considered in the monetization of societal costs and benefits of rulemakings. Congress stated in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990 Act) that increasing penalties over time will “maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties and promote compliance with the law.” 1 Therefore, with this continued deterrence, FMCSA infers that there may be some safety benefits that occur due to this IFR. The deterrence effect of increasing penalties, which Congress has recognized, cannot be reliably quantified into safety benefits, however.

    1 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Pub. L. 101-410, Oct. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 890).

    II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking A. Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015

    This rulemaking is based primarily on the 2015 Act, Public Law 114-74, title VII, § 701, 129 Stat. 599, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Nov. 2, 2015). The 2015 Act amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990 Act) (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). The basic findings and purpose of the amended 1990 Act remain unchanged and include supporting the role civil penalties play in federal law and regulations in deterring violations by allowing for regulatory adjustments to account for inflation. The changes based on the 2015 Act amend sections four, five, six, and also add a new section seven. The effective provisions relevant to this rulemaking will be discussed in turn.

    Under section four, agencies must adjust their civil monetary penalties and publish such adjusted penalties in the Federal Register by July 1, 2016, while utilizing an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an IFR to be effective no later than August 1, 2016. This IFR satisfies the catch-up requirement. Subsequent annual adjustments are also required. Agencies can determine that a provision or provisions be exempt from these adjustments based on certain criteria through a notice and comment rulemaking, though OMB must concur in the determination (Id. at subsection (c)). FMCSA is not seeking an exemption under section 4(c).There is also a provision to account for a situation where other adjustments are made that go above those required by the 2015 Act. If this is the case, then no adjustments are needed that year (Id. at subsection (d)).

    Section five outlines the procedure for applying cost of living increases to adjust penalties. As with section four, section five addresses both initial and subsequent adjustments based on the definition of cost of living adjustment (COLA). For initial adjustments, COLA is defined as the difference between the consumer price index (CPI) for October 2015 and the CPI for October of the year the penalty was “adjusted or established under a provision of law, other than the 2015 Act” (Id. at subsection 5(b)(2)). FMCSA interprets the phrase “under a provision of law” to include both statutorily mandated adjustments prior to the 2015 Act and those penalties initially promulgated through rulemaking. This is a reasonable interpretation, as many penalties are initially prescribed by statute and subsequently adjusted over time through the regulatory process. In addition, such a reading is consistent with the interpretation contained in guidance provided by OMB as further discussed in the Background section, below. Subsequent adjustments are based on increasing the civil penalty or range of penalties by the COLA using the difference in the CPI between the month of October preceding the date of adjustment and the month of October one year previously (Id. at subsection (a) and (b)(1)).

    The 2015 Act also amended provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat 1321, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (April 26, 1996), which amended the 1990 Act. Most importantly, the DCIA had previously provided that the first adjustment of a civil monetary penalty may not exceed 10 percent of such penalty. This 10 percent cap provision was rescinded by the 2015 Act (Id. at subsection (c)). Under section six of the 1990 Act, the period of time covered by increases to civil penalties has been revised. Previously, adjustments to civil penalties were applied only to violations that occurred after the date the increases took effect. The 2015 Act revised section six to read, “Any increase under this Act in a civil monetary penalty shall apply only to the civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such increase, which are assessed after the date the increase takes effect.” By adding the phrase “including those [penalties] whose associated violation predated such increase,” if a violation took place before the effective date of the adjusted penalty, and the agency then issued a notice of claim proposing a penalty after the effective date, the new adjusted penalty level would be assessed.

    In previous enforcement cases on administrative review, the FMCSA Assistant Administrator has stated that, for various purposes, a penalty will not be deemed “assessed” until the date that the Agency issues its Final Agency Action. In re Mittlestadt Trucking, LLC, FMCSA-2007-0058, at page 3 (Second Interim Order, May 4, 2012); In re America Express, Inc. d/b/a Mid America Express, FMCSA-2001-9836, at footnote 24 (Final Order, May 23, 2005). Before the issuance of the Final Agency Action, the penalty is merely a proposed penalty. The question therefore arises whether section six of the 1990 Act, as amended by the 2015 Act, requires that proposed penalties in open cases, in which a notice of claim has been issued but which have not been formally reduced to an “assessment” through order of the Assistant Administrator or other Final Agency Order, must be adjusted.

    Section 521(b)(2)(D) of Title 49, U.S. Code, requires FMCSA to calculate each civil penalty assessment to induce further compliance. FMCSA has concluded that, for those open enforcement matters in which a penalty was proposed before the date of the “catch-up” adjustment or an annual adjustment but in which a Final Agency Action has not been issued, recalculating the amount of the proposed penalty would not induce further compliance, and would thus be contrary to the goal of 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(D). Moreover, the length of time between the date that a person is notified of the amount of the proposed penalty and the issuance of the Final Agency Action can vary, but is sometimes several years, depending on litigation schedules and other factors. Applying an inflation adjustment to proposed penalties in cases long awaiting administrative review could raise questions of equity. FMCSA therefore will not retroactively adjust the proposed penalty amounts in notices of claim issued prior to the effective date. Otherwise, the 2015 Act applies prospectively, and does not retroactively change previously assessed or enforced penalties an agency is actively collecting or has collected.

    While the statutory language speaks to only increases in penalty amounts, FMCSA will assess the new penalty both in cases where the penalty increases and where it decreases. This aligns with the intent of the statute, which is to ensure penalty amounts properly reflect inflation. Congress likely did not envision a scenario where penalty amounts would be decreased pursuant to the 2015 Act, which explains the use of the term “increases” in the statutory language.

    Based on new section seven, oversight and reporting requirements apply. First, OMB must provide annual guidance by December of each year on implementing the 2015 Act (Id. at subsection (a)). In response to this provision, OMB has provided guidance to agencies regarding the methodology to follow to implement adjustments required under the 2015 Act, as further discussed in the Background section, below. Agencies must report civil penalty adjustments through their Agency Financial Report required under OMB Circular A-136 or its successor (Id. at subsection (b)). Last, the Comptroller General is required to report to Congress regarding compliance with the 2015 Act (Id. at subsection (c)).

    B. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    Generally, agencies may promulgate final rules only after issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing an opportunity for public comment under procedures required by the APA, as provided in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). The APA, in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides an exception from these requirements when notice and public comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” FMCSA finds that prior notice and comment is unnecessary because section 4 of the 2015 Act specifically requires the initial catch-up adjustment to be accomplished through an IFR. While prior notice and comment is not required, FMCSA will accept comments on any errors that may be found in this document. We note, however, that the penalty adjustments, and the methodology used to determine the adjustments, are set by the terms of the 2015 Act, and FMCSA has no discretion to make changes in those areas.

    III. Background A. Method of Calculation

    OMB published a memorandum on February 24th, 2016, providing guidance to the Agencies for implementation of the 2015 Act (OMB implementation guidance, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-06.pdf). The OMB implementation guidance detailed a method of calculating inflation adjustments that differs substantially from the methods used in past inflation adjustments under the 1990 Act. Previous adjustments were conducted under rules that required significant rounding of figures. For example, in the case of penalties greater than $1,000 but less than or equal to $10,000, the penalty inflation increment would be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000. While this allowed penalties to be kept at round numbers, it meant that penalties would often not be increased at all if the inflation increment was not large enough. Furthermore, first-time increases to penalties were capped at 10 percent. Over time, this approach caused some penalties to lose value relative to total inflation. Alternatively, in some instances the prescribed approach resulted in the rounding up of the inflation increment, thus causing the total penalty amount to increase in value relative to total inflation.

    The 2015 Act has removed these rounding rules; now, penalties are simply rounded to the nearest $1. While this creates penalty values that are no longer round numbers, it does ensure that penalties will be increased each year to a figure commensurate with the actual calculated inflation. Furthermore, the 2015 Act “resets” the inflation calculations by excluding prior inflationary adjustments under the 1990 Act, which contributed to a change in the real value of penalty levels. This means the inflationary adjustments made by FMCSA in 2015,2 2007,3 and 2003 4 have been disregarded for purposes of determining the baseline year to perform the calculations for this interim final rule. As a result of the new approach required by the 2015 Act, some of the penalty amounts will increase in value relative to the current codified amount, and some penalty amounts will decrease in value. The 2015 Act requires agencies to identify, for each penalty, the year and corresponding amount(s) for which the maximum penalty level or range of minimum and maximum penalties was established (i.e., originally enacted by Congress) or last adjusted other than pursuant to the 1990 Act.

    2 80 FR 19146, April 3, 2015.

    3 72 FR 55100, September 28, 2007.

    4 68 FR 15381, March 31, 2003.

    The FMCSA thoroughly reviewed its civil penalties. This IFR sets forth the initial “catch-up” adjustment required by the 2015 Act, as shown in the table below. The first column provides a description of the penalty and its location in 49 CFR part 386. The second column (“Legal Authority”) provides the United States Code (U.S.C.) statutory citation. In the third column (“Current Penalty”), FMCSA lists the existing codified penalty. The fourth column (“Baseline Penalty”) provides the penalty amount as enacted by Congress or changed through a mechanism other than the 1990 Act. The fifth column (“Baseline Penalty Year”) lists the year in which the baseline penalty was enacted by Congress or changed through a mechanism other than the 1990 Act. The sixth column (“Multiplier”) lists the multiplier used to adjust the CPI for all urban consumers (CPI-U) of the baseline penalty year to the CPI-U for the current year. The OMB prescribes, in Table A of the OMB implementation guidance the multiplier for agencies to use. Adjusting the baseline penalty with the multiplier provides the “Preliminary New Penalty” listed in column seven. The preliminary new penalty is then compared with the current penalty from column three to find the Final Adjusted Penalty in column eight. The adjusted penalty is the lesser of either the preliminary new penalty or an amount equal to 250% of the current penalty. As no preliminary new penalties are greater than 250% of the current penalty, columns seven and eight are identical.

    IV. Today's Interim Final Rule Summary of Penalty Adjustments

    As noted in the regulatory text (Part 386, Appendices A and B) in today's rule, the adjusted civil penalties identified in the appendices supersede, where a discrepancy exists, the corresponding civil penalty amounts identified in title 49, United States Code.

    Part 386

    The introductions to Part 386, Appendices A and B, have been revised to refer to the 2015 Act. Below is the table with the current civil penalty amounts in the appendices of Part 386 and new civil penalties following the inflation adjustments required by the 2015 Act:

    Table 1—Inflation Adjustments for Part 386 Civil penalty
  • location
  • Legal authority Current
  • penalty
  • ($)
  • Baseline
  • penalty
  • ($)
  • Baseline
  • penalty
  • year
  • OMB
  • prescribed
  • multiplier
  • Preliminary
  • new
  • penalty
  • ($)
  • Final
  • adjusted
  • penalty
  • in 2016
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Appendix A II Subpoena MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32110, 126 Stat. 405, 782, (2012) (49 U.S.C. 525) $1,000 $1,000 2012 1.02819 $1,028 $1,028 Appendix A II Subpoena MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32110, 126 Stat. 405, 782 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 525) 10,000 10,000 2012 1.02819 10,282 10,282 Appendix A IV (a) Out-of-service order (operation of CMV by driver) Pub. L. 98-554, sec. 213(b), 98 Stat. 2829, 2841-2843 (1984) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(7)), 55 FR 11224 (March 27, 1990) 3,100 1,000 1990 1.78156 1,782 1,782 Appendix A IV (b) Out-of-service order (requiring or permitting operation of CMV by driver) Pub. L. 98-554, sec. 213(a), 98 Stat, 2829 (1984) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(7)), 55 FR 11224 (March 27, 1990) 21,000 10,000 1990 1.78156 17,816 17,816 Appendix A IV (c) Out-of-service order (operation by driver of CMV or intermodal equipment that was placed out of service) Pub. L. 98-554, sec. 213(a), 98 Stat 2829 (1984) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(7)), FR 11224 (March 27, 1990) 3,100 1,000 1990 1.78156 1,782 1,782 Appendix A IV (d) Out-of-service order (requiring or permitting operation of CMV or intermodal equipment that was placed out of service) Pub. L. 98-554, sec. 213(a), 98 Stat 2829 (1984) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(7)); 55 FR 11224 (March 27, 1990) 21,000 10,000 1990 1.78156 17,816 17,816 Appendix A IV (e) Out-of-service order (failure to return written certification of correction) 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B), 49 CFR 396.9(d)(3) 850 500 1990 1.78156 891 891 Appendix A IV (g) Out-of-service order (failure to cease operations as ordered) MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32503, 126 Stat. 405, 803 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(F)) 25,000 25,000 2012 1.02819 25,705 25,705 Appendix A IV (h) Out-of-service order (operating in violation of order) Pub. L. 98-554, sec. 213(a), 98 Stat, 2829, 2841-2843 (1984) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(7)) 16,000 10,000 1984 2.25867 22,587 22,587 Appendix A IV (i) Out-of-service order (conducting operations during suspension or revocation for failure to pay penalties) TEA-21, Pub. L. 105-178, sec. 4015(b), 112 Stat. 411-12 (1998) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(A), 521(b)(7)); 65 FR 56521, 56530 (September 19, 2000) 16,000 10,000 1998 1.45023 14,502 14,502 Appendix A IV (j) (conducting operations during suspension or revocation) Pub. L. 98-554, sec. 213(a), 98 Stat, 2829, 2841-2843 (1984) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(7)) 11,000 10,000 1984 2.25867 22,587 22,587 Appendix B (a)(1) Recordkeeping—maximum penalty per day SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, sec. 4102(a), 119 Stat. 1144, 1715 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B)(i)) 1,100 1,000 2005 1.19397 1,194 1,194 Appendix B (a)(1) Recordkeeping—maximum total penalty SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, sec. 4102(a), 119 Stat. 1144, 1715 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B)(i)) 11,000 10,000 2005 1.19397 11,940 11,940 Appendix B (a)(2) Knowing falsification of records SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, sec. 4102(a), 119 Stat. 1144, 1715 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B)(ii)) 11,000 10,000 2005 1.19397 11,940 11,940 Appendix B (a)(3) Non-recordkeeping violations TEA-21, Pub. L. 105-178, sec. 4015(b), 112 Stat. 107, 411-12 (1998) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(A)) 16,000 10,000 1998 1.45023 14,502 14,502 Appendix B (a)(4) Non-recordkeeping violations by drivers TEA-21, Pub. L. 105-178, sec. 4015(b), 112 Stat. 107, 411-12 (1998) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(A)) 3,750 2,500 1998 1.45023 3,626 3,626 Appendix B (a)(5) Violation of 49 CFR 392.5 (first offense) SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1715; sec. 4102(b), 119 Stat. 1715-16 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 31310(i)(2)(A)) 4,125 2,500 2005 1.19397 2,985 2,985 Appendix B (a)(5) Violation of 49 CFR 392.5 (second or subsequent conviction) SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1715; sec. 4102(b), 119 Stat. 1715-16 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 31310(i)(2)(A)) 4,125 5,000 2005 1.19397 5,970 5,970 Appendix B (b) Commercial driver's license (CDL) violations Pub. L. 99-570, sec. 12012(b), 100 Stat. 3207-184-85 (1986) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(C)) 4,750 2,500 1986 2.15628 5,391 5,391 Appendix B (b)(1): Special penalties pertaining to violation of out-of-service orders (first conviction) SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, sec. 4102(b), 119 Stat. 1144, 1715 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 31310(i)(2)(A)) 2,750 2,500 2005 1.19397 2,985 2,985 Appendix B (b)(1) Special penalties pertaining to violation of out-of-service orders (second or subsequent conviction) SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, 119, sec. 4102(b), Stat. 1144, 1715 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 31310(i)(2)(A)) 5,500 5,000 2005 1.19397 5,970 5,970 Appendix B (b)(2) Employer violations pertaining to knowingly allowing, authorizing employee violations of out-of-service order (minimum penalty) Pub. L. 99-570, sec. 12012(b), 100 Stat. 3207-184-85 (1986) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(C)) 4,750 2,500 1986 2.15628 5,391 5,391 Appendix B (b)(2) Employer violations pertaining to knowingly allowing, authorizing employee violations of out-of-service order (maximum penalty) SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, sec. 4102(b), 119 Stat. 1144, 1715 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 31310(i)(2)(C)) 27,500 25,000 2005 1.19397 29,849 29,849 Appendix B (b)(3) Special penalties pertaining to railroad-highway grade crossing violations ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 403(a), 109 Stat. 956 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 31310(j)(2)(B)) 11,000 10,000 1995 1.54742 15,474 15,474 Appendix B (d) Financial responsibility violations Pub. L. 103-272, sec. 31139(f), 108 Stat. 745, 1006-1008 (1994) (49 U.S.C. 31139(g)(1)) 21,000 10,000 1994 1.59089 15,909 15,909 Appendix B (e)(1) Violations of Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) and Safety Permitting Regulations (transportation or shipment of hazardous materials) MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 33010, 126 Stat. 405, 837-838 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(1)) 75,000 75,000 2012 1.02819 77,114 77,114 Appendix B (e)(2) Violations of Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) and Safety Permitting Regulations (training)—minimum penalty MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 33010, 126 Stat. 405, 837 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(3)) 450 450 2012 1.02819 463 463 Appendix B (e)(2): Violations of Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) and Safety Permitting Regulations (training)—maximum penalty MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 33010, 126 Stat. 405, 837 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(1)) 75,000 75,000 2012 1.02819 77,114 77,114 Appendix B (e)(3) Violations of Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) and Safety Permitting Regulations (packaging or container) MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 33010, 126 Stat. 405, 837, (2012) (49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(1)) 75,000 75,000 2012 1.02819 77,114 77,114 Appendix B (e)(4): Violations of Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) and Safety Permitting Regulations (compliance with FMCSRs) MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 33010, 126 Stat. 405, 837 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(1)) 75,000 75,000 2012 1.02819 77,114 77,114 Appendix B (e)(5) Violations of Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) and Safety Permitting Regulations (death, serious illness, severe injury to persons; destruction of property) MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 33010, 126 Stat. 405, 837 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(2)) 175,000 175,000 2012 1.02819 179,933 179,933 Appendix B (f)(1) Operating after being declared unfit by assignment of a final “unsatisfactory” safety rating (generally) MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32503, 126 Stat. 405, 803 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(F)) 25,000 25,000 2012 1.02819 25,705 25,705 Appendix B (f)(2) Operating after being declared unfit by assignment of a final “unsatisfactory” safety rating (hazardous materials)—maximum penalty MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 33010, 126 Stat. 405, 837 (49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(1)) 75,000 75,000 2012 1.02819 77,114 77,114 Appendix B (f)(2): Operating after being declared unfit by assignment of a final “unsatisfactory” safety rating (hazardous materials)—maximum penalty if death, serious illness, severe injury to persons; destruction of property MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 33010, 126 Stat. 405, 837 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(2)) 175,000 175,000 2012 1.02819 179,933 179,933 Appendix B (g)(1) New Appendix B (g)(1): Violations of the commercial regulations (CR) (property carriers) MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32108(a), 126 Stat. 405, 782 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 14901(a)) 10,000 10,000 2012 1.02819 10,282 10,282 Appendix B (g)(2) Violations of the CRs (brokers) MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32919(a), 126 Stat. 405, 827 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 14916(c)) 10,000 10,000 2012 1.02819 10,282 10,282 Appendix B (g)(3) Violations of the CRs (passenger carriers) MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32108(a), 126 Stat. 405, 782 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 14901(a)) 25,000 25,000 2012 1.02819 25,705 25,705 Appendix B (g)(4) Violations of the CRs (foreign motor carriers, foreign motor private carriers) MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32108(a), 126 Stat. 405, 782 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 14901(a)) 10,000 10,000 2012 1.02819 10,282 10,282 Appendix B (g)(5) Violations of the CRs (foreign motor carriers, foreign motor private carriers before implementation of North American Free Trade Agreement land transportation provisions)—maximum penalty for intentional violation MCSIA of 1999, Pub. L. 106-59, sec. 219(b), 113 Stat. 1748, 1768 (1999) (49 U.S.C. 14901 note) 16,000 10,000 1999 1.41402 14,140 14,140 Appendix B (g)(5) Violations of the CRs (foreign motor carriers, foreign motor private carriers before implementation of North American Free Trade Agreement land transportation provisions)—maximum penalty for a pattern of intentional violations MCSIA of 1999, Pub. L. 106-59, sec. 219(c), 113 Stat. 1748, 1768 (1999) (49 U.S.C. 14901 note) 37,500 25,000 1999 1.41402 35,351 35,351 Appendix B (g)(6) Violations of the CRs (motor carrier or broker for transportation of hazardous wastes)—minimum penalty MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32108, 126 Stat. 405, 782 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 14901(b)) 20,000 20,000 2012 1.02819 20,564 20,564 Appendix B (g)(6) Violations of the CRs (motor carrier or broker for transportation of hazardous wastes)—maximum penalty MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32108, 126 Stat. 405,782 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 14901(b)) 40,000 40,000 2012 1.02819 41,128 41,128 Appendix B (g)(7): Violations of the CRs (HHG carrier or freight forwarder, or their receiver or trustee) ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 914 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(1)) 1,100 1,000 1995 1.54742 1,547 1,547 Appendix B (g)(8) Violation of the CRs (weight of HHG shipment, charging for services)—minimum penalty for first violation ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 914 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14901(e)) 3,200 2,000 1995 1.54742 3,095 3,095 Appendix B (g)(8) Violation of the CRs (weight of HHG shipment, charging for services) ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 914 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14901(e)) 7,500 5,000 1995 1.54742 7,737 7,737 Appendix B (g)(10) Tariff violations ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 868-869, 915 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 13702, 14903) 140,000 100,000 1995 1.54742 154,742 154,742 Appendix B (g)(11) Additional tariff violations (rebates or concessions)—first violation ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 915-916 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14904(a)) 320 200 1995 1.54742 309 309 Appendix B (g)(11) Additional tariff violations (rebates or concessions)—subsequent violations ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 915-916 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14904(a)) 375 250 1995 1.54742 387 387 Appendix B (g)(12): Tariff violations (freight forwarders)—maximum penalty for first violation ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 916 (49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(1)) 750 500 1995 1.54742 774 774 Appendix B (g)(12): Tariff violations (freight forwarders)—maximum penalty for subsequent violations ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 916 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(1)) 3,200 2,000 1995 1.54742 3,095 3,095 Appendix B (g)(13): Service from freight forwarder at less than rate in effect—maximum penalty for first violation ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 916 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(2)) 750 500 1995 1.54742 774 774 Appendix B (g)(13): Service from freight forwarder at less than rate in effect—maximum penalty for subsequent violation(s) ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 916 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(2)) 3,200 2,000 1995 1.54742 3,095 3,095 Appendix B (g)(14): Violations related to loading and unloading motor vehicles ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 916 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14905) 16,000 10,000 1995 1.54742 15,474 15,474 Appendix B (g)(16): Reporting and recordkeeping under 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B (except 13901 and 13902(c))—minimum penalty MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32108, 126 Stat. 405, 782 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 14901) 1,000 1,000 2012 1.02819 1,028 1,028 Appendix B (g)(16): Reporting and recordkeeping under 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B—maximum penalty ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 916-917 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14907) 7,500 5,000 1995 1.54742 7,737 7,737 Appendix B (g)(17): Unauthorized disclosure of information ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 917 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14908) 3,200 2,000 1995 1.54742 3,095 3,095 Appendix B (g)(18): Violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B, or condition of registration ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 917 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14910) 750 500 1995 1.54742 774 774 Appendix B (g)(21)(i): Knowingly and willfully fails to deliver or unload HHG at destination ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, sec. 103, 100 Stat. 803, 916 (1995) (49 U.S.C. 14905) 11,000 10,000 1995 1.54742 15,474 15,474 Appendix B (g)(22): HHG broker estimate before entering into an agreement with a motor carrier SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, sec. 4209(2), 119 Stat. 1144, 1758, (2005) (49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(2)) 10,900 10,000 2005 1.19397 11,940 11,940 Appendix B (g)(23): HHG transportation or broker services—registration requirement SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, sec. 4209(d)(3), 119 Stat. 1144, 1758 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(3)) 27,250 25,000 2005 1.19397 29,849 29,849 Appendix B (h): Copying of records and access to equipment, lands, and buildings—maximum penalty per day SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, sec. 4103(2), 119 Stat. 1144, 1716 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(E)) 1,100 1,000 2005 1.19397 1,194 1,194 Appendix B (h): Copying of records and access to equipment, lands, and buildings—maximum total penalty SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59, sec. 4103(2), 119 Stat. 1716 (2005) (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(E)) 11,000 10,000 2005 1.19397 11,940 11,940 Appendix B (i)(1): Evasion of regulations under 49 U.S.C. ch. 5, 51, subchapter III of 311 (except 31138 and 31139), 31302-31304, 31305(b), 31310(g)(1)(A), 31502—minimum penalty for first violation MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32505, 126 Stat. 405, 804 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 524) 2,000 2,000 2012 1.02819 2,056 2,056 Appendix B (i)(1): Evasion of regulations under 49 U.S.C. ch. 5, 51, subchapter III of 311 (except 31138 and 31139), 31302-31304, 31305(b), 31310(g)(1)(A), 31502—maximum penalty for first violation MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32505, 126 Stat. 405, 804 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 524) 5,000 5,000 2012 1.02819 5,141 5,141 Appendix B (i)(1): Evasion of regulations under 49 U.S.C. ch. 5, 51, subchapter III of 311 (except 31138 and 31139), 31302-31304, 31305(b), 31310(g)(1)(A), 31502—minimum penalty for subsequent violation(s) MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32505, 126 Stat. 405, 804 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 524). MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32505, 126 Stat. 405, 804 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 524) 2,500 2,500 2012 1.02819 2,570 2,570 Appendix B (i)(1): Evasion of regulations under 49 U.S.C. ch. 5, 51, subchapter III of 311 (except 31138 and 31139), 31302-31304, 31305(b), 31310(g)(1)(A), 31502—maximum penalty for subsequent violation(s) MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32505, 126 Stat. 405, 804 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 524) 7,500 7,500 2012 1.02819 7,711 7,711 Appendix B (i)(2): Evasion of regulations under 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B—minimum penalty for first violation MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32505, 126 Stat. 405, 804 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 14906) 2,000 2,000 2012 1.02819 2,056 2,056 Appendix B (i)(2): Evasion of regulations under 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B—minimum penalty for subsequent violation(s) MAP-21 Pub. L. 112-141, sec. 32505, 126 Stat. 405, 804 (2012) (49 U.S.C. 14906) 5,000 5,000 2012 1.02819 5,141 5,141
    V. Section-By-Section Analysis

    FMCSA updates the civil penalties in Appendices A and B of Part 386 as outlined in Table 1 above and makes minor editorial changes.

    VI. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    This IFR is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Historically, the Agency has never assessed civil penalties that approach $100 million in any given year.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis, because, as discussed earlier in the legal basis section, this action is not subject to prior notice and comment under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

    C. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this interim final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the interim final rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Ms. LaTonya Mimms, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this interim final rule.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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 $155 million (which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2014 levels) or more in any one year. This interim final rule will not result in such an expenditure.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “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.” FMCSA has determined that this rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this interim final rule does not have federalism implications.

    G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This interim final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    H. Protection of Children (E.O. 13045)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children if an agency has reason to believe the rule may disproportionately affect children. The Agency determined that this interim final rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, this regulatory action could not pose an environmental or safety risk to children.

    I. Taking of Private Property (E.O. 12630)

    FMCSA reviewed this interim final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.

    J. Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII).

    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.

    K. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.

    L. Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

    FMCSA analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

    M. Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175)

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.

    N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) are standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    O. Environmental Review (National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and FMCSA's NEPA Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts, Order 5610.1 (FMCSA Order), March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680). FMCSA's Order states that “[w]here FMCSA has no discretion to withhold or condition an action if the action is taken in accordance with specific statutory criteria and FMCSA lacks control and responsibility over the effects of an action, that action is not subject to this Order.” Id. at chapter 1.D. Because Congress specifies the Agency's precise action here, thus leaving the Agency no discretion over such action, and since the Agency lacks jurisdiction and therefore control and responsibility over the effects of this action, this rulemaking falls under chapter 1.D. Therefore, no further analysis is considered.

    FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of criteria pollutants.

    Under E.O. 12898 (Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA has determined that this interim final rule would have no environmental justice effects, nor would its promulgation have any collective environmental impact.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 386

    Administrative procedures, Commercial motor vehicle safety, Highways and roads, Motor carriers, Penalties.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, FMCSA is amending 49 CFR part 386 as follows:

    PART 386—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR FMCSA PROCEEDINGS 1. The authority citation for part 386 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 113, chapters 5, 51, 59, 131-141, 145-149, 311, 313, and 315; 49 U.S.C. 5123; Sec. 204, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 941 (49 U.S.C. 701 note); Sec. 217, Pub. L. 105-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; Sec. 206, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1763; subtitle B, title IV of Pub. L. 109-59; Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584, 599; and 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.87.

    2. Amend Appendix A to part 386 by revising the introductory text and sections II, IV.a through e., and IV.g. through j. to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 386—Penalty Schedule: Violations of Notices and Orders

    The Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 [Public Law 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599] amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 to require agencies to adjust civil penalties for inflation. Pursuant to that authority, the inflation adjusted civil penalties identified in this appendix supersede the corresponding civil penalty amounts identified in title 49, United States Code.

    II. Subpoena

    Violation—Failure to respond to Agency subpoena to appear and testify or produce records.

    Penalty—minimum of $1,028 but not more than $10,282 per violation.

    IV. Out-of-Service Order

    a. Violation—Operation of a commercial vehicle by a driver during the period the driver was placed out of service.

    Penalty—Up to $1,782 per violation.

    (For purposes of this violation, the term “driver” means an operator of a commercial motor vehicle, including an independent contractor who, while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle, is employed or used by another person.)

    b. Violation—Requiring or permitting a driver to operate a commercial vehicle during the period the driver was placed out of service.

    Penalty—Up to $17,816 per violation.

    (This violation applies to motor carriers including an independent contractor who is not a “driver,” as defined under paragraph IV(a) above.)

    c. Violation—Operation of a commercial motor vehicle or intermodal equipment by a driver after the vehicle or intermodal equipment was placed out-of-service and before the required repairs are made.

    Penalty—$1,782 each time the vehicle or intermodal equipment is so operated.

    (This violation applies to drivers as defined in IV(a) above.)

    d. Violation—Requiring or permitting the operation of a commercial motor vehicle or intermodal equipment placed out-of-service before the required repairs are made.

    Penalty—Up to $17,816 each time the vehicle or intermodal equipment is so operated after notice of the defect is received.

    (This violation applies to intermodal equipment providers and motor carriers, including an independent owner operator who is not a “driver,” as defined in IV(a) above.)

    e. Violation—Failure to return written certification of correction as required by the out-of-service order.

    Penalty—Up to $891 per violation.

    g. Violation—Operating in violation of an order issued under § 386.72(b) to cease all or part of the employer's commercial motor vehicle operations or to cease part of an intermodal equipment provider's operations, i.e., failure to cease operations as ordered.

    Penalty—Up to $25,705 per day the operation continues after the effective date and time of the order to cease.

    h. Violation—Operating in violation of an order issued under § 386.73.

    Penalty—Up to $22,587 per day the operation continues after the effective date and time of the out-of-service order.

    i. Violation—Conducting operations during a period of suspension under § 386.83 or § 386.84 for failure to pay penalties.

    Penalty—Up to $14,502 for each day that operations are conducted during the suspension or revocation period.

    j. Violation—Conducting operations during a period of suspension or revocation under §§ 385.911, 385.913, 385.1009 or 385.1011.

    Penalty—Up to $22,587 for each day that operations are conducted during the suspension or revocation period.

    3. Amend Appendix B to part 386 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) through (5), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) introductory text, (g)(1) through (8), (g)(10) through (18), (g)(21)(i), (g)(22) and (23), (h), and (i) to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 386—Penalty Schedule: Violations and Monetary Penalties

    The Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 [Public Law 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599] amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 to require agencies to adjust civil penalties for inflation. Pursuant to that authority, the inflation adjusted civil penalties identified in this appendix supersede the corresponding civil penalty amounts identified in title 49, United States Code.

    What are the types of violations and maximum monetary penalties?

    (a) Violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs):

    (1) Recordkeeping. A person or entity that fails to prepare or maintain a record required by parts 40, 382, 385, and 390-99 of this subchapter, or prepares or maintains a required record that is incomplete, inaccurate, or false, is subject to a maximum civil penalty of $1,194 for each day the violation continues, up to $11,940.

    (2) Knowing falsification of records. A person or entity that knowingly falsifies, destroys, mutilates, or changes a report or record required by parts 382, 385, and 390-99 of this subchapter, knowingly makes or causes to be made a false or incomplete record about an operation or business fact or transaction, or knowingly makes, prepares, or preserves a record in violation of a regulation order of the Secretary is subject to a maximum civil penalty of $11,940 if such action misrepresents a fact that constitutes a violation other than a reporting or recordkeeping violation.

    (3) Non-recordkeeping violations. A person or entity that violates parts 382, 385, or 390-99 of this subchapter, except a recordkeeping requirement, is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $14,502 for each violation.

    (4) Non-recordkeeping violations by drivers. A driver who violates parts 382, 385, and 390-99 of this subchapter, except a recordkeeping violation, is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $3,626.

    (5) Violation of 49 CFR 392.5. A driver placed out of service for 24 hours for violating the alcohol prohibitions of 49 CFR 392.5(a) or (b) who drives during that period is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $2,985 for a first conviction and not less than $5,970 for a second or subsequent conviction.

    (b) Commercial driver's license (CDL) violations. Any person who violates 49 CFR part 383, subparts B, C, E, F, G, or H is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,391; except:

    (1) A CDL-holder who is convicted of violating an out-of-service order shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $2,985 for a first conviction and not less than $5,970 for a second or subsequent conviction;

    (2) An employer of a CDL-holder who knowingly allows, requires, permits, or authorizes an employee to operate a CMV during any period in which the CDL-holder is subject to an out-of-service order, is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $5,391 or more than $29,849; and

    (3) An employer of a CDL-holder who knowingly allows, requires, permits, or authorizes that CDL-holder to operate a CMV in violation of a Federal, State, or local law or regulation pertaining to railroad-highway grade crossings is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $15,474.

    (c) [Reserved]

    (d) Financial responsibility violations. A motor carrier that fails to maintain the levels of financial responsibility prescribed by part 387 of this subchapter or any person (except an employee who acts without knowledge) who knowingly violates the rules of part 387 subparts A and B is subject to a maximum penalty of $15,909. Each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate offense.

    (e) Violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) and Safety Permitting Regulations found in Subpart E of Part 385. This paragraph applies to violations by motor carriers, drivers, shippers and other persons who transport hazardous materials on the highway in commercial motor vehicles or cause hazardous materials to be so transported.

    (1) All knowing violations of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 or orders or regulations issued under the authority of that chapter applicable to the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by commercial motor vehicle on the highways are subject to a civil penalty of not more than $77,114 for each violation. Each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate offense.

    (2) All knowing violations of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 or orders or regulations issued under the authority of that chapter applicable to training related to the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by commercial motor vehicle on highways are subject to a civil penalty of not less than $463 and not more than $77,114 for each violation.

    (3) All knowing violations of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 or orders, regulations or exemptions under the authority of that chapter applicable to the manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair, or testing of a packaging or container that is represented, marked, certified, or sold as being qualified for use in the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by commercial motor vehicle on highways are subject to a civil penalty of not more than $77,114 for each violation.

    (4) Whenever regulations issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 require compliance with the FMCSRs while transporting hazardous materials, any violations of the FMCSRs will be considered a violation of the HMRs and subject to a civil penalty of not more than $77,114.

    (5) If any violation subject to the civil penalties set out in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this appendix results in death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person or in substantial destruction of property, the civil penalty may be increased to not more than $179,933 for each offense.

    (f) Operating after being declared unfit by assignment of a final “unsatisfactory” safety rating. (1) A motor carrier operating a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce (except owners or operators of commercial motor vehicles designed or used to transport hazardous materials for which placarding of a motor vehicle is required under regulations prescribed under 49 U.S.C. chapter 51) is subject, after being placed out of service because of receiving a final “unsatisfactory” safety rating, to a civil penalty of not more than $25,705 (49 CFR 385.13). Each day the transportation continues in violation of a final “unsatisfactory” safety rating constitutes a separate offense.

    (2) A motor carrier operating a commercial motor vehicle designed or used to transport hazardous materials for which placarding of a motor vehicle is required under regulations prescribed under 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 is subject, after being placed out of service because of receiving a final “unsatisfactory” safety rating, to a civil penalty of not more than $77,114 for each offense. If the violation results in death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person or in substantial destruction of property, the civil penalty may be increased to not more than $179,933 for each offense. Each day the transportation continues in violation of a final “unsatisfactory” safety rating constitutes a separate offense.

    (g) Violations of the commercial regulations (CRs). Penalties for violations of the CRs are specified in 49 U.S.C. chapter 149. These penalties relate to transportation subject to the Secretary's jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. chapter 135. Unless otherwise noted, a separate violation occurs for each day the violation continues.

    (1) A person who operates as a motor carrier for the transportation of property in violation of the registration requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13901 is liable for a minimum penalty of $10,282 per violation.

    (2) A person who knowingly operates as a broker in violation of registration requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13904 or financial security requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13906 is liable for a penalty not to exceed $10,282 for each violation.

    (3) A person who operates as a motor carrier of passengers in violation of the registration requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13901 is liable for a minimum penalty of $25,705 per violation.

    (4) A person who operates as a foreign motor carrier or foreign motor private carrier of property in violation of the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13902(c) is liable for a minimum penalty of $10,282 per violation.

    (5) A person who operates as a foreign motor carrier or foreign motor private carrier without authority, before the implementation of the land transportation provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, outside the boundaries of a commercial zone along the United States-Mexico border, is liable for a maximum penalty of $14,140 for an intentional violation and a maximum penalty of $35,351 for a pattern of intentional violations.

    (6) A person who operates as a motor carrier or broker for the transportation of hazardous wastes in violation of the registration provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13901 is liable for a minimum penalty of $20,564 and a maximum penalty of $41,128 per violation.

    (7) A motor carrier or freight forwarder of household goods, or their receiver or trustee, that does not comply with any regulation relating to the protection of individual shippers, is liable for a minimum penalty of $1,547 per violation.

    (8) A person—

    (i) Who falsifies, or authorizes an agent or other person to falsify, documents used in the transportation of household goods by motor carrier or freight forwarder to evidence the weight of a shipment or

    (ii) Who charges for services which are not performed or are not reasonably necessary in the safe and adequate movement of the shipment is liable for a minimum penalty of $3,095 for the first violation and $7,737 for each subsequent violation.

    (10) A person who offers, gives, solicits, or receives transportation of property by a carrier at a different rate than the rate in effect under 49 U.S.C. 13702 is liable for a maximum penalty of $154,742 per violation. When acting in the scope of his/her employment, the acts or omissions of a person acting for or employed by a carrier or shipper are considered to be the acts or omissions of that carrier or shipper, as well as that person.

    (11) Any person who offers, gives, solicits, or receives a rebate or concession related to motor carrier transportation subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I of 49 U.S.C. chapter 135, or who assists or permits another person to get that transportation at less than the rate in effect under 49 U.S.C. 13702, commits a violation for which the penalty is $309 for the first violation and $387 for each subsequent violation.

    (12) A freight forwarder, its officer, agent, or employee, that assists or willingly permits a person to get service under 49 U.S.C. 13531 at less than the rate in effect under 49 U.S.C. 13702 commits a violation for which the penalty is up to $774 for the first violation and up to $3,095 for each subsequent violation.

    (13) A person who gets or attempts to get service from a freight forwarder under 49 U.S.C. 13531 at less than the rate in effect under 49 U.S.C. 13702 commits a violation for which the penalty is up to $774 for the first violation and up to $3,095 for each subsequent violation.

    (14) A person who knowingly authorizes, consents to, or permits a violation of 49 U.S.C. 14103 relating to loading and unloading motor vehicles or who knowingly violates subsection (a) of 49 U.S.C. 14103 is liable for a penalty of not more than $15,474 per violation.

    (15) [Reserved]

    (16) A person required to make a report to the Secretary, answer a question, or make, prepare, or preserve a record under part B of subtitle IV, title 49, U.S.C., or an officer, agent, or employee of that person, is liable for a minimum penalty of $1,028 and for a maximum penalty of $7,737 per violation if it does not make the report, does not completely and truthfully answer the question within 30 days from the date the Secretary requires the answer, does not make or preserve the record in the form and manner prescribed, falsifies, destroys, or changes the report or record, files a false report or record, makes a false or incomplete entry in the record about a business-related fact, or prepares or preserves a record in violation of a regulation or order of the Secretary.

    (17) A motor carrier, water carrier, freight forwarder, or broker, or their officer, receiver, trustee, lessee, employee, or other person authorized to receive information from them, who discloses information identified in 49 U.S.C. 14908 without the permission of the shipper or consignee is liable for a maximum penalty of $3,095.

    (18) A person who violates a provision of part B, subtitle IV, title 49, U.S.C., or a regulation or order under Part B, or who violates a condition of registration related to transportation that is subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I or III of chapter 135, or who violates a condition of registration of a foreign motor carrier or foreign motor private carrier under section 13902, is liable for a penalty of $774 for each violation if another penalty is not provided in 49 U.S.C. chapter 149.

    (21) * * *

    (i) Who knowingly and willfully fails, in violation of a contract, to deliver to, or unload at, the destination of a shipment of household goods in interstate commerce for which charges have been estimated by the motor carrier transporting such goods, and for which the shipper has tendered a payment in accordance with part 375, subpart G of this chapter, is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $15,474 for each violation. Each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate offense.

    (22) A broker for transportation of household goods who makes an estimate of the cost of transporting any such goods before entering into an agreement with a motor carrier to provide transportation of household goods subject to FMCSA jurisdiction is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not less than $11,940 for each violation.

    (23) A person who provides transportation of household goods subject to jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. chapter 135, subchapter I, or provides broker services for such transportation, without being registered under 49 U.S.C. chapter 139 to provide such transportation or services as a motor carrier or broker, as the case may be, is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not less than $29,849 for each violation.

    (h) Copying of records and access to equipment, lands, and buildings. A person subject to 49 U.S.C. chapter 51 or a motor carrier, broker, freight forwarder, or owner or operator of a commercial motor vehicle subject to part B of subtitle VI of title 49 U.S.C. who fails to allow promptly, upon demand in person or in writing, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an employee designated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or an employee of a MCSAP grant recipient to inspect and copy any record or inspect and examine equipment, lands, buildings, and other property, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 504(c), 5121(c), and 14122(b), is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,194 for each offense. Each day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate offense, except that the total of all civil penalties against any violator for all offenses related to a single violation shall not exceed $11,940.

    (i) Evasion. A person, or an officer, employee, or agent of that person:

    (1) Who by any means tries to evade regulation of motor carriers under title 49, United States Code, chapter 5, chapter 51, subchapter III of chapter 311 (except sections 31138 and 31139) or sections 31302, 31303, 31304, 31305(b), 31310(g)(1)(A), or 31502, or a regulation issued under any of those provisions, shall be fined at least $2,056 but not more than $5,141 for the first violation and at least $2,570 but not more than $7,711 for a subsequent violation.

    (2) Who tries to evade regulation under part B of subtitle IV, title 49, U.S.C., for carriers or brokers is liable for a penalty of at least $2,056 for the first violation or at least $5,141 for a subsequent violation.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on: June 17, 2016. T.F. Scott Darling III, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14973 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    81 123 Monday, June 27, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 [Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054] RIN 1904-AD43 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Compressors Correction

    In proposed rule document 2016-10170 beginning on page 27220 in the issue of Thursday, May 5, 2016, make the following correction:

    Appendix A to Subpart T of Part 431—Uniform Test Method for Certain Air Compressors

    In Appendix A to Subpart T of Part 431, on page 27258, in the first column, above the thirteenth line from the bottom, insert the following equation:

    P real, 100 % = K 5 · P PR, 100 %
    [FR Doc. C1-2016-10170 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5595; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-087-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Zodiac Seats California LLC Seating Systems AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces the reopening of the comment period for the above-referenced NPRM, which proposed the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to certain Zodiac Seats California LLC seating systems. The NPRM proposed to require removing affected seating systems. This reopening of the comment period is necessary to ensure that all interested persons have ample opportunity to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding the proposed requirements of the NPRM.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on the NPRM by July 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    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-2016-5595; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety & Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5344; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would apply to certain Zodiac Seats California LLC seating systems. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2016 (81 FR 23212) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require removing affected seating systems. The NPRM also invited comments on its overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects.

    Events Leading to the Reopening of the Comment Period

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have received a request from Zodiac Seats California LLC to extend the comment period. Zodiac stated that initial review of the NPRM by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aircraft Seat Committee revealed that since the subject matter of the NPRM is highly significant to the industry, more time is necessary to coordinate the industry input to formalize comments. Zodiac added that the comment due date of June 6, 2016, did not provide adequate time to properly research the topics and submit practical comments.

    We agree with the commenter's request. We have determined that it is appropriate to reopen the comment period for the NPRM to give all interested persons additional time to examine the proposed requirements and submit comments.

    The original comment period for the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2016-5595, Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-087-AD, closed on June 6, 2016.

    FAA's Determination

    We consider it necessary to reopen the comment period to give all interested persons additional time to examine the proposed requirements of the NPRM and submit comments. We have determined that reopening the comment period until July 7, 2016, will not compromise the safety of these airplanes.

    Extension of Comment Period

    The comment period for Docket No. FAA-2016-5595, Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-087-AD, has been revised. The comment period now closes July 7, 2016.

    No other part of the regulatory information has been changed; therefore, the NPRM is not republished in the Federal Register.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15209 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 382 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0246] RIN 2105-AE12 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Third Meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of third public meeting of advisory committee.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the third meeting of the Advisory Committee on Accessible Air Transportation (ACCESS Advisory Committee).

    DATES:

    The third meeting of the ACCESS Advisory Committee will be held on July 11 and 12, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by July 5, 2016. See Supplementary Information for details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Ritz Carlton, Pentagon City, 1250 Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202, in the Diplomat Room. Attendance is open to the public up to the room's capacity of 150 attendees. Since space is limited, any member of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must notify the registration contact identified below no later than July 5, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To register to attend the meeting, please contact Kyle Illgenfritz ([email protected]; 703-442-4575 extension 128). For other information, please contact Livaughn Chapman or Vinh Nguyen, Office of the Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, by email at [email protected] or [email protected] or by telephone at 202-366-9342.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Third Public Meeting of the ACCESS Committee

    The third meeting of the ACCESS Advisory Committee will be held on July 11 and 12, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. The meeting will be held at the Ritz Carlton, Pentagon City, 1250 Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202, in the Diplomat Room. At the meeting, the ACCESS Advisory Committee will continue to address whether to require accessible inflight entertainment (IFE) and strengthen accessibility requirements for other in-flight communications, whether to require an accessible lavatory on new single-aisle aircraft over a certain size, and whether to amend the definition of “service animals” that may accompany passengers with a disability on a flight. This meeting will include reports from the three working groups on the status of their discussions of the issues identified in previous meetings and any strawman proposals that are being developed. Prior to the meeting, the agenda will be available on the ACCESS Advisory Committee's Web site, www.transportation.gov/access-advisory-committee.

    The meeting will be open to the public. Attendance will be limited by the size of the meeting room (maximum 150 attendees). Because space is limited, we ask that any member of the public who plans to attend the meeting notify the registration contact, Kyle Illgenfritz ([email protected]; 703-442-4575 extension 128) at Linkvisum, no later than July 5, 2016. At the discretion of the facilitator and the Committee and time permitting, members of the public are invited to contribute to the discussion and provide oral comments.

    II. Submitting Written Comments

    Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by July 5, 2016, to FDMC, Docket Number DOT-OST-2015-0246. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. DOT recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that DOT can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, DOT-OST-2015-0246, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

    III. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments and any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov. Enter the docket number, DOT-OST-2015-0246, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the link to “Open Docket Folder” and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    IV. ACCESS Advisory Committee Charter

    The ACCESS Advisory Committee is established by charter in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx approved the ACCESS Advisory Committee charter on April 6, 2016. The committee's charter sets forth policies for the operation of the advisory committee and is available on the Department's Web site at www.transportation.gov/office-general-counsel/negotiated-regulations/charter.

    V. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    VI. Future Committee Meetings

    DOT anticipates that the ACCESS Advisory Committee will have three additional two-day meetings in Washington DC The meetings are tentatively scheduled for following dates: Fourth meeting, August 16-17; fifth meeting, September 22-23, and the sixth and final meeting, October 13-14. Notices of all future meetings will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 calendar days prior to each meeting.

    Notice of this meeting is being provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration regulations covering management of Federal advisory committees. See 41 CFR part 102-3.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.27(n).

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Molly J. Moran, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15147 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institutes of Standards and Technology 15 CFR Part 17 [Docket No.: 160311228-6228-01] RIN 0693-AB62 Technology Innovation—Personnel Exchanges AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    NIST is seeking comments on proposed regulations intended to foster the exchange of scientific and technical personnel among academia, industry, including particularly small businesses, and Federal laboratories. Such exchanges are an effective means for accelerating the transfer of Federal laboratory technology to benefit the United States economy. An objective of this rulemaking is to clarify the appropriate use of Cooperative Research and Development Agreement authority by a Federal laboratory for personnel exchanges where the Federal laboratory has an existing relationship with the potential partner through another legal mechanism, as well as in the context of joint research projects or the development of existing laboratory technology, and through use of the General Services Administration's Presidential Innovation Fellows program for Federal laboratory Entrepreneur-in-Residence programs. Another objective of this rulemaking is to remove outdated regulations addressing the licensing of inventions owned by the Department of Commerce. When the comment period is concluded, NIST will analyze the comments received, incorporate comments as appropriate, and publish a final regulation.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than July 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number: 160311228-6228-01, through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov (search using the docket number). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Courtney Silverthorn, via email: [email protected], or by telephone: 301-975-4189.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information Does this action apply to me?

    This proposed rule may be of interest to you if you are an educational institution, a company (including a small business firm), or a nonprofit institution, that collaborates or would like to collaborate with Federal Government employees on technology research and development of mutual interest.

    II. Background

    The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, Public Law 96-480, as amended (codified at title 15 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 3701 et seq.) (the Stevenson-Wydler Act), sets forth a national policy to promote cooperation among academia, Federal laboratories, labor, and industry in order to facilitate the transfer of innovative federal technologies to United States and world markets. In furtherance of that policy, the Administration's Lab to Market initiative seeks to “significantly accelerate and improve technology transfer by streamlining administrative processes, facilitating partnerships with industry, evaluating impact, and opening federal research and development (R&D) assets as a platform for innovation and economic growth.” (Lab to Market: Cross Agency Priority Goal Quarterly Progress Update, Fiscal Year 2015 Quarter 4). One proven method to ensure that federal innovations are made available to industry and the public is to encourage frequent interactions among Federal laboratories, academic institutions, and industry, including small businesses.

    A. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Pursuant to authority delegated to it by the Secretary of Commerce, NIST is providing notice to the public of proposed rulemaking to remove outdated provisions in part 17 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) regarding the licensing of inventions owned by the Department, and to revise part 17 to address the use of personnel exchange authorities and programs as authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3712, which authorizes the establishment of a program to foster the exchange of scientific and technical personnel among academia, industry, and Federal laboratories.

    Under the Stevenson-Wydler Act, several mechanisms have been developed which are being used by various Federal agencies for exchanging personnel with the public and private sectors. The proposed rules will facilitate agencies' use of existing mechanisms, as well as provide for more integrated programs intended to expand the exchange of personnel as authorized under section 3712, in order to accelerate the transfer of innovative technologies from Federal laboratories for the benefit of the United States and its economy. Some current authorities relevant to personnel exchange between Federal laboratories and non-federal partners are described below.

    B. Current Personnel Exchange Mechanisms

    1. Cooperative Research and Development Agreement—The Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) is one of the principal mechanisms used by Federal laboratories to engage in collaborative efforts with non-federal partners to achieve the goals of technology transfer. It affords discretion to Government Owned Government Operated (GOGO) and Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) laboratories to enter into collaborative agreements with many types of organizations. CRADAs allow one or more Federal laboratories and one or more non-federal parties (i.e., state or local government units; industrial organizations; public and private foundations; universities and other non-profit organizations; and other individuals who are licensees of Government-owned inventions) to collaborate to conduct specified research and development-related activities that are consistent with the laboratory's mission. Technical assistance can also be provided to small businesses. The legal authority for this personnel exchange mechanism via mutual collaboration on research and development projects is 15 U.S.C. 3710a. DOE has recently used the CRADA authority to enable a pilot program for public-private entrepreneurial partnerships between Federal laboratories and the private sector for the placement of personnel. The DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory provides a virtual home for entrepreneurial clean-energy researchers through “Cyclotron Road,” a new public-private partnership to advance energy technologies until they can succeed beyond the laboratory. This new, competitive opportunity provides clean energy researchers with business mentorship and access to resources and potential business partners to advance innovation.

    2. Entrepreneur Leave Program (ELP)—Some Department of Energy (DOE) GOCO laboratories have a personnel pathway that permits a limited number of contractor employees to take entrepreneurial leave, also known as Entrepreneurial Separation to Transfer Technology, for a designated period of time. Some laboratories offer the employee assurance of appropriate resources upon return to restart a research program, while others offer continued benefits while the employee is on leave. These programs are designed to facilitate commercialization of technologies developed in a DOE laboratory. Because these laboratories are GOCO facilities, the programs are subject to the policies and procedures of the contractor organization.

    3. Entrepreneur-in-Residence (EIR)—EIRs are entrepreneurs from outside of Government who want to use their skills to benefit the public good. They are typically mid- to senior-level professionals and may be academics, technology entrepreneurs, software designers, policymakers, business experts, or non-profit leaders who have demonstrated a significant record of innovative achievement in their field. Funding models differ from agency to agency, and some flexibility in authorities can be applied in creating these programs. Generally, these programs run through state or non-profit organizations that recommend or otherwise place the personnel within the technology transfer office. NIST operates its EIR program under the Partnership Intermediary Agreement (PIA) authority, 15 U.S.C. 3715. The program is conducted through a PIA with the Maryland Technology Development Corporation, which selects and funds each EIR. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) program is currently conducted through a contracting mechanism to place EIRs at several of NIH institutes and centers. Both programs rely on the expertise of existing State-based programs with a shared vision of commercializing federal technologies and providing expert support to potentially interested parties working at these Federal laboratories. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operates a Loaned Executive Program that is open to all interested executive-level talent; DHS makes unpaid temporary appointments under 5 U.S.C. 3109 to place private sector consultants at various DHS laboratories.

    4. Strategic Partnership Projects (SPP)—This DOE authorization enables a DOE GOCO laboratory to advise United States companies or other agencies and institutions on problems as to which the laboratory has special expertise or equipment. Work is performed under a formal agreement on a full cost recovery basis if the assistance requires more than an incidental amount of time. Authorization: 48 CFR 970.5217-1—Work for Others Program. In addition, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), a DOE institution operated under contract on behalf of DOE, implements a range of education, training, and workforce development programs on behalf of DOE and a number of other Federal sponsors. Programs provide opportunities for participants at a broad range of locations including Federal research laboratories (including GOCO), agency headquarters offices, or universities. For example, an SPP agreement between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and ORISE authorizes ORISE to provide qualified candidates for research positions and to manage the appointment process. ORISE-identified candidates may be selected from a variety of sources and placed into a variety of research-related positions. Appointed candidates placed by ORISE have “program participant” status and are not Federal employees.

    5. Use of Facilities—Outside entities such as universities, technology incubators, private companies, and individual inventors may be able to use scientific equipment, specialized rooms, testing centers, or other unique experimental property or facilities of the Federal laboratories, such as DOE's designated scientific user facilities located across the DOE laboratories. Such facility use is often at the discretion of the Federal laboratory. While this provides the opportunity for outside entities to place personnel at Government facilities, it does not typically provide a mechanism for those personnel to collaborate with Government personnel (Federal employees). DOE's scientific user facilities are open access, through a proposal solicitation process, and do enable collaboration with scientists and engineers that are employees of the laboratory contractor.

    6. Visiting Scientist Programs—These are arrangements allowing industry personnel to work for limited periods of time, usually 6-12 months, in a GOCO laboratory. Depending on the program, costs can be borne by the GOCO laboratory or by the organization sending the personnel, and intellectual property arrangements can be addressed in exchange agreements. Because these laboratories are GOCO facilities, they are subject to the policies and procedures of the contractor organization. DOE's national laboratories operated as GOCOs and NIH (e.g., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research) currently offer visiting scientist opportunities.

    7. Educational Partnership Agreements (EPAs)—These agreements are entered into between the Department of Defense (Defense) and educational institutions, including colleges, universities, and local education agencies, to encourage and enhance the study of scientific disciplines. Under an EPA, a Defense laboratory director may make laboratory personnel available to teach science courses or to assist in the development of science courses and materials for the institution; provide for sabbatical opportunities for faculty and internship opportunities for students of the institution; involve faculty and students of the institution in Defense laboratory projects, cooperate with the institution in developing a program under which students may be given academic credit for work on Defense laboratory projects; provide academic and career advice to students of the institution; loan Defense laboratory equipment to the institution for any purpose and duration in support of such agreement; and transfer commonly used surplus computer or other scientific equipment to the institution. EPAs are authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2194.

    8. Co-Locations—The USDA has a number of laboratories that are co-located on University campuses, which fosters a high level of scientific exchange between the USDA scientists and their university collaborators.

    C. Proposed Regulation Implementing 15 U.S.C. 3712 Personnel Exchanges

    The regulation proposed by NIST to implement 15 U.S.C. 3712, in consultation jointly with the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, is intended to accomplish two main objectives. The first objective is to clarify the appropriate use of CRADA authority under 15 U.S.C. 3710a for personnel exchanges where a Federal laboratory has an existing relationship with the potential partner through another legal mechanism, such as a grant or cooperative agreement. The second objective is to increase the use of existing authorities to implement personnel exchange programs at Federal Laboratories: (1) By utilizing the existing CRADA authority to transfer personnel to and from a Federal laboratory for joint research projects or the development of existing laboratory technology; and (2) by utilizing the General Services Administration (GSA)'s Presidential Innovation Fellows program to offer Federal laboratories additional options for implementing Entrepreneur-in-Residence programs.

    Under the proposed rule, all existing provisions in part 17 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “Licensing of Government-Owned Inventions in the Custody of the Department of Commerce,” which are outdated, would be deleted. Outdated subpart A implemented for the Department of Commerce licensing rules found at 41 CFR part 101-4, which were themselves removed at 50 FR 28402, July 12, 1985. Outdated subpart B was reserved. Outdated subpart C set forth appeal procedures addressed to the outdated licensing rules of subpart A. All subparts are obsolete, and the rules governing the licensing of government-owned inventions are today found in 37 CFR part 404. The heading of part 17 would be revised to read “Personnel Exchanges Between Federal Laboratories and Non-Federal Entities,” and five new sections would be added.

    Section 17.1, Scope, sets forth the scope of revised part 17, which is to implement 15 U.S.C. 3712 and to clarify the appropriate use of personnel exchanges in relation to Federal laboratory CRADAs under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 3710a(a)(1), including CRADAs involving as parties recipients of Federal funding under grants and contracts, which could include National Network for Manufacturing Innovation awardees.

    Section 17.2, Definitions, provides definitions for certain terms used in this part.

    Section 17.3, Exchange of Federal Laboratory Personnel with Recipients of Federal Funding, provides in paragraph (a) that the existence of a funding agreement (as defined in 35 U.S.C. 201(b)) between a Federal laboratory and a contractor shall not preclude a CRADA with that contractor, where the Federal laboratory director makes a determination that the technical subject matter of the funding agreement is sufficiently distinct from that of the CRADA. Paragraph (a) also provides that a contractor which is a collaborating party shall in no event reimburse a Federal agency under a CRADA using funds awarded to the contractor by that agency.

    Paragraph (b) of section 17.3 provides that a Federal laboratory may exchange personnel with a contractor under a CRADA where the determination required under paragraph (a) cannot be made, provided that the CRADA includes at least one collaborating party in addition to the Federal laboratory and that contractor. In that circumstance, the Federal laboratory shall not provide services, property, or other resources to that contractor under the CRADA, and if any individual terms of that contractor's funding agreement conflict with the terms of the multi-party CRADA, then the funding agreement terms will control as applied to that contractor and the Federal laboratory only.

    Paragraph (c) of section 17.3 sets forth a number of factors which may be taken into account in making the “sufficiently distinct” determination required under paragraph (a), including whether the conduct of specified research or development efforts under the CRADA would require the contractor to perform tasks identical to those required under the funding agreement; whether existing intellectual property to be provided by the Federal laboratory or the contractor under the CRADA is the same as that provided under, or referenced in, the funding agreement; whether the contractor's employees performing the specified research or development efforts under the CRADA are the same employees performing the tasks required under the funding agreement; and whether services, property or other resources contemplated by the Federal Laboratory to be provided to the contractor for the specified research or development efforts under the CRADA would materially benefit the contractor in the performance of tasks required under the funding agreement.

    Section 17.4, Personnel Exchanges from a Federal Agency, provides in paragraph (a)(1) that a Federal laboratory may exchange its personnel with a collaborating party under a CRADA where no invention currently exists. Under paragraph (a)(2), a Federal laboratory may exchange personnel with a non-Federal collaborating party for the purposes of developing or commercializing an invention in which the Federal government has an ownership interest, including an invention made by an employee or former employee while in the employment or service of the Federal government, and such personnel exchanged may include such employee or former employee who is an inventor. Paragraph (a)(2) also provides that funding may be provided by the non-federal collaborating party to the Federal laboratory for the participation of the Federal employee in developing or commercializing an invention, including costs for salary and other expenses, such as benefits and travel. Consistent with guidance in the Office of Legal Counsel's Memorandum for Gary Davis, Acting Director, Office of Government Ethics, September 7, 2000, “Application of 18 U.S.C. 209 to Employee-Inventors Who Receive Outside Royalty Payments,” paragraph (a)(2) also sets forth that royalties from inventions received through a license agreement negotiated with the Federal laboratory and paid by the laboratory to an inventor who is a Federal employee are considered Federal compensation. Paragraph (a)(3) provides that where an employee leaves Federal service in order to receive salary or other compensation from a non-Federal organization, a Federal laboratory may use reinstatement authority in accordance with 5 CFR 315.401, or other applicable authorities, to rehire the former Federal employee at the conclusion of the exchange.

    In exchanging personnel with a collaborating party under a CRADA, as in any other exercise of the CRADA authority, a Federal Agency should take into account the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 3710a(c)(3) regarding standards of conduct for its employees for resolving potential conflicts of interest.

    Section 17.5, Personnel Exchanges to a Federal Agency, provides that a Federal Agency may provide funds for non-federal personnel exchanged in order to bring into a Federal laboratory outside personnel with expertise in scientific commercialization through the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, and that an Agency will engage with the General Services Administration (GSA) to transfer funding for exchanged personnel and to select and place Entrepreneurs-In-Residence at the laboratory for the purposes of evaluating the laboratory's technologies, and providing technical consulting to facilitate readying a technology for commercialization by an outside entity.

    III. Request for Comments

    NIST requests comments on this proposed rule to encourage the exchange of personnel among Federal laboratories, State, local, and tribal governments, academia and industry, including small businesses. NIST is requesting ideas and comments about ways in which an integrated program might be developed. We have included some questions that you might consider as you develop your comments.

    1. Personnel exchanges commonly occur in the course of CRADAs involving Federal laboratories and collaborating parties. Are there ways to further promote personnel exchanges involving CRADAs? Are there ways to use the CRADA authority to develop a more integrated personnel exchange program? Are there other mechanisms that you find effective and/or easier to use that should be included in this regulation?

    2. Do the proposed regulations facilitate the exchange of personnel between Federal laboratories and academia and industry? Are there additional mechanisms that should be incorporated in this regulation?

    When submitting comments, remember to:

    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    ii. Please organize your comments by referencing the specific question you are responding to or the relevant section number in the proposed regulatory text.

    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    v. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

    vi. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

    vii. Comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language will not be considered.

    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    IV. References 1. Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. (n.d.) Technology Transfer Mechanisms. Retrieved from http://www.federallabs.org/education/t2-mechanisms/. 2. Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. (2011). Technology Transfer Desk Reference. Retrieved from: http://globals.federallabs.org/pdf/T2_Desk_Reference.pdf. 3. Kalil, T. and Wong, J. (2015). Lab to Market: Cross Agency Priority Goal Quarterly Progress Update, Fiscal Year 2015 Quarter 4. Retrieved from: https://www.performance.gov/node/3395/view?view=public#progress-update. 4. Howieson, S.V. et al (2013). Federal Personnel Exchange Mechanisms. Retrieved from https://www.ida.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/Publications/STPIPubs/D-4906.ashx. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866

    This rulemaking is a significant regulatory action under Sections 3(f)(3) and 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866, as it raises novel policy issues. This rulemaking, however, is not an “economically significant” regulatory action under Section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order, as it does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any one year, and it does not have a material adverse effect on the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

    Executive Order 13132

    This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the preparation and availability for public comment of “an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” which will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:

    A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of this proposed rule are contained in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The statutory basis for this proposed rule is provided by 15 U.S.C. 3712. This proposed rule, if implemented, is not expected to directly affect any small entities. Federal agencies that would be directly affected by this rulemaking are not small governmental jurisdictions, small organizations, or small businesses, as defined by the RFA. 5 U.S.C. 601. Any requirements imposed by the proposed rule would be obligatory only upon Federal agencies. NIST does not expect the issuance of the proposed rule to result in any direct impacts to small entities pursuant to the RFA. Small entities could potentially benefit from exchanging personnel with Federal agencies.

    The information provided above supports a determination that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this rulemaking, if adopted, would directly affect Federal agencies and not small entities, NIST concludes the action would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no new collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    This proposed rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 17

    Federal employees, Inventions and patents, Laboratories, Research and development, Science and technology, Technology transfer.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Institute of Standards and Technology proposes to revise 15 CFR part 17 as follows:

    PART 17—PERSONNEL EXCHANGES BETWEEN FEDERAL LABORATORIES AND NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES Sec. 17.1 Scope. 17.2 Definitions. 17.3 Exchange of Federal laboratory personnel with recipients of Federal funding. 17.4 Personnel exchanges from a Federal agency. 17.5 Personnel exchanges to a Federal agency. Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 3712.

    § 17.1 Scope.

    (a) The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, Public Law 96-480, as amended (codified at title 15 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), section 3701 et seq.)(the Stevenson-Wydler Act), sets forth a national policy to renew, expand, and strengthen cooperation among academia, Federal laboratories, labor, and industry, in forms including personnel exchanges (15 U.S.C. 3701(3)). One proven method to ensure that federal innovations are passed to industry and the public is to encourage frequent interactions among Federal laboratories, academic institutions, and industry, including both large and small businesses. In accordance with applicable ethics regulations and Agency policies, exchanges of personnel between Federal laboratories and outside collaborators should be encouraged (15 U.S.C. 3702(5)). Models that include federal funding, as well as those that are executed without federal funding, are encouraged.

    (b) This part implements 15 U.S.C. 3712 and provides clarification regarding the appropriate use of personnel exchanges in relation to Federal laboratory Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 3710a.

    (c) This part is applicable to exchanges of personnel between Federal laboratories and parties to a CRADA under 15 U.S.C. 3710a(a)(1).

    § 17.2 Definitions.

    (a) The term funding agreement shall have the meaning according to it under 35 U.S.C. 201(b).

    (b) The term contractor shall have the meaning according to it under 35 U.S.C. 201(c).

    (c) The term Federal laboratory shall have the meaning according to it under 15 U.S.C. 3703(4).

    § 17.3 Exchange of Federal laboratory personnel with recipients of Federal funding.

    (a) In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3710a(b)(3)(A) and 3710a(d)(1), a Federal laboratory may provide personnel, services, property, and other resources to a collaborating party, with or without reimbursement (but not funds to non-Federal parties) for the conduct of specified research or development efforts under a CRADA which are consistent with the missions of the Federal laboratory. The existence of a funding agreement between a Federal laboratory and a contractor shall not preclude the Federal laboratory from using its authority under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to enter into a CRADA with the contractor as a collaborating party for the conduct of specified research or development efforts, where the director of the Federal laboratory determines that the technical subject matter of the funding agreement is sufficiently distinct from that of the CRADA. In no event shall a contractor which is a collaborating party reimburse a Federal agency under a CRADA using funds awarded to the contractor by that agency.

    (b)(1) A Federal laboratory may enter into a CRADA with a contractor as a collaborating party for the purpose of exchange of personnel for the conduct of specified research or development efforts where the determination required under paragraph (a) of this section could not be made, provided that:

    (i) The CRADA includes at least one collaborating party in addition to the Federal laboratory and that contractor; and

    (ii) The Federal laboratory shall not provide services, property or other resources to that contractor under the CRADA.

    (2) Where a Federal laboratory enters into a CRADA with a contractor under this paragraph (b), the terms of that contractor's funding agreement shall normally supersede the terms of the CRADA, to the extent that any individual terms conflict, as applied to that contractor and the Federal laboratory only.

    (c) In making the determination required under paragraph (a) of this section, the director of a Federal laboratory may consider factors including the following:

    (1) Whether the conduct of specified research or development efforts under the CRADA would require the contractor to perform tasks identical to those required under the funding agreement;

    (2) Whether existing intellectual property to be provided by the Federal laboratory or the contractor under the CRADA is the same as that provided under, or referenced in, the funding agreement;

    (3) Whether the contractor's employees performing the specified research or development efforts under the CRADA are the same employees performing the tasks required under the funding agreement; and

    (4) Whether services, property or other resources contemplated by the Federal laboratory to be provided to the contractor for the specified research or development efforts under the CRADA would materially benefit the contractor in the performance of tasks required under the funding agreement.

    § 17.4 Personnel exchanges from a Federal laboratory.

    (a) For personnel exchanges in which a Federal laboratory maintains funding for Federal personnel provided to a collaborating party—

    (1) in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3710a(b)(3)(A), a Federal laboratory may exchange personnel with a collaborating party for the purposes of specified scientific or technical research towards a mutual goal consistent with the mission of the Agency, where no invention currently exists, or

    (2) in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3710a(b)(3)(C), a Federal laboratory may exchange personnel with a non-Federal collaborating party for the purposes of developing or commercializing an invention in which the Federal government has an ownership interest, including an invention made by an employee or former employee while in the employment or service of the Federal government, and such personnel exchanged may include such employee or former employee who is an inventor.

    (i) Funding may be provided by the non-federal collaborating party to the Federal laboratory for the participation of the Federal employee in developing or commercializing an invention, including costs for salary and other expenses, such as benefits and travel.

    (ii) Royalties from inventions received through a license agreement negotiated with the Federal laboratory and paid by the Federal laboratory to an inventor who is a Federal employee are considered Federal compensation.

    (3) Where an employee leaves Federal service in order to receive salary or other compensation from a non-Federal organization, a Federal laboratory may use reinstatement authority in accordance with 5 CFR 315.401, or other applicable authorities, to rehire the former Federal employee at the conclusion of the exchange.

    § 17.5 Personnel exchanges to a Federal agency.

    For exchanges in which a Federal Agency provides funds for the non-federal personnel—

    (a) Outside personnel with expertise in scientific commercialization may be brought in to a Federal laboratory through the Presidential Innovation Fellows program (see 5 CFR 213.3102(r)) for Entrepreneur-In-Residence programs or similar, related programs.

    (b) An Agency will engage with the General Services Administration (GSA) to transfer funding for exchanged personnel, and will work with GSA to select and place Entrepreneurs-In-Residence at the laboratory for the purposes of evaluating the laboratory's technologies, and providing technical consulting to facilitate readying a technology for commercialization by an outside entity.

    Kent Rochford, Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14723 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 450 Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Part 613 [Docket No. FHWA-2016-0016; FHWA RIN 2125-AF68; FTA RIN 2132-AB28] Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    The FHWA and FTA propose revisions to the transportation planning regulations to promote more effective regional planning by States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). The goal of the proposed revisions is to result in unified planning products for each urbanized area (UZA), even if there are multiple MPOs designated within that urbanized area. Specifically it would result in MPOs developing a single metropolitan transportation plan, a single transportation improvement program (TIP), and a jointly established set of performance targets for the entire urbanized area and contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan. If multiple MPOs are designated within that urbanized area, they would jointly prepare these unified planning products. To accomplish this, the proposed revisions clarify that the metropolitan planning area must include the entire urbanized area and contiguous area expected to become urbanized within 20 years.

    These proposed revisions would better align the planning regulations with statutory provisions concerning the establishment of metropolitan planning area (MPA) boundaries and the designation of MPOs. This includes the statutory requirement for the MPA to include an urbanized area in its entirety, and the exception provision to allow more than one MPO to serve a single MPA if warranted by the size and complexity of the MPA. The rulemaking would establish clearer operating procedures, and reinstate certain coordination and decisionmaking requirements for situations where there is more than one MPO serving an MPA. The proposed rule includes a requirement for unified planning products for the MPA including jointly established performance targets within an MPA, and a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire MPA in order to result in planning products that reflect the regional needs of the entire urbanized area. These unified planning products would be jointly developed by the multiple MPOs in such MPAs where more than one MPO is designated. The FHWA and FTA propose to phase in implementation of these proposed coordination requirements and the proposed requirements for MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreements over 2 years.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail or hand deliver comments to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). You may review the DOT complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Electronic Access and Filing

    This document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's Web site at: http://www.thefederalregister.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For FHWA: Mr. Harlan W. Miller, Planning Oversight and Stewardship Team (HEPP-10), (202) 366-0847; or Ms. Janet Myers, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-2019. For FTA: Ms. Sherry Riklin, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 366-5407; Mr. Dwayne Weeks, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 493-0316; or Mr. Christopher Hall, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-5218. Both agencies are located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., ET for FHWA, and 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., ET for FTA, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Summary

    This regulation proposes to improve the transportation planning process by strengthening the coordination of MPOs and States and promoting the use of regional approaches to planning and decisionmaking. The proposed rule would emphasize the importance of applying a regional perspective during the planning process, to ensure that transportation investments reflect the needs and priorities of an entire region. Recognizing the critical role MPOs play in providing for the well-being of a region, this proposed rule would strengthen the voice of MPOs in the transportation planning process.

    This proposed rule would revise the regulatory definition of “metropolitan planning area” (MPA) to better align with the statutory requirements in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.1 Specifically, the proposed rule would amend the definition of MPA in 23 CFR 450.104 to include the conditions in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2) that require the MPA, at a minimum, include the entire urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the metropolitan transportation plan. By aligning the regulatory definition of the MPA with the statute, the proposed rule would acknowledge that the MPA is dynamic. The MPA is the basic geographic unit for metropolitan planning; therefore this requirement will ensure that planning activities consider the entire region of the urbanized area consistently.

    1 For simplicity, the remainder of this NPRM refers only to the planning provisions codified in title 23, although similar provisions also are codified in chapter 53 of title 49.

    An exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7) allows multiple MPOs to be designated within a single MPA if the Governor and MPO determine that the size and complexity of the area make multiple MPOs appropriate; the proposed rule would establish certain requirements applicable in such instances where multiple MPOs serve a single MPA. It would also establish certain requirements applicable in such instances where an MPO's urbanized area spreads into the MPAs of neighboring MPOs. First, the proposed rule would clarify that MPA boundaries are not necessarily synonymous with MPO boundaries. Second, the proposed rule would amend § 450.310(e) of the regulation to clarify that, where more than one MPO serves an MPA, the Governor and affected MPOs will establish or adjust the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA by agreement. Third, the proposed rule would establish additional coordination requirements for areas where multiple MPOs are designated within the MPA. Under the proposed rule, the Governor and MPOs would determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA make the designation of multiple MPOs appropriate; if they determine it is not appropriate then the MPOs would be required to merge or adjust their jurisdiction such that there is only one MPO within the MPA. If they determine that designation of multiple MPOs is appropriate, then the MPOs may remain separate, with separate boundaries of responsibility within the MPA, as established by the affected MPOs and the Governor. However, the proposed rule would require those multiple separate MPOs to jointly develop unified planning products: A single long range plan (referred to as the metropolitan transportation plan), a single TIP, and a jointly established set of performance targets for the MPA.

    The requirement for unified planning products also applies to urbanized areas that cross State lines. In multistate urbanized areas, the Governors and MPOs designated within the MPA must jointly determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA warrant designation of more than one MPO and must jointly develop unified planning products.

    These requirements for a single planning process and a single metropolitan transportation plan to accommodate the intended growth of a region will enable individuals within that region to better engage in the planning process and facilitate their efforts to ensure that the growth trajectory matches their vision and goals. In order to support the development of these single documents, the MPOs would be required to establish procedures for joint decisionmaking, including a process for resolving disagreements.

    Additionally, the proposed rule seeks to strengthen the role that MPOs play in the planning process by requiring States and MPOs to agree to a process for resolving disagreements and including that process in the documentation reviewed by FHWA and FTA when they make a planning finding under 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(8). The planning finding is a determination on whether the transportation planning process through which statewide transportation plans and programs are developed is consistent with 23 U.S.C. 134-135.

    These proposed changes to the planning regulations are designed to facilitate metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes that are more efficient, more comprehensible to stakeholders and the public, and more focused on projects that address critical regional needs. The proposed rule would help position MPOs to respond to the growing trend of urbanization. It would better align the planning processes with the regional scale envisioned by the performance-based planning framework and particularly those measures focused on congestion and system performance. The proposed rule also would help MPOs to achieve economies of scale in planning by working together and drawing on a larger pool of human, material, financial, and technological resources.

    Table of Key Changes Proposed by the NPRM Proposed change Description Key regulatory sections Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) boundaries The metropolitan planning area shall include—at a minimum—the entire urbanized area plus any contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan 450.104 (Definitions).
  • 450.312 (Metropolitan planning area boundaries).
  • Determination that more than one MPO in an MPA is appropriate If after the publication of this rule or the release of the Decennial Census, there is more than one MPO designated within a single MPA, the Governor and MPO must determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA make designation of more than one MPO appropriate. If they determine it is not appropriate, those MPOs would be required to merge 450.310 (MPO designation and redesignation). Coordination for multiple MPOs within an MPA Where multiple MPOs are designated within a metropolitan planning area, they shall jointly develop the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and performance targets for the MPA. Additionally, the MPOs shall establish procedures for joint decisionmaking as well as a process for resolving disagreements 450.104 (Definitions).
  • 450.306 (Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning process).
  • 450.324 (Development and content of the metropolitan transportation plan).
  • 450.326 (Development and content of the TIP).
  • Coordination of planning process activities between State and MPO States and MPOs shall maintain a current planning agreement, including a process for resolving disagreements. States and MPOs shall coordinate on information, studies, or analyses within the MPA 450.208 (Coordination of planning process activities).
    II. Background MPA and MPO Boundaries

    The metropolitan planning statute defines an MPA as “the geographic area determined by agreement between the metropolitan planning organization for the area and the Governor under subsection [134](e)” 23 U.S.C. 134(b)(1). The agreement on the geographic area is subject to the minimum requirements contained in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(A), which states that each MPA “shall encompass at least the existing urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan”.

    The MPA and MPO provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134 make it clear that the intent for a typical metropolitan planning structure is to have a single MPO per urbanized area. However, the statute does create an exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7), which provides that more than one MPO may be designated within an existing MPA only if the Governor and the existing MPO determine that the size and complexity of the existing MPA make designation of more than one MPO for the area appropriate. Section 134(d)(7) reinforces the interpretation that the norm envisioned by the statute is that urbanized areas not be divided into multiple planning areas.

    In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act was enacted with provisions intended to strengthen metropolitan planning. In particular, the law gave MPOs responsibility for coordinated planning to address the challenges of regional congestion and air quality issues. This enhanced planning role for MPOs was defined in the 1993 planning regulation, which was written to carry out these changes to statute. The 1993 planning regulation described a single coordinated planning process for the metropolitan planning area (MPA) resulting in a single metropolitan transportation plan for the MPA. In several locations, the 1993 regulation recognized the possibility of multiple MPOs within a single MPA and provided expectations for coordination, which included an overall transportation plan for the entire area. (See 58 FR 58040, October 28, 1993). The 1993 regulation stated in the former § 450.310(g) that “where more than one MPO has authority within a metropolitan planning area or a nonattainment or maintenance area, there shall be an agreement between the State departments(s) of transportation and the MPOs describing how the processes will be coordinated to assure the development of an overall transportation plan for the metropolitan planning area.” Further, that regulation stated in former § 450.312(e) that where “more than one MPO has authority in a metropolitan planning area . . . the MPOs and the Governor(s) shall cooperatively establish the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area . . . and the respective jurisdictional responsibilities of each MPO.” In practice, however, many MPOs interpreted the MPA to be synonymous with the boundaries of their MPO's jurisdiction, even in those areas where multiple MPOs existed within a single urbanized area, resulting in multiple “MPAs” within a single urbanized area.

    In 2007, the FHWA and FTA updated the regulations to align with changes made in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and its predecessor, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The revised regulations reflected the practice of having multiple “MPAs” within a single urbanized area, although the statute pertaining to this issue had not changed. The 2007 regulation refers to multiple MPOs within an urbanized area rather than multiple MPOs within an MPA, and the term “MPA” was used to refer synonymously to the boundaries of an MPO. The regulations stated “if more than one MPO has been designated to serve an urbanized area, there shall be a written agreement among the MPOs, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) describing how the metropolitan transportation planning processes will be coordinated to assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs across the MPA boundaries, particularly in cases in which a proposed transportation investment extends across the boundaries of more than one MPA.” See 72 FR 7224, February 14, 2007. The FHWA and FTA adopted that language as § 450.314(d), and redesignated it in a 2016 rulemaking as § 450.314(e).2 The 2007 rule also added § 450.312(h), which explicitly recognizes that, over time, an urbanized area may extend across multiple MPAs. The 2007 rulemaking did not address how to reconcile these regulatory changes with the statutory minimum requirement that an MPA include the urbanized area in its entirety.

    2 Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning; Final Rule, 81 FR 34050, May 27, 2016.

    As a result, since 2007, the language of the regulation has supported the possibility of multiple MPOs within an urbanized area rather than within an MPA. The FHWA and FTA have concluded this 2007 change in the regulatory definition has fostered confusion about the statutory requirements and resulted in less efficient planning outcomes where multiple TIPs and metropolitan transportation plans are developed within a single urbanized area. This proposed rule is designed to correct the problems that have occurred under the 2007 rule and return to the structure embodied in the rule before the 2007 amendments and envisioned in statute. The additional coordination requirements pertain to all MPOs designated within the MPA boundaries.

    Illustrations of metropolitan areas are included in the docket to aid understanding of the distinction between MPO and MPA boundaries, and also the difference between the way MPAs have been designated in practice and the minimum area that must be included as a result of this proposed rulemaking. These illustrations will help clarify the coordination requirements proposed in this rulemaking.

    MPO Coordination Within an MPA

    The metropolitan planning statute calls for “each MPO to prepare and update a transportation plan for its metropolitan planning area” and “develop a TIP for the metropolitan planning area.” 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(1)(A) and (j)(1)(A). As discussed above, the metropolitan planning statute includes an exception provision in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7) that allows more than one MPO in an MPA under certain conditions. In some instances, multiple MPOs have been designated not only within a single MPA, but also within a single urbanized area in an MPA. Presently, such MPOs typically create separate metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs for separate parts of the urbanized area. Currently, the regulations require that where multiple MPOs exist within the same urbanized area, their written agreements must describe how they will coordinate activities. However, the extent and effectiveness of coordination varies, and in some cases effective coordination on regional needs and interests can prove challenging. Ultimately, the Secretary of Transportation believes, and FHWA and FTA concur, that the end result of two or more separate metropolitan transportation planning processes, resulting in two or more separate plans and TIPs for a single urbanized area is most often both inefficient and confusing to the public. For example, members of the public may be affected by projects in multiple MPO jurisdictions, either because they live in the area of one MPO and work or regularly travel to another, or because the MPOs' jurisdictional lines bisect their community. They would therefore find it necessary to contribute to each MPO's separate planning process in order to have their regional concerns adequately considered. Public participation in transportation planning is critical to ensuring that the investment decisions meet the needs of the affected communities.

    Further, a regional perspective is needed if metropolitan transportation planning is to maximize economic opportunities, while also addressing the externalities of growth such as congestion, air and water quality impacts, and impacts on resilience. The Secretary of Transportation believes, and FHWA and FTA concur, that joint decisionmaking is necessary in the multiple MPO situations to best ensure application of a regional perspective. Accordingly, this rulemaking addresses coordination and decisionmaking requirements for MPOs that are subject to the 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7) exception to the one-MPO-per-MPA structure of the metropolitan planning statute.

    Coordination Between States and MPOs

    The statewide planning statute calls for a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive process for developing the statewide plan and the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). 23 U.S.C. 135(a)(3). The statute requires States to develop the long range statewide plan and the STIP in cooperation with MPOs designated under 23 U.S.C. 134. 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(A) and (g)(2)(A). While these statutes require that the State work in cooperation with the MPOs on long-range statewide transportation plans and STIPs, the extent to which MPO voices are heard varies significantly. The nature of decisionmaking authority of MPOs and States varies due to numerous factors, including the extent of local funding for transportation projects. The Secretary of Transportation believes that the voices of MPOs will be strengthened by having a single coordinated metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for each MPA, which should create a united position on transportation needs and priorities within that urbanized area. Ultimately, each relationship between State and MPO is unique, and there may not be a single coordination process that is appropriate for all areas of the country. However, it is the opinion of the Secretary of Transportation that there must be adequate cooperation between States and MPOs. The FHWA and FTA concur in those views, and therefore this proposed rule would require that States and MPOs demonstrate evidence of cooperation, including the existence of an agreed upon dispute resolution process.

    The purpose of the Planning program is to use public funds effectively and FHWA and FTA welcome ideas to improve our planning processes. As such, FHWA and FTA seek comment on how DOT can incorporate processes to further ensure that Federal funds are used efficiency by States and MPOs. How can the Statewide and Non metropolitan and Metropolitan Transportation Planning process provide stronger incentives to States and MPOs to manage transportation funding more effectively?

    III. Section-by-Section Discussion Section 450.104—Definitions

    The proposed rule would revise the definition of “metropolitan planning area” in § 450.104 to add language to align the definition with the basic statutory requirements for MPA boundaries. The purpose of the revision is to help reduce confusion about MPA requirements. The current definition describes the MPA as the geographic area determined by agreement between the MPO(s) for the area and the Governor. That definition does not include any reference to the minimum requirement in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(A) that the MPA must include the entire urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan. The revised definition would add a description of the minimum requirement from the statute, and describe the 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(B) option to include more than the minimum geographic area. The FHWA and FTA specifically ask for comments on whether the rule ought to expressly address how States and MPOs should determine MPA boundaries where two or more MPAs are contiguous or can be expected to be contiguous in the near future. For example, should the rule provide that such MPAs must merge? Alternatively, should the rule allow the States and MPOs to tailor the MPA boundaries and the 20-year urbanization forecast to take the proximity of other MPAs into account?

    The term “Metropolitan Transportation Plan” is revised by changing the location and number of MPO references in the definition, and by adding a reference to the MPA. Similar changes are proposed for the definition of “Transportation Improvement Program” to make it clear the definition encompasses situations where multiple MPOs in an MPA work together to develop a unified TIP. The inclusion of new references to the MPA in the definitions clarifies that the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the TIP are developed through the metropolitan transportation planning process for the entire MPA.

    Section 450.208—Coordination of Planning Process Activities

    The proposed rule would strengthen and clarify expectations for State-MPO coordination, and would require metropolitan planning agreements to include coordination strategies and dispute resolution procedures. Section 450.208(a)(1) previously encouraged States to rely on MPO data and analysis for areas within the MPA; the rule would now require coordination between States and MPOs. This change is proposed to ensure States and MPOs employ consistent data, assumptions and other analytical materials when doing transportation planning; this does not affect roles and responsibilities for project prioritization. The section would be further amended by adding language to require the State and MPO to maintain a current planning agreement that includes a process for resolving disagreements. The metropolitan planning agreement, and its inclusion of strategies for coordination and the resolution of disagreements would be included among the other relevant documents considered by FHWA and FTA as part of their periodic determination under 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(8) whether the transportation planning process through which statewide transportation plans and programs are developed is consistent with 23 U.S.C. 134-135.

    Section 450.218—Development and Content of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

    The proposed rule would change the reference to “MPO” to “MPO(s)” in two places. This is to more clearly recognize the possibility that multiple MPOs may be involved with the development of a single metropolitan TIP.

    Section 450.226—Phase-In of New Requirements

    The proposed rule would provide a phase-in provision for the proposed requirement in 23 CFR 450.208(a)(1) that metropolitan planning agreement must include strategies for coordination and the resolution of disagreements. In proposed § 450.226(h), the rule would provide a phase-in period of 2 years after the publication date of a final rule. The compliance date for all other proposed changes in 23 CFR part 450, subpart A would be the effective date of the final rule. The FHWA and FTA seek comments on the appropriateness of the proposed 2-year phase-in period.

    Section 450.300—Purpose

    The proposed rule would add a reference to MPA in the first sentence in § 450.300(a). The addition makes it clear that an MPO carries out the planning process for its MPA. This change will enhance the consistency in the rule, maintaining the statutory focus on the MPO as carrying out planning for its MPA, of which one or more entire urbanized areas are a part.

    Section 450.306—Scope of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process

    The proposed rule would add a new paragraph to § 450.306(d). Where there are multiple MPOs for an MPA, the new provision would require the MPOs to jointly establish the MPA's performance targets under 23 CFR part 490 (where applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d). This requirement for a joint target-setting process would be consistent with the requirements established in the proposed rule for a joint metropolitan plan and TIP for the MPA shared by the MPOs. The FHWA and FTA request comments on the proposed language, and request ideas for alternatives that might better accomplish the goals embodied in the proposal. Those goals are to ensure performance targets appropriately reflect the needs and priorities of the MPA as a whole, and to avoid a situation where the MPOs within a single MPA select inconsistent or conflicting performance targets.

    In paragraph (i), the proposed rule would change the reference from “MPO” to “MPO(s)” in the last sentence of the paragraph. This is to more clearly recognize the possibility that multiple MPOs may be involved with the development of an abbreviated plan or TIP using simplified procedures.

    Section 450.310—Metropolitan Planning Organization Designation and Redesignation

    As provided in statute, some MPAs will necessarily be so large and complex that multiple MPOs are needed within the MPA. The proposed rule reflects the view, based on an interpretation of the planning statutes and on FHWA and FTA experiences, that when there are multiple MPOs within the same MPA, enhanced coordination and joint decisionmaking procedures are needed to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive planning process within the MPA. The proposed rule would revise § 450.310(e) by clarifying that more than one MPO can be designated for an MPA only when the Governor and MPO(s) determine it is warranted, in accordance with § 450.310(e). This change would reinforce the statutory principle that ordinarily only one MPO shall be designated for an MPA. The proposed rule retains the statutory standard permitting the designation of multiple MPOs within an MPA only if the Governor and existing MPO determine that the MPA's size and complexity necessitate multiple MPOs. Several references in the existing rule to “urbanized areas” would be replaced with “MPA” to better align with the statutory language.

    The proposed rule would articulate in § 450.310(e) the limited exemption to the requirement of one MPO per MPA and the requirements applicable when multiple MPOs are designated within the same MPA. The case could arise that multiple MPOs that were previously designated will come to be located within the same MPA, either because this rule, once effective, will require some Governors and MPOs to reevaluate the bounds of MPAs, or due to the future merger of urbanized areas following a Decennial Census. In those situations, paragraph (e) provides that the Governor and MPOs would have to determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA warrant the designation of multiple MPOs.

    The statute envisions a single MPO per MPA, with the exception that more than one MPO may be designated only if the Governor and existing MPO determine that the size and complexity of the metropolitan planning area make the designation of multiple MPOs appropriate. However, because of the past practice of many MPOs and Governors treating the term MPA as essentially synonymous with the territory of any particular MPO, many MPOs are not in compliance with the statute. This rule would require some MPOs and Governors to conceptualize for the first time the bounds of the MPAs as geographically distinct from the jurisdictional boundaries of the MPOs. Accordingly, for any MPOs that newly share an MPA with one or more other MPOs as a result of this rulemaking enforcing the statutory definition of MPA, the affected MPOs and Governor must make a determination that the MPA is of a size and complexity that makes multiple MPOs appropriate, or must merge the MPOs in MPAs where the Governor and MPOs determine that the size and complexity do not make multiple MPOs appropriate.

    If the Governor and MPOs determine that multiple MPOs are not warranted based on the size and complexity of the MPA, those MPOs would have to merge and follow the redesignation procedures in § 450.310(h). Where it is determined that multiple MPOs are warranted, coordination still would be required among the MPOs in the affected MPA under the rule, with revisions to emphasize that the MPOs would jointly develop a unified plan, TIP, and performance targets for the entire MPA. The MPOs still would be required to establish official, written agreements that clearly identify areas of coordination, the division of transportation planning responsibilities among and between the MPOs, and procedures for joint decisionmaking and the resolution of disagreements—all for and within the affected MPA. Together with the Governor, those MPOs would jointly establish the MPO boundaries within the MPA.

    The proposed rule would change a reference to “entire MPA” in paragraph (m), concerning coordination in multistate metropolitan areas, to “entire metropolitan area.” The FHWA and FTA believe “metropolitan area” is consistent with “multistate metropolitan area” and more clearly conveys the intent of the paragraph.

    Section 450.312—Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries

    The proposed rule would reorganize, and make technical edits to, existing § 450.312. The proposed rule would add or clarify requirements through revisions in paragraphs (c), (f), (h), and (i).

    The proposed rule would reorganize § 450.312(a) by switching the order of the first two sentences. The proposed rule would move certain references to “MPA” and add language in proposed § 450.312(a)(1) to clarify and emphasize that an agreement between the Governor and an MPO concerning the boundaries of an MPA is subject to the minimum requirement that the MPA contain the entire existing urbanized area plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan. The proposed rule also adds a new § 450.312(a)(2) to clarify that when MPOs are contiguous to the same non-urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan, they must agree on their mutual MPA boundaries so that their boundaries do not overlap.

    Section 450.312(b) would be reorganized. Section 450.312(b) and (c) would be edited for consistency with the requirement that an MPA contain an urbanized area in its entirety.

    Section 450.312(f) would be revised to more closely align with the language of 23 U.S.C. 134(f). That provision calls for the Secretary to encourage the Governors and MPOs in a multistate metropolitan area to coordinate transportation planning across the entire metropolitan area. The FHWA and FTA concluded the statute's use of the term “metropolitan area,” rather than the statutorily-defined term “MPA,” reflects an intention to promote coordinated planning across a broader area than a single MPA. This interpretation takes into consideration the plain language meaning of “metropolitan area.” as well as the historical use of the term by the Federal Government.3 The type of coordination called for in 23 U.S.C. 134(f), as reflected in the proposed revisions to § 450.312(f), reaches beyond MPAs to include not only the core urban areas but also outlying areas that are economically and socially integrated with the urban areas. The proposed rule also would add language describing the compact authority contained in 23 U.S.C. 134(f).

    3See, e.g., the U.S. Census Bureau discussions in “Metropolitan Areas” available online at https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/geography/metropolitan_areas.html (as of March 2016) and “Metropolitan Areas Standards Review Project (MASRP)” available online at http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/masrp.html (as of march 2016); see also Office of management and Budget discussion in its Notice of Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (65 FR 82228, at 82228-82229 (December 27, 2000).

    Section 450.312(h) would be entirely rewritten for consistency with the proposed rule's emphasis on the statutory requirement that all of an urbanized area be contained in the same MPA. As proposed, § 450.312(h) would describe the organizational options available to Governors and MPOs where more than one MPO is designated in an MPA, as authorized by the exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7). Proposed § 450.312(h)(1) through (3) would describe minimum requirements applicable where the multiple MPOs exist in a single MPA. The three requirements would be (1) a written agreement among the MPOs to identify how planning decisions will be made and carried out, (2) use of joint decisionmaking to develop a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire MPA, and (3) establishment of the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA by agreement of the Governor and the affected MPOs.

    The proposed rule would revise § 450.312(i), which addresses reviews of MPA boundaries after each Census. The changes would include clarifying that the minimum requirements for MPAs apply in this situation. Following a Decennial Census, the MPO(s) are required to review the MPA boundaries to ensure compliance with the minimum statutory requirements. This includes changes in urbanized areas that result in the merging of previously separate urbanized areas, or expansion of urbanized areas into a neighboring MPA. Under the proposed rule, if a Census results in two previously separate urbanized areas being defined as a single urbanized area, the Governor and MPO(s) would have to redetermine the affected MPAs as a single MPA that includes the entire new urbanized area plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period of the transportation plan. The MPOs may remain separate only if the Governor and MPOs determine that the size and complexity of the MPA make it appropriate to have multiple MPOs designated for the area, as described in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7). This paragraph also clarifies the responsibilities when two or more MPOs may be adjacent to the same non-urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan, or when an urbanized area expands into a neighboring MPA. In these situations, the Governor and MPOs are encouraged to merge adjacent MPAs when urbanized areas are contiguous or when the urbanized areas are expected to become contiguous within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan, but they must at a minimum agree on their mutual MPA boundaries. This paragraph also establishes a timeline for compliance following a Decennial Census that results in the merger of two or more previously separate MPAs.

    The proposed rule would add a new paragraph—§ 450.312(j)—which would enumerate the situations in which a Governor and MPOs are encouraged to merge multiple MPAs into a single MPA, including when multiple urbanized areas are directly adjacent to each other, when they are expected to grow to become adjacent within 20 years, or when they are adjacent to the same non-urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within 20 years.

    The proposed rule would change a reference in the renumbered § 450.312(k) from “MPO” to “MPO(s)” for consistency with other proposed changes.

    Section 450.314—Metropolitan Planning Agreements

    The proposed rule would change several references in § 450.314 from “MPO” to “MPO(s)” for consistency with other proposed changes in the rule.

    The proposed rule would make several changes to § 450.314(e). The rule would change “an urbanized area” in the first sentence to “an MPA,” to better reflect the statutory relationship between MPOs, MPAs, and urbanized areas. The sentence would also be changed to require development of a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for an MPA. Where a proposed transportation investment extends across the boundaries of more than one MPA, the proposed rule would require MPOs to coordinate to assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs. This would replace language in the existing rule that calls for consistent plans and TIPs across the MPA. The proposed rule would require, rather than encourage, the use of coordinated data collection, analysis, and planning assumptions across the MPA. The proposed rule would strongly encourage the use of such practices across neighboring MPOs that are not within the same MPA. The FHWA and FTA seek comments on what, if any, exemptions ought to be contained in the rule from these requirements, and what criteria might be used for such an exemption.

    The proposed rule would eliminate the phrase “urbanized area” from § 450.314(f), concerning multistate MPAs, and change existing references from “multistate area” to “multistate MPA.” These changes will make the provision more consistent with the planning statute and other proposed changes in the rule.

    Under the proposed rule, § 450.314(g) would be revised for consistency with the statutory requirement that all of an urbanized are be included within the same MPA. The proposed rule would clarify that the rule's existing requirement for a written agreement on roles and responsibilities for meeting transportation management area (TMA) requirements applies where more than one MPO serve the MPA containing the TMA.

    Similar changes would be made in § 450.314(h), to clarify that the cooperative development and sharing of information related to performance management applies when an MPA includes an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA as well as an urbanized area that is not a TMA.

    Section 450.316—Interested Parties, Participation, and Consultation

    The proposed rule would revise § 450.316(b), (c), and (d) by changing references from “MPO” to “MPO(s).” These changes would make the references consistent with other changes proposed in this rule.

    Section 450.324—Development and Content of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan

    References to “MPO” in several parts of § 450.324 would be changed to “MPO(s)” for consistency with other proposed changes to the rule. The proposed rule would redesignate the current § 450.3249(c) through (m) as § 450.324(d) through (n), respectively, and add a new paragraph (c). The new provision would require that, if more than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, those MPOs within the MPA shall (1) jointly develop a single metropolitan transportation plan for the MPA; (2) jointly establish, for the MPA, the performance targets that address the performance measures described in 23 CFR part 490 (where applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d); and (3) agree to a process for making a single conformity determination on the joint plan (in nonattainment or maintenance areas). The FHWA and FTA seek comments on what, if any, exemptions ought to be contained in the rule from these requirements, and what criteria might be used for such an exemption. The FHWA and FTA also request comments on the question whether additional changes are needed in FHWA and FTA regulations on performance measures and target setting (e.g., 23 CFR part 490) to cross-reference this new planning provision on target-setting.

    Section 450.326—Development and Content of the Transportation Improvement Program

    The proposed rule would add a sentence to § 450.326(a) to require that in MPAs with multiple MPOs the MPOs must jointly develop a single TIP for the MPA. The rule would require such MPOs, if in nonattainment or maintenance areas, to agree on a process for making a single conformity determination on the joint TIP. The FHWA and FTA seek comments on what, if any, exemptions ought to be contained in the rule from these requirements, and what criteria might be used for such an exemption.

    The proposed rule would change “MPO” to “MPO(s)” in paragraphs (a), (b), (j), and (p). Those changes would be made for better consistency with other changes proposed in the rulemaking.

    Section 450.328—TIP Revisions and Relationship to the STIP

    The proposed rule would change “MPO” to “MPO(s)” in § 450.328(a), (b), and (c). The changes would be made for better consistency with other changes proposed in the rule.

    Section 450.330—TIP Action by the FHWA and the FTA

    The proposed rule would change “MPO” to “MPO(s)” in § 450.330(a) and (c). Section 450.330(c) would be clarified by changing the first part of the first sentence from “[i]f an MPO has not . . .”, to “[i]f an MPO or MPOs have not . . .” All these changes are for better consistency with proposed revisions in other parts of the rule concerning how planning requirements apply where there are multiple MPOs in an MPA provisions, as authorized by the exception provision in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7).

    Section 450.332—Project Selection From the TIP

    The proposed rule would change “MPO” to “MPO(s)” in § 450.332(b) and (c), for better consistency with other changes proposed in the rule.

    Section 450.334—Annual Listing of Obligated Projects

    The proposed rule would change “MPO” to “MPO(s)” in § 450.334(a), for better consistency with other changes proposed in the rulemaking.

    Section 450.336—Self-Certifications and Federal Certifications

    The proposed rule would change “MPO” to “MPO(s)” in several places in § 450.336(b), for better consistency with other changes proposed in the rule.

    Section 450.340—Phase-In of New Requirements

    The proposed rule would add phase-in implementing provisions to § 450.340 for certain parts of the proposed rule. The compliance date for all other proposed changes would be the effective date of the final rule.

    In a new paragraph (h), FHWA and FTA propose giving States and MPOs 2 years before they would have to be fully compliant with the MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreement provisions in §§ 450.310 and 450.312, and with the requirements for jointly established performance targets and a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire MPA. The proposed rule would require the Governor and MPOs to document their determination of whether the size and complexity of the MPA justify the designation of multiple MPOs, however, the decision would not be subject to approval by FHWA and FTA. Full compliance for all MPOs within the MPA would be required before the earliest next regularly scheduled update of a metropolitan transportation plan for any MPO within the MPA, following the second anniversary of the effective date of a final rule, if adopted. The FHWA and FTA seek comment on the appropriateness of the proposed 2-year phase-in period.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FHWA and FTA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period and after FHWA and FTA have had the opportunity to review the comments submitted.

    A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA and FTA have determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed regulation seeks to improve the clarity of the planning rules by addressing ambiguity in MPO boundaries and responsibilities and better aligning the regulations with the statute. Additionally, the MPOs shall establish procedures for joint decisionmaking as well as a process for resolving disagreements. These changes are also intended to result in better outcomes for the MPOs, State agencies, providers of public transportation and the public, by restoring a regional focus for metropolitan planning, and by unifying MPO processes within an urbanized area in order to improve the ability of the public to understand and participate in the transportation planning process. The joint planning requirements of this rule affect primarily urbanized areas with multiple MPOs planning for the same area, or 142 of the 409 MPOs in the country. The affected MPOs are: (1) MPOs that have been designated for an urbanized area for which other MPOs also have been designated and/or (2) MPOs where an adjacent urbanized area has spread into its MPA boundary. The MPOs designated as an MPO in multiple MPAs, in which one or more other MPOs are also designated, would be required to participate in the planning processes for each MPA. Thus, under this rule, MPOs that have jurisdiction in more than one MPA would be required to participate in multiple separate planning processes. However, the affected MPOs could exercise several options to reduce or eliminate these impacts, including adjustment of MPA boundaries to eliminate overlap and by merging MPOs. The FHWA and FTA are seeking comments on what other options affected MPOs could exercise to reduce the overlap while meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements. The FHWA and FTA expect that such responses will reduce the number of MPOs ultimately affected by these coordination requirements.

    All MPOs will be required to review their agreements with State DOTs and providers of public transportation to ensure that there are written procedures for joint decisionmaking and dispute resolution. The FHWA and FTA expect that the MPOs, State DOTs and providers of public transportation will undertake this review and update as they identify how they will implement a performance based planning and programming process required by MAP-21 and revised Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation and Metropolitan Transportation Final Rule (FHWA RIN: 2125-AF52; FTA RIN: 2132-AB10). Because FHWA and FTA anticipate that the reviews would occur due to other existing requirements and in the absence of the proposed rule, the incremental impact, to the extent that there is any, should be quite small.

    In some cases, a Governor (or Governors in the case of multistate urbanized areas) and MPOs could determine that the size and complexity of the area make multiple MPOs appropriate. The proposed rule would require those multiple separate MPOs to jointly develop unified planning products: A single metropolitan transportation plan, a single TIP, and a jointly established set of performance targets for the MPA. This should not create a large burden, and will in some cases reduce overall planning costs. Because MPOs within the same urban area will produce single planning documents, there will be less overlapping and duplicative work. Thus, the rule will enhance efficiency in planning processes for some areas, and generate cost-savings due to creating single rather than multiple documents as well as through pooling of resources and sharing data, models, and other tools. However, the MPOs that are not accustomed to coordinating across boundaries will have to establish relationships and protocols, and reconcile procedures. Coordination could create some initial costs, but those will diminish over time. There is also expected to be some offsetting costs for State DOTs and MPOs due to the necessity of updating metropolitan planning agreements to include dispute resolution processes. These costs are expected to be primarily experienced in the initial year, as processes are developed.

    To the extent that there are any costs, 80 percent are directly reimbursable through Federal transportation funds allocated for metropolitan planning (23 U.S.C. 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)) and for State planning and research (23 U.S.C. 505 and 49 U.S.C. 5313). Thus, the costs to the affected MPOs should be minimal.

    The FHWA and FTA also expect there will be some cost savings for State DOTs, which will benefit from having fewer TIPs to incorporate into their STIPs. There will also be benefits to the public if the coordination requirements result in a planning process in which public participation opportunities are transparent and unified for the entire region, and if members of the public have an easier ability to engage in the planning process.

    The FHWA and FTA seek comments and available data on the costs and benefits of the proposals of this rulemaking.

    In addition, this action complies with the principles of Executive Order 13563. After evaluating the costs and benefits of these proposed amendments, the FHWA and FTA anticipate that the net economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. These changes are not anticipated to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA and FTA have evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and have determined that the action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendment addresses the obligation of Federal funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid highway projects. The proposed rule affects two types of entities: State governments and MPOs. State governments do not meet the definition of a small entity under 5 U.S.C. 601, which have a population of less than 50,000.

    The MPOs are considered governmental jurisdictions, and to qualify as a small entity they would need to serve less than 50,000 people. The MPOs serve urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more. Therefore, the MPOs that might incur economic impacts under this proposed rule do not meet the definition of a small entity.

    I hereby certify that this regulatory action would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The FHWA and FTA have determined that this NPRM does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $155.1 million or more in any one year (when adjusted for inflation) in 2012 dollars for either State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The FHWA and FTA will publish a final analysis, including its response to public comments, when it publishes a final rule. Additionally, the definition of “Federal mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program and Federal Transit Act permits this type of flexibility.

    D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FHWA and FTA have determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA and FTA have also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

    E. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.

    F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The DOT has analyzed this proposed rule under the PRA and has determined that this proposal does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

    G. National Environmental Policy Act

    Federal agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that establish specific criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: (1) Those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, (2) those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Assessment, and (3) those that are categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This action qualifies for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20) (promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives) and 771.117(c)(1) (activities that do not lead directly to construction) for FHWA, and 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction) for FTA. The FHWA and FTA have evaluated whether the action would involve unusual or extraordinary circumstances and have determined that this action would not.

    H. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order (E.O.) 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The FHWA and FTA do not anticipate that this proposed action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630.

    I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA and FTA certify that this action would not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this action under E.O. 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposed action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The proposed rulemaking addresses obligations of Federal funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid highway projects and would not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this action under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The FHWA and FTA have determined that this is not a significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    M. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    The E.O. 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) and DOT Order 5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534, May 10, 2012) (available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/order_56102a/index.cfm) require DOT agencies to achieve Environmental Justice (EJ) as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The DOT agencies must address compliance with E.O. 12898 and the DOT Order in all rulemaking activities.

    The FHWA and FTA have issued additional documents relating to administration of E.O. 12898 and the DOT Order. On June 14, 2012, FHWA issued an update to its EJ order, FHWA Order 6640.23A (FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations (available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/664023a.htm)). On August 15, 2012, FTA's Circular 4703.1 became effective, which contains guidance for States and MPOs to incorporate EJ into their planning processes (available online at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_EJ_Circular_7.14-12_FINAL.pdf).

    The FHWA and FTA have evaluated the final rule under the Executive order, the DOT Order, the FHWA Order, and the FTA Circular. The EJ principles, in the context of planning, should be considered when the planning process is being implemented at the State and local level. As part of their stewardship and oversight of the federally aided transportation planning process of the States, MPOs and operators of public transportation, FHWA and FTA encourage these entities to incorporate EJ principles into the statewide and metropolitan planning processes and documents, as appropriate and consistent with the applicable orders and the FTA Circular. When FHWA and FTA make a future funding or other approval decision on a project basis, they consider EJ.

    Nothing inherent in the proposed rule would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. The proposed rule establishes procedures and other requirements to guide future State and local decisionmaking on programs and projects. Neither the proposed rule nor 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 dictate the outcome of those decisions. The FHWA and FTA have determined that the proposed rule would not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.

    N. Regulation Identifier Number

    A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects 23 CFR Part 450

    Grant programs—transportation, Highway and roads, Mass transportation, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 613

    Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Mass transportation.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2016, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.85. Gregory G. Nadeau, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. Carolyn Flowers, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA and FTA propose to amend title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 450, and title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, part 613, as set forth below:

    Title 23—Highways PART 450—PLANNING ASSISTANCE AND STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 450 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304; 49 CFR 1.85 and 1.90.

    2. Amend § 450.104 by revising the definitions for “Metropolitan planning agreement”, “Metropolitan planning area (MPA)”, “Metropolitan transportation plan”, and “Transportation improvement program (TIP)” to read as follows:
    § 450.104 Definitions.

    Metropolitan planning agreement means a written agreement between the MPO(s), the State(s), and the providers of public transportation serving the metropolitan planning area that describes how they will work cooperatively to meet their mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process.

    Metropolitan planning area (MPA) means the geographic area determined by agreement between the MPO(s) for the area and the Governor, which must at a minimum include the entire urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan, and may include additional areas.

    Metropolitan transportation plan means the official multimodal transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon, that is developed, adopted, and updated by the MPO or MPOs through the metropolitan transportation planning process for the MPA.

    Transportation improvement program (TIP) means a prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of 4 years that is developed and formally adopted by an MPO or MPOs as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process for the MPA, consistent with the metropolitan transportation plan, and required for projects to be eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.

    3. Amend § 450.208 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 450.208 Coordination of planning process activities.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Coordinate planning carried out under this subpart with the metropolitan transportation planning activities carried out under subpart C of this part for metropolitan areas of the State. When carrying out transportation planning activities under this part, the State and MPOs shall coordinate on information, studies, or analyses for portions of the transportation system located in metropolitan planning areas. The State(s), the MPO(s) and the operators of public transportation must have a current metropolitan planning agreement, which will identify coordination strategies that support cooperative decisionmaking and the resolution of disagreements;

    § 450.218 [Amended]
    4. Amend § 450.218(b) by removing “MPO” and adding in its place “MPO(s)” in both places it appears. 5. Amend § 450.226 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 450.226 Phase-in of new requirements.

    (g) On and after [date 2 years after publication of the final rule], the State(s), the MPO(s) and the operators of public transportation must have a current metropolitan planning agreement, which will identify coordination strategies that support cooperative decision-making and the resolution of disagreements.

    Subpart C—Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming 6. Amend § 450.300 by: a. Revising paragraph (a); and b. Removing from paragraph (b) the word “Encourages” and adding in its place “Encourage”.

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 450.300 Purpose.

    (a) Set forth the national policy that the MPO designated for each urbanized area is to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive performance-based multimodal transportation planning process for its MPA, including the development of a metropolitan transportation plan and a TIP, that encourages and promotes the safe and efficient development, management, and operation of surface transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of people and freight (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) and foster economic growth and development, while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution; and

    7. Amend § 450.306 by adding paragraph (d)(5) and revising paragraph (i) as follows:
    § 450.306 Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning process.

    (d) * * *

    (5) In MPAs in which multiple MPOs have been designated, the MPOs shall jointly establish, for the MPA, the performance targets that address performance measures or standards established under 23 CFR part 490 (where applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).

    (i) In an urbanized area not designated as a TMA that is an air quality attainment area, the MPO(s) may propose and submit to the FHWA and the FTA for approval a procedure for developing an abbreviated metropolitan transportation plan and TIP. In developing proposed simplified planning procedures, consideration shall be given to whether the abbreviated metropolitan transportation plan and TIP will achieve the purposes of 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and these regulations, taking into account the complexity of the transportation problems in the area. The MPO(s) shall develop simplified procedures in cooperation with the State(s) and public transportation operator(s).

    8. Amend § 450.310 by revising paragraphs (e) and (m) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 450.310 Metropolitan planning organization designation and redesignation.

    (e) Except as provided in this paragraph, only one MPO shall be designated for each MPA. More than one MPO may be designated to serve an MPA only if the Governor(s) and the existing MPO(s), if applicable, determine that the size and complexity of the MPA make designation of more than one MPO in the MPA appropriate. In those cases where the Governor(s) and existing MPO(s) determine that the size and complexity of the MPA do make it appropriate that two or more MPOs serve within the same MPA, the Governor and affected MPOs by agreement shall jointly establish or adjust the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA, and the MPOs shall establish official, written agreements that clearly identify areas of coordination, the division of transportation planning responsibilities within the MPA among and between the MPOs, and procedures for joint decisionmaking and the resolution of disagreements. If multiple MPOs were designated in a single MPA prior to this rule or in multiple MPAs that merged into a single MPA following a Decennial Census by the Bureau of the Census, and the Governor(s) and the existing MPOs determine that the size and complexity do not make the designation of more than one MPO in the MPA appropriate, then those MPOs must merge together in accordance with the redesignation procedures in this section.

    (m) Each Governor with responsibility for a portion of a multistate metropolitan area and the appropriate MPOs shall, to the extent practicable, provide coordinated transportation planning for the entire metropolitan area. The consent of Congress is granted to any two or more States to:

    9. Section 450.312 is revised to read as follows:
    § 450.312 Metropolitan planning area boundaries.

    (a) At a minimum, the boundaries of an MPA shall encompass the entire existing urbanized area (as defined by the Bureau of the Census) plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the metropolitan transportation plan.

    (1) Subject to this minimum requirement, the boundaries of an MPA shall be determined through an agreement between the MPO and the Governor.

    (2) If two or more MPAs would otherwise include the same non-urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period, the Governor and the relevant MPOs are required to agree on the final boundaries of the MPA or MPAs such that the boundaries of the MPAs do not overlap. In such situations, the Governor and MPOs are encouraged, but not required, to combine the MPAs into a single MPA. Merger into a single MPA would also require the MPOs to merge in accordance with the redesignation procedures described in § 450.310(h), unless the Governor and MPO(s) determine that the size and complexity of the MPA make multiple MPOs appropriate, as described in § 450.310(e).

    (3) The MPA boundaries may be further expanded to encompass the entire metropolitan statistical area or combined statistical area, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget.

    (b) The MPA boundaries that existed on August 10, 2005 shall be retained for an urbanized area designated as a nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) as of August 10, 2005. Such MPA boundaries may only be adjusted by agreement of the Governor and the affected MPO(s) in accordance with the redesignation procedures described in § 450.310(h). The boundaries for an MPA that includes an urbanized area designated as a nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) after August 10, 2005, may be established to coincide with the designated boundaries of the ozone and/or carbon monoxide nonattainment area, in accordance with the requirements in § 450.310(b).

    (c) An MPA boundary may encompass more than one urbanized area, but each urbanized area must be included in its entirety.

    (d) MPA boundaries may be established to coincide with the geography of regional economic development and growth forecasting areas.

    (e) Identification of new urbanized areas within an existing metropolitan planning area by the Bureau of the Census shall not require redesignation of the existing MPO.

    (f) In multistate metropolitan areas, the Governors with responsibility for a portion of the multistate metropolitan area, the appropriate MPO(s), and the public transportation operator(s) are strongly encouraged to coordinate transportation planning for the entire multistate metropolitan area. States involved in such multistate transportation planning may:

    (1) Enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in support of activities authorized under this section as the activities pertain to interstate areas and localities within the States; and

    (2) Establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as the States may determine desirable for making the agreements and compacts effective.

    (g) The MPA boundaries shall not overlap with each other.

    (h) Where the Governor and MPO(s) have determined that the size and complexity of the MPA make it appropriate to have more than one MPO designated for an MPA, the MPOs within the same MPA shall, at a minimum:

    (1) Establish written agreements that clearly identify coordination processes, the division of transportation planning responsibilities among and between the MPOs, and procedures for joint decisionmaking and the resolution of disagreements;

    (2) Through a joint decisionmaking process, develop a single TIP and a single metropolitan transportation plan for the entire MPA;

    (3) Establish the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA, by agreement among all affected MPOs and the Governor.

    (i) The MPO(s) (in cooperation with the State and public transportation operator(s)) shall review the MPA boundaries after each Census to determine if existing MPA boundaries meet the minimum statutory requirements for new and updated urbanized area(s), and shall adjust them as necessary in order to encompass the entire existing urbanized area(s) plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within the 20-year forecast period of the metropolitan transportation plan. If after a Census, two previously separate urbanized areas are defined as a single urbanized area, not later than 180 days after the release of the U.S. Bureau of the Census notice of the Qualifying Urban Areas for a decennial census, the Governor and MPO(s) shall redetermine the affected MPAs as a single MPA that includes the entire new urbanized area plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within the 20-year forecast period of the metropolitan transportation plan. As appropriate, additional adjustments should be made to reflect the most comprehensive boundary to foster an effective planning process that ensures connectivity between modes, improves access to modal systems, and promotes efficient overall transportation investment strategies. If more than one MPO is designated for urbanized areas that are merged following a Decennial Census by the Bureau of the Census, the State and the MPOs shall comply with the MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreement provisions in §§ 450.310 and 450.312, and shall determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA make it appropriate for there to be more than one MPO designated within the MPA. If the size and complexity of the MPA do not make it appropriate to have multiple MPOs, the MPOs shall merge, in accordance with the redesignation procedures in § 450.310(h). If the size and complexity do warrant the designation of multiple MPOs within the MPA, the MPOs shall comply with the requirements for jointly established performance targets, and a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire MPA, before the next metropolitan transportation plan update that occurs on or after two years after the release of the Qualifying Urban Areas for the Decennial Census by the Bureau of the Census, or within 4 years of the designation of the new UZA boundary, whichever occurs first.

    (j) The Governor and MPOs are encouraged to consider merging multiple MPAs into a single MPA when:

    (1) Two or more urbanized areas are adjacent to each other;

    (2) Two or more urbanized areas are expected to expand and become adjacent within a 20 year forecast period; or

    (3) Two or more neighboring MPAs would otherwise both include the same non-urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period.

    (k) Following MPA boundary approval by the MPO(s) and the Governor, the MPA boundary descriptions shall be provided for informational purposes to the FHWA and the FTA. The MPA boundary descriptions shall be submitted either as a geo-spatial database or described in sufficient detail to enable the boundaries to be accurately delineated on a map.

    10. Section 450.314 is revised to read as follows:
    § 450.314 Metropolitan planning agreements.

    (a) The MPO, the State(s), and the providers of public transportation shall cooperatively determine their mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process. These responsibilities shall be clearly identified in written agreements among the MPO(s), the State(s), and the providers of public transportation serving the MPA. To the extent possible, a single agreement between all responsible parties should be developed. The written agreement(s) shall include specific provisions for the development of financial plans that support the metropolitan transportation plan (see § 450.324) and the metropolitan TIP (see § 450.326), and development of the annual listing of obligated projects (see § 450.334).

    (b) The MPO(s), the State(s), and the providers of public transportation should periodically review and update the agreement, as appropriate, to reflect effective changes.

    (c) If the MPA does not include the entire nonattainment or maintenance area, there shall be a written agreement among the State department of transportation, State air quality agency, affected local agencies, and the MPO(s) describing the process for cooperative planning and analysis of all projects outside the MPA within the nonattainment or maintenance area. The agreement must also indicate how the total transportation-related emissions for the nonattainment or maintenance area, including areas outside the MPA, will be treated for the purposes of determining conformity in accordance with the EPA's transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). The agreement shall address policy mechanisms for resolving conflicts concerning transportation-related emissions that may arise between the MPA and the portion of the nonattainment or maintenance area outside the MPA.

    (d) In nonattainment or maintenance areas, if the MPO is not the designated agency for air quality planning under section 174 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), there shall be a written agreement between the MPO and the designated air quality planning agency describing their respective roles and responsibilities for air quality related transportation planning.

    (e) If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, there shall be a written agreement among the MPOs, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) describing how the metropolitan transportation planning processes will be coordinated to assure the development of a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the MPA. In cases in which a proposed transportation investment extends across the boundaries of more than one MPA, the MPOs shall coordinate to assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs. If any part of the urbanized area is a nonattainment or maintenance area, the agreement also shall include State and local air quality agencies. If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, the metropolitan transportation planning processes for affected MPOs must reflect coordinated data collection, analysis, and planning assumptions across the MPA. Coordination of data collection, analysis, and planning assumptions is also strongly encouraged for neighboring MPOs that are not within the same MPA. Coordination efforts and outcomes shall be documented in subsequent transmittals of the UPWP and other planning products, including the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP, to the State(s), the FHWA, and the FTA.

    (f) Where the boundaries of the MPA extend across two or more States, the Governors with responsibility for a portion of the multistate MPA, the appropriate MPO(s), and the public transportation operator(s) shall coordinate transportation planning for the entire multistate MPA, including jointly developing planning products for the MPA. States involved in such multistate transportation planning may:

    (1) Enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in support of activities authorized under this section as the activities pertain to interstate areas and localities within the States; and

    (2) Establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as the States may determine desirable for making the agreements and compacts effective.

    (g) If an MPA includes an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA in addition to an urbanized area that is not designated as a TMA, the non-TMA urbanized area shall not be treated as a TMA. However, if more than one MPO serves the MPA, a written agreement shall be established between the MPOs within the MPA boundaries, which clearly identifies the roles and responsibilities of each MPO in meeting specific TMA requirements (e.g., congestion management process, Surface Transportation Program funds suballocated to the urbanized area over 200,000 population, and project selection).

    (h) The MPO(s), State(s), and the providers of public transportation shall jointly agree upon and develop specific written provisions for cooperatively developing and sharing information related to transportation performance data, the selection of performance targets, the reporting of performance targets, the reporting of performance to be used in tracking progress toward attainment of critical outcomes for the region of the MPO (see § 450.306(d)), and the collection of data for the asset management plans for the NHS for each of the following circumstances: When one MPO serves an urbanized area, when more than one MPO serves an urbanized area, and when an MPA includes an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA as well as an urbanized area that is not a TMA. These provisions shall be documented either as part of the metropolitan planning agreements required under paragraphs (a), (e), and (g) of this section, or documented it in some other means outside of the metropolitan planning agreements as determined cooperatively by the MPO(s), State(s), and providers of public transportation.

    § 450.316 [Amended]
    11. Amend § 450.316(b), (c), and (d) by removing “MPO” and adding in its place “MPO(s)” wherever it occurs. 12. Amend § 450.324 as follows: a. In paragraph (a) replace “MPO” with “MPO(s)” wherever it occurs; b. Redesignate paragraphs (c) through (m) as paragraphs (d) through (n), respectively; c. Add new paragraph (c); and d. In newly redesignated paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g)(10), (g)(11)(iv), (h), (k), (l), and (n), remove “MPO” with and add in its place“MPO(s)” wherever it occurs.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 450.324 Development and content of the transportation improvement program (TIP).

    (c) If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, those MPOs within the MPA shall:

    (1) Jointly develop a single metropolitan transportation plan for the MPA;

    (2) Jointly establish, for the MPA, the performance targets that address the performance measures described in 23 CFR part 490 (where applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d); and

    (3) Agree to a process for making a single conformity determination on the joint plan (in nonattainment or maintenance areas).

    13. Amend § 450.326 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a); and b. In paragraphs (b), (j), and (p) remove “MPO” and add in its place “MPO(s)” wherever it occurs.

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 450.326 Development and content of the transportation improvement program (TIP).

    (a) The MPO, in cooperation with the State(s) and any affected public transportation operator(s), shall develop a TIP for the metropolitan planning area. If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, those MPOs within the MPA shall jointly develop a single TIP for the MPA and shall agree to a process for making a single conformity determination on the joint TIP (in nonattainment or maintenance areas). The TIP shall reflect the investment priorities established in the current metropolitan transportation plan and shall cover a period of no less than 4 years, be updated at least every 4 years, and be approved by the MPO(s) and the Governor. However, if the TIP covers more than 4 years, the FHWA and the FTA will consider the projects in the additional years as informational. The MPO(s) may update the TIP more frequently, but the cycle for updating the TIP must be compatible with the STIP development and approval process. The TIP expires when the FHWA/FTA approval of the STIP expires. Copies of any updated or revised TIPs must be provided to the FHWA and the FTA. In nonattainment and maintenance areas subject to transportation conformity requirements, the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the MPO, must make a conformity determination on any updated or amended TIP, in accordance with the Clean Air Act requirements and the EPA's transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A).

    § 450.328 [Amended]
    14. Amend § 450.328(a), (b), and (c) by removing “MPO” and adding in its place “MPO(s)” wherever it occurs.
    § 450.330 [Amended]
    15. Amend § 450.330 (a) and (c) by removing “MPO” and adding in its place “MPO(s)” wherever it occurs.
    § 450.332 [Amended]
    16. Amend § 450.332(b) and (c) by removing “MPO” and adding in its place “MPO(s)” wherever it occurs.
    § 450.334 [Amended]
    17. Amend § 450.334(a) by removing “MPO” and adding in its place “MPO(s)” wherever it occurs.
    § 450.336 [Amended]
    18. Amend § 450.336(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2) by removing “MPO” and adding in its place “MPO(s)” wherever it occurs. 19. Amend § 450.340 as follows: a. In paragraph (a) adding “or MPOs” after “MPO” wherever it occurs; b. Adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 450.340 Phase-in of new requirements.

    (h) States and MPOs shall comply with the MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreement provisions in 450.310 and 450.312, shall document the determination of the Governor and MPO(s) whether the size and complexity of the MPA make multiple MPOs appropriate, and the MPOs shall comply with the requirements for jointly established performance targets, and a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire MPA, before the next metropolitan transportation plan update that occurs on or after [date 2 years after the effective date of the final rule].

    Title 49—Transportation
    PART 613—METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE AND NONMETROPOLITAN PLANNING 20. The authority citation for part 613 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 134, 135, and 217(g); 42 U.S.C. 3334, 4233, 4332, 7410 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306, 5323(k); and 49 CFR 1.51(f) and 21.7(a).

    [FR Doc. 2016-14854 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Parts 56 and 57 [Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030] RIN 1219-AB87 Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of change of starting time for public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is announcing a change to the starting time for public hearings for the proposed rule addressing Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, published on June 8, 2016. The start time for the previously announced public hearings for the proposed rule will be changed from 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. to accommodate the public meetings on MSHA's request for information on Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust. The hearing dates and locations are unchanged.

    DATES:

    The public hearing dates and locations are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Comments for the proposed rule must be received by midnight Eastern Daylight Savings Time on September 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, requests to speak, and informational materials for the rulemaking record may be sent to MSHA by one of the following methods listed below:

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

    E-Mail: [email protected]

    Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th Floor East, Suite 4E401.

    Fax: 202-693-9441.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email), 202-693-9440 (voice); or 202-693-9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Instructions: All submissions for the proposed rule must include RIN 1219-AB87 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030. MSHA posts all comments without change, including any personal information provided. Access comments electronically on http://www.regulations.gov and on MSHA's Web site at https://www.msha.gov/regulations/rulemaking.

    Docket: The proposed rule for Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines was published on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36818). The document is available on https://www.regulations.gov and on MSHA's Web site at https://www.msha.gov/regulations/rulemaking/examinations-working-places-metal-and-nonmetal-mines. Review comments in person at the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th Floor East, Suite 4E401.

    Email Notification: To subscribe to receive email notification when MSHA publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register, go to https://www.msha.gov.

    Public Hearings: As previously announced on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36818), the public hearings will be held in Salt Lake City, UT; Pittsburgh, PA; Arlington, VA; and Birmingham, AL. Please see the table below for locations, dates, and new starting times.

    Date Location Contact
  • number
  • July 19, 2016; 8:30 a.m. Homewood Suites by Hilton, Salt Lake City—Downtown, 423 West 300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801) 363-6700. July 21, 2016; 8:30 a.m. Hyatt Place Pittsburgh—North Shore, 260 North Shore Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 321-3000. July 26, 2016; 8:30 a.m. Mine Safety and Health Administration Headquarters, 201 12th Street, South, Rooms 7W204 & 7W206, Arlington, VA 22202 (202) 693-9440. August 4, 2016; 8:30 a.m. Sheraton Birmingham Hotel, 2101 Richard Arrington Jr., Boulevard North, Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 324-5000.

    The start time for the previously announced public hearings for the proposed is being changed from 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. to accommodate the public meetings on MSHA's request for information on Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust. The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral presentations. Each hearing will end when the last speaker speaks. Persons do not have to make a written request to speak; however, persons wishing to speak are encouraged to notify MSHA in advance for scheduling purposes.

    Speakers and other attendees may present information to MSHA for inclusion in the rulemaking record. The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules of evidence or cross examination will not apply.

    A verbatim transcript of the proceedings will be prepared and made a part of the rulemaking record. The transcript may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/ and on MSHA's Web site at https://www.msha.gov/regulations/rulemaking.

    MSHA will accept comments and other appropriate information for the record from any interested party, including those not presenting oral statements, received by midnight Eastern Daylight Savings Time on September 6, 2016.

    Joseph A. Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15191 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Parts 57, 70, 72, and 75 [Docket No. MSHA-2014-0031] RIN 1219-AB86 Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for information; notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is announcing the dates and locations of public meetings on the Agency's request for information on Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust, published on June 8, 2016. In the interest of efficiency, the public meetings will be held consecutively, on the same days in the same venues, as the public hearings announced in the MSHA's proposed rule addressing Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, published on June 8, 2016.

    DATES:

    The public meeting dates and locations are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Comments for the request for information must be received by midnight Eastern Daylight Savings Time on September 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, requests to speak, and informational materials for the rulemaking record may be sent to MSHA by one of the following methods listed below:

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

    EMail: [email protected]

    Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor East, Suite 4E401.

    Fax: 202-693-9441.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email), 202-693-9440 (voice); or 202-693-9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Instructions: All submissions for the request for information must include RIN 1219-AB86 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0031. MSHA posts all comments without change, including any personal information provided. Access comments electronically on http://www.regulations.gov and on MSHA's Web site at https://www.msha.gov/regulations/rulemaking.

    Docket: The request for information on Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust (81 FR 36826) was published on June 8, 2016. The document is available on https://www.regulations.gov and on MSHA's Web site at https://www.msha.gov/regulations/rulemaking/exposure-underground-miners-diesel-exhaust. Review comments in person at the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor East, Suite 4E401.

    Email Notification: To subscribe to receive email notification when MSHA publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register, go to https://www.msha.gov.

    Public Meetings: The public meetings will be held in Salt Lake City, UT; Pittsburgh, PA; Arlington, VA; and Birmingham, AL. Please see the table below for locations, and dates. The public meetings will begin immediately following the conclusion of all testimony on the Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines proposed rule.

    Date Location Contact No. July 19, 2016 Homewood Suites by Hilton, Salt Lake City—Downtown, 423 West 300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801) 363-6700 July 21, 2016 Hyatt Place Pittsburgh—North Shore, 260 North Shore Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 321-3000 July 26, 2016 Mine Safety and Health Administration Headquarters, 201 12th Street, South, Rooms 7W204 & 7W206, Arlington, VA 22202 (202) 693-9440 August 4, 2016 Sheraton Birmingham Hotel, 2101 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard North, Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 324-5000 Public Meetings for Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust Request for Information

    MSHA invites industry, labor and other interested parties to provide information and data on the effectiveness of the existing standards in controlling miners' exposures to diesel exhaust, including Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). MSHA especially invites stakeholders to provide information and data on approaches that may enhance control of DPM and diesel exhaust exposures to improve protections for miners in underground coal and metal and nonmetal mines.

    The public meetings will begin immediately following the conclusion of all testimony on the Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines proposed rule and conclude at 5 p.m., or until the last speaker speaks.

    The meetings will be conducted in an informal manner. Speakers and other attendees may present information to MSHA for inclusion in the rulemaking record. The verbatim transcript may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/ and on MSHA's Web site at: https://www.msha.gov/regulations/rulemaking.

    Comments must be received by midnight Eastern Daylight Savings Time on September 6, 2016.

    Joseph A. Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15190 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. USCG-2015-1118] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting and request for comments; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces a public meeting to receive comments on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA” that was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, April 19, 2016. As stated in that document, the Coast Guard is considering amending the regulations for Hampton Roads, VA and adjacent waters anchorages by establishing a new anchorage, near Cape Charles, VA on the Lower Chesapeake Bay.

    DATES:

    A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 19, 2016, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. and on July 20, 2016, from 6:30 to 8 p.m. to provide an opportunity for oral comments. Written comments and related material may also be submitted to Coast Guard personnel specified at that meeting. All comments and related material submitted after the meeting must be received by the Coast Guard on or before Wednesday, August 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting on July 19, 2016, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. will be held at Slover Public Library Meeting Room, 235 E. Plume St., Norfolk, VA 23510, telephone 757-617-7986. The public meeting on July 20, 2016, from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. will be held at Eastern Shore Community College Lecture Hall, 29300 Lankford Highway, Melfa, VA, 23410.

    This document serves to inform the public that the Coast Guard has extended the public comment period for advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA to Wednesday, August 31, 2016. The public comment period for this ANPRM was originally scheduled to end on Monday, July 18, 2016.

    You may submit written comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1118 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 31, 2016. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions concerning the meeting or the advance proposed rule, please call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, Sector Hampton Roads Waterways Management Officer, Coast Guard; telephone 757-668-5581, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background and Purpose

    We published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register on April 19, 2016 (81 FR 22939), entitled “Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA.” In it we stated our intention to hold two public meetings, and to publish a notice announcing the location and date (81 FR 22940). This document is the notice of that meeting.

    In the ANPRM, we stated that the Coast Guard is considering amending the regulations for Hampton Roads, VA and adjacent waters anchorages by establishing a new anchorage, near Cape Charles, VA on the Lower Chesapeake Bay.

    You may view the ANPRM in our online docket, in addition to supporting documents prepared by the Coast Guard (Illustration Contemplated Anchorage R), and comments submitted thus far by going to http://www.regulations.gov. Once there, insert “USCG-2015-1118” in the “Search” box and click “Search.”

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments either orally at the meeting or in writing. If you bring written comments to the meeting, you may submit them to Coast Guard personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    Comments submitted before or after the meetings must reach the Coast Guard on or before Wednesday, August 31, 2016. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our 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.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Agenda of Public Meeting

    The agenda includes the following:

    (1) Introduction of panel members.

    (2) Overview of meeting format.

    (3) Background on proposed anchorage regulation.

    (4) Comments from interested persons. Comments may be delivered in written form at the public meeting and made part of the docket or delivered orally not to exceed 10 minutes.

    Information on Service for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact LCDR Barbara Wilk at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard will hold a public meeting regarding its “Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA” advance notice of proposed rulemaking on Tuesday, July 19, 2016, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at Slover Public Library Meeting Room, 235 E. Plume St., Norfolk, VA 23510, telephone 757-617-7986. The public meeting on July 20, 2016, from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. will be held at Eastern Shore Community College Lecture Hall, 29300 Lankford Highway, Melfa, VA, 23410. A written summary of the meeting and comments will be placed in the docket.

    Dated: June 14, 2016. Christopher S. Keane, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15033 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0767; FRL-9948-42-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; KY Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Energy and Environment Cabinet, Department for Environmental Protection, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), on April 26, 2013, to demonstrate that the Commonwealth meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP. KDAQ certified that the Kentucky SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Kentucky. EPA is proposing to determine that Kentucky's infrastructure submission, submitted on April 26, 2013, addresses certain infrastructure elements for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0767 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Wong, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-8726. Mr. Wong can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Overview

    On February 9, 2010, EPA published a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013.1

    1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions States generally certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes, some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term “Kentucky Administrative Regulation”, “KAR”, or “Regulation” indicates that the cited regulation has been approved into Kentucky's federally-approved SIP. The term “Kentucky Revised statute” or “KRS” indicates cited Kentucky state statutes, which are not a part of the SIP unless otherwise indicated.

    Today's action is proposing to approve Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable requirements of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J), the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility of prongs 1, 2 and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the regulation of minor sources and minor modifications under section 110(a)(2)(C). On March 18, 2015, EPA approved Kentucky's April 26, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. Therefore, EPA is not proposing any action pertaining to these requirements. With respect to Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility of prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the regulation of minor sources and minor modifications under section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA is not proposing any action today. EPA will act on these provisions in a separate action. For the aspects of Kentucky's submittal proposed for approval today, EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that Kentucky's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

    II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS.

    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking are listed below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2).” 2

    2 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System • 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources 3

    3 This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas.

    • 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport • 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers • 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions • 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas 4

    4 As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's proposed rulemaking.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection • 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Kentucky that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.5 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    5 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.6 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.

    6 See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163—65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

    7 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.8 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.9

    8 See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    9 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 2007, submittal.

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.10

    10 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.

    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.

    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.11 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).12 EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.13 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

    11 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

    12 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    13 EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.

    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.

    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.

    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.14 It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described.

    14 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.

    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's implementation plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.15 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.16 Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.17

    15 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

    16 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

    17 See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

    IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Kentucky addressed the elements of the sections 110(a)(1) and (2) “infrastructure” provisions?

    Kentucky's infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) in Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR), Title 401, and Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) as described below.

    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements. Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission lists several regulations as relevant to air quality control regulations in KAR 50 to 52. Specifically, Regulation 50:010-066 deal with general administrative procedures. Emission limits and other control measures, means, and techniques as well as schedules and timetables for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS are found in Regulation 51, Attainment and Maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Regulation 52, Permits, Registrations, and Prohibitory Rules. EPA has made the preliminary determination that the cited provisions are adequate to protect the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in the Commonwealth.

    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.18

    18 On June 12, 2015, EPA published a final action entitled, “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.” See 80 FR 33840.

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System: SIPs are required to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, the compilation and analysis of ambient air quality data, and the submission of these data to EPA upon request. KRS 22:10-100, and KAR 50:050, 51:017 and 052, and 53:005 and 010, provide KDAQ with the authority to collect and disseminate information relating to air quality and pollution and the prevention, control, supervision, and abatement thereof. Annually, states develop and submit to EPA for approval statewide ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan involves an evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring network, includes the annual ambient monitoring network design plan and a certified evaluation of the state's ambient monitors and auxiliary support equipment.19 On July 1, 2015, Kentucky submitted its monitoring network plan to EPA, and on October 28, 2015, EPA approved this plan. Kentucky's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0767. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    19 On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: This element consists of three sub-elements: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources, and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program). EPA approved the PSD component in a previous action and will act on state-wide regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources in a separate action. Today's action on element C is solely on enforcement.

    Enforcement: KDAQ's approved SIP Regulation 50:060, Enforcement, provides for enforcement of emission limits and control measures and construction permitting for new or modified stationary sources. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP is adequate for insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to enforcement for section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    Preconstruction PSD Permitting for Major Sources: With respect to Kentucky's April 26, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission related to the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA took final action to approve these provisions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019.

    Regulation of Minor Sources and Modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor source preconstruction program that regulates emissions of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the regulation of minor sources and minor modifications under section 110(a)(2)(C) and will consider these requirements in relation to Kentucky's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate rulemaking.

    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Interstate Pollution Transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components have two subparts resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 1”), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 2”). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (“prong 3”), or to protect visibility in another state (“prong 4”).

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) because Kentucky's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure submission did not address prongs 1 and 2.

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With respect to Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission related to the interstate transport requirements for PSD of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), EPA took final action to approve Kentucky's April 26, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission regarding prong 3 of D(i) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019.

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to visibility protection in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) and will consider these requirements in relation to Kentucky's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate rulemaking.

    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution: With respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Regulation 52:100, Section 6, Public, Affected State, and U.S. EPA Review, outlines how Kentucky will notify neighboring states of potential impacts from new or modified sources. EPA is unaware of any pending obligations for the Commonwealth of Kentucky pursuant to sections 115 or 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) that the state comply with the requirements respecting state Boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provisions. EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's SIP as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E). EPA's rationale for today's proposals respecting each section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described in turn below.

    To satisfy the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission describes that KRS 224:10-100, Powers and Duties of the Cabinet, and KAR 50:038, Air Emissions Fees, provide KDAQ with the authority to accept and administer laws and grants from the federal government and from other sources, public and private, for carrying out any of its functions, including its responsibility to implement its SIP. As evidence of the adequacy of KDAQ's resources, EPA submitted a letter to Kentucky on March 12, 2015, outlining section 105 grant commitments and the current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2014. The letter EPA submitted to Kentucky can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0767. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. Kentucky satisfactorily met all commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year 2014 therefore Kentucky's grants were finalized. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky has adequate resources and authority for implementation of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that states comply with section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states include provisions in their SIP to address conflicts of interest for state boards or bodies that oversee CAA permits and enforcement orders and disclosure of conflict of interest requirements. Specifically, CAA section 128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall require that at least a majority of any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders shall be subject to the described public interest service and income restrictions therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires that the members of any board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be subject to conflict of interest disclosure requirements. For purposes of section 128(a)(1), Kentucky has no boards or bodies with authority over air pollution permits or enforcement actions. Such matters are instead handled by the Secretary of the KDAQ. As such, a “board or body” is not responsible for approving permits or enforcement orders in Kentucky, and the requirements of section 128(a)(1) are not applicable. For purposes of section 128(a)(2), KDAQ's SIP has been updated. On October 3, 2012, EPA finalized approval of Kentucky's July 17, 2012, SIP revision requesting incorporation of KRS 11A.020, 11A.030, 11A.040 and KRS 224.10-020 and 224.10-100 into the SIP to address the conflicts of interest disclosure requirements of section 128(a)(2). See 77 FR 60307. With the incorporation of these regulations into the Kentucky SIP, EPA has previously made the determination that the Commonwealth has adequately addressed the requirements of section 128(a)(2), and accordingly is proposing to determine that Kentucky has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve KDAQ's SIP as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii).

    7. 7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Monitoring System: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements addressing (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection. The Kentucky infrastructure submission describes how the major source and minor source emission inventory programs collect emission data throughout the Commonwealth and ensure the quality of such data. Kentucky meets these requirements through Chapter 50 General Administrative Procedures, specifically 401 KAR 50:050 Monitoring. 401 KAR 50:050, Section 1, Monitoring Records and Reporting, states that the cabinet may require a facility to install, use, and maintain stack gas and ambient air monitoring equipment and to establish and maintain records, and make periodic emission reports at intervals prescribed by the cabinet. 401 KAR 50:050 Monitoring, Section 1, Monitoring, Records, and Reporting, establishes the requirements for the installation, use, and maintenance of stack gas and ambient air monitoring equipment, and authorizes the cabinet to require the owner or operator of any affected facility to establish and maintain records for this equipment and make periodic emission reports at intervals prescribed by the cabinet. Also, KRS 224.10-100 (23) requires that any person engaged in any operation regulated pursuant to this chapter file with the cabinet reports containing information as to location, size, height, rate of emission or discharge, and composition of any substance discharged or emitted into the ambient air or into the waters or onto the land of the Commonwealth, and such other information the cabinet may require. The monitoring data collected and records of operations serve as the basis for a source to certify compliance, and can be used by Kentucky as direct evidence of an enforceable violation of the underlying emission limitation or standard. Thus, EPA is unaware of any provision preventing the use of credible evidence in the Kentucky SIP.

    Additionally, Kentucky is required to submit emissions data to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and the precursors that form them—NOX, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Kentucky made its latest update to the 2011 NEI on December 23, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP and practices are adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).

    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: This section requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission identifies air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies as outlined in Regulation 55:005, Significant Harm Criteria. Regulation 55:010, Episodic Criteria, defines pollutant concentration levels that justify the proclamation of an air pollutant alert, warning, or emergency while Regulation 55:015, Episode Declaration, authorizes KDAQ to curtail or reduce processes or operations that emit air pollutants whose criteria has been reached and are located in the affected areas for which an episode level has been declared. Conditions justifying the proclamation of an air pollution alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency shall be deemed to exist whenever the Cabinet determines that the accumulation of air contaminants in any place is attaining or has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, present a threat to the health of the public. In addition, KRS 224.10-100 Powers and duties of cabinet and KRS 224.10-410 Order for discontinuance, abatement, or alleviation of condition or activity without hearing—Subsequent hearing, establish the authority for Kentucky's secretary to issue orders to person(s) for discontinuance, abatement, or alleviation of any condition or activity without hearing because the condition or activity presents a danger to the health or welfare of the people of the state, and for the cabinet to require adoption of any remedial measures deemed necessary. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP, and state laws are adequate for emergency powers related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP and practices are adequate for emergency powers related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(G).

    9. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary, requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan (i) as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any additional applicable requirements. KDAQ has the authority for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS in Kentucky, as indicated in Regulations 51.010, Attainment Status Designations, 53.005, General Provisions, and 53:010, Ambient Air Quality Standards. KDAQ has the ability and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. It also has the ability and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. Kentucky does not have any nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS but has made an infrastructure submission for this standard, which is the subject of this rulemaking. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary.

    10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation With Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection: EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that provides for meeting the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127; and visibility protection requirements of part C of the Act. With respect to Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA took final action to approve Kentucky's April 26, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP for these requirements on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. EPA's rationale for its proposed action regarding applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, and visibility protection requirements is described below.

    110(a)(2)(J) (121 Consultation)—Consultation With Government Officials: Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments, designated organizations and federal land managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121 relative to consultation. Regulations 50:065, Conformity of General Federal Actions, 50:066, Conformity of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects, as well as Kentucky's Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding FLMs), provide for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development activities. Kentucky adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity. Implementation of transportation conformity as outlined in the consultation procedures requires KDAQ to consult with Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the development of motor vehicle emissions budgets for the SIP. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary.

    110(a)(2)(J) (127 Public Notification)—Public Notification: These requirements are met through Regulation 55:015, Episode Declaration, which requires that KDAQ notify the public of any air pollution alert, warning, or emergency. The KDAQ Web site also provides air quality summary data, air quality index reports and links to more information regarding public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the Commonwealth's ability to provide public notification related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public notification.

    110(a)(2)(J)—Visibility Protection: EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that it does not treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process. EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program requirements under Part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B). However, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has determined that states do not need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP submittals. As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that it does not need to address the visibility protection element of section 110(a)(2)(J) in Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality and Modeling/Data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submission of such data to EPA can be made. KAR 50:040, Air Quality Models, incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21, which specifies that air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W “Guideline on Air Quality Models. KRS 224.10-100(4) authorizes KDAQ to develop and conduct a comprehensive program for management of air resources in the Commonwealth. These provisions demonstrate that Kentucky has the authority to perform air quality modeling and provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, Kentucky participates in a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for NOX, which includes NO2. Taken as a whole, Kentucky's air quality regulations demonstrate that KDAQ has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the Commonwealth's ability to provide for air quality and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary.

    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: This element necessitates that the SIP require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover: (i) The reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V.

    Funding for the Kentucky air permit program comes from a processing fee, submitted by permit applicants, required by KAR 50:038, Air Emissions Fee, and KRS 224.20-050, Fee for Administration of Air Quality Program. KDAQ ensures this is sufficient for the reasonable cost of reviewing and acting upon PSD and NNSR. Additionally, Kentucky has a fully approved title V operating permit program at KAR 52:20 20 that cover the cost of implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).

    20 Title V program regulations are federally-approved but not incorporated into the federally-approved SIP.

    13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities: This element requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Chapter 77 of KRS, Air Pollution Control, and Regulations 50:066, Conformity of Transportation Plans, Programs and Projects, and 52:100, Public, Affected State, and U.S. EPA Review, authorize KDAQ to cooperate, consult, and enter into agreements with other agencies of the state, the Federal government, other states, interstate agencies, groups, political subdivisions, and industries affected by the provisions of this act, rules, or policies of the department.” Furthermore, KDAQ has demonstrated consultation with, and participation by, affected local entities through its work with local political subdivisions during the developing of its Transportation Conformity SIP and Regional Haze Implementation Plan. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary.

    V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J), the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility of prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and the regulation of minor sources and minor modifications under section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA is proposing to approve that Kentucky's April 26, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS has met the above-described infrastructure SIP requirements.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15138 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0366; FRL-9948-20-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Flint Hills Resources, LLC Pine Bend Refinery (FHR) as submitted on May 1, 2015. The revision will consolidate existing permanent and enforceable SO2 SIP conditions into the facility's joint Title I/Title V SIP document. This action highlights process modifications necessary to meet EPA's Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards; a comprehensive monitoring strategy to better quantify SO2 emissions from fuel gas-fired emission units; a new restrictive flaring procedure for refinery process units, and other updates and administrative changes. This revision results in a modeled reduction in SO2 emissions from FHR and modeled SO2 ambient air concentrations less than half of the national ambient air quality standards.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0366 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For 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:

    Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Robert Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15035 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0276; FRL-9948-18-Region 5] Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Cleveland, Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois Areas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make a determination, under the Clean Air Act, that the Cleveland, Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois areas attained the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016. This proposed determination for each area is based on complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data for 2013-2015.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0276 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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:

    Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767, [email protected]

    Deborah Bredehoft, Air Planning and Development Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, Kansas 66219, (913) 551-7164, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, EPA is making this determination of attainment as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to the rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn for the affected area and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: June 15, 2016. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. Dated: June 3, 2016. Mark Hague, Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15049 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0251; FRL-9948-43-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; SC Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on April 30, 2014, to demonstrate that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP submission. SC DHEC certified that the South Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 NO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in South Carolina. With the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, and interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance and visibility in other states, for which EPA is proposing no action through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to find that South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on April 30, 2014, satisfies the required infrastructure elements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0251 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Wong, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Wong can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-8726 or electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Overview

    On February 9, 2010, EPA published a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013.1

    1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states generally certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes, some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term “South Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulation” or “Regulation” indicates that the cited regulation has been approved into South Carolina's federally-approved SIP. The term “South Carolina statute” indicates cited South Carolina state statutes, which are not a part of the SIP unless otherwise indicated.

    Today's action is proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable requirements of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) and the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility (i.e., prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)). On March 18, 2015, EPA approved South Carolina's April 30, 2014, infrastructure SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. Therefore, EPA is not proposing any action pertaining to these requirements. With respect to South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission related to interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility of prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is not proposing any action today. EPA will act on these provisions in a separate action. For the aspects of South Carolina's submittal proposed for approval today, EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that South Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

    II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS.

    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking are listed below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and (2).” 2

    2 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System • 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources 3

    3 This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas.

    • 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport • 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers • 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions • 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas 4

    4 As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's proposed rulemaking.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection • 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from South Carolina that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.5 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    5 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.6 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.

    6 See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

    7 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.8 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.9

    8 See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    9 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 2007 submittal.

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.10

    10 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.

    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.

    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.11 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).12 EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.13 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

    11 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

    12 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    13 EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.

    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.

    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.

    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.14 It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described.

    14 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.

    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's implementation plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.15 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.16 Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.17

    15 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

    16 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

    17 See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

    IV. What is EPA's analysis of how South Carolina addressed the elements of the sections 110(a)(1) and (2) “infrastructure” provisions?

    South Carolina's infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.

    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements. Regulation 61-62.1, Definitions and General Requirements, and 61-62.5 (1), Ambient Air Quality Standards have been federally approved in the South Carolina SIP and include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures for activities that contribute to NO2 concentrations in the ambient air. South Carolina statute 48-1-50(23) authorizes SC DHEC to adopt rules for the control of air pollution in order to comply with NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that the cited provisions are adequate for enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in the State.

    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.18

    18 On June 12, 2015, EPA published a final action entitled, “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.” See 80 FR 33840.

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System: SIPs are required to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, the compilation and analysis of ambient air quality data, and the submission of these data to EPA upon request. Regulation 61-62.5(7), Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and South Carolina statute 48-1-50(14), Powers of department, provide SC DHEC with the authority to collect and disseminate information relating to air quality and pollution and the prevention, control, supervision, and abatement thereof. Annually, states develop and submit to EPA for approval statewide ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan involves an evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring network, includes the annual ambient monitoring network design plan and a certified evaluation of the state's ambient monitors and auxiliary support equipment.19 On July 20, 2015, South Carolina submitted its monitoring network plan to EPA, and on November 19, 2015, EPA approved this plan. South Carolina's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0251. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    19 On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: This element consists of three sub-elements; enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources; and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program). As discussed further below, in this action EPA is only proposing to approve the enforcement, and the regulation of minor sources and minor modifications aspects of South Carolina's section 110(a)(2)(C) infrastructure SIP submission.

    Enforcement: SC DHEC cites to its SIP approved permit regulations for enforcement of NO2 emission limits and control measures and construction permitting for new or modified stationary NO2 sources (Regulations 61-62.5(7), Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and 61-62.5(7)(1), Nonattainment New Source Review, and Regulation 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements). South Carolina cites to statute 48-1-50(11), which provides SC DHEC the authority to administer penalties for violations of any order, permit, regulation or standards. Additionally, SCDHEC is authorized under 48-1-50(3) and (4) to issue orders requiring the discontinuance of the discharge of air contaminants into the ambient air that create an undesirable level, and seek an injunction to compel compliance with the Pollution Control Act and permits, permit conditions and orders.

    Preconstruction PSD Permitting for Major Sources: With respect to South Carolina's April 30, 2014, infrastructure SIP submission related to the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA took final action to approve these provisions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019.

    Regulation of Minor Sources and Modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor source program that regulates emissions of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. South Carolina has a SIP-approved minor NSR permitting program at Regulation 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, that regulates the preconstruction permitting of minor modifications and construction of minor stationary sources.

    EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures and regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Interstate Pollution Transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components have two subparts resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 1”), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 2”). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (“prong 3”), or to protect visibility in another state (“prong 4”).

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) because South Carolina's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure submission did not address prongs 1 and 2.

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With respect to South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission related to the interstate transport requirements for PSD of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), EPA took final action to approve South Carolina's April 30, 2014, infrastructure SIP submission regarding prong 3 of D(i) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019.

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to visibility protection in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) and will consider these requirements in relation South Carolina's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate rulemaking.

    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. Regulation 61-62.5, Standards 7 and 7.1 (q)(2)(iv), Public Participation, outlines how South Carolina will notify neighboring states of potential impacts from new or modified sources. EPA is unaware of any pending obligations for the State of South Carolina pursuant to sections 115 or 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide: (i) Necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provisions. EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's SIP as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E). EPA's rationale for today's proposals respecting each section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described in turn below.

    With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), SC DHEC develops, implements and enforces EPA-approved SIP provisions in the State. S.C. Code Ann. Section 48, Title 1 and S.C. Code Ann § 1-23-40 (the Administrative Procedures Act), as referenced in South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission, provides the SC DHEC's general legal authority to establish a SIP and implement related plans. In particular, S.C. Code Ann. Section 48-1-50(12) grants SC DHEC the statutory authority to “[a]ccept, receive and administer grants or other funds or gifts for the purpose of carrying out any of the purposes of this chapter; [and to] accept, receive and receipt for Federal money given by the Federal government under any Federal law to the State of South Carolina for air or water control activities, surveys or programs.” S.C. Code Ann. Section 48, Title 2 grants SC DHEC statutory authority to establish environmental protection funds, which provide resources for SC DHEC to carry out its obligations under the CAA. Specifically, in Regulation 61-30, Environmental Protection Fees, SC DHEC established fees for sources subject to air permitting programs. For Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the submission states that South Carolina does not rely on localities for specific SIP implementation.

    The requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are further confirmed when EPA performs a completeness determination for each SIP submittal. This provides additional assurances that each submittal provides evidence that adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under State law has been used to carry out the State's implementation plan and related issues. This information is included in all prehearings and final SIP submittal packages for approval by EPA.

    As evidence of the adequacy of SC DHEC's resources, EPA submitted a letter to South Carolina on April 19, 2016, outlining section 105 grant commitments and the current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2015. The letter EPA submitted to South Carolina can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0251. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. South Carolina satisfactorily met all commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year 2015, therefore South Carolina's grants were finalized.

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that states comply with section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states include provisions in their SIP to address conflicts of interest for state boards or bodies that oversee CAA permits and enforcement orders and disclosure of conflict of interest requirements. Specifically, CAA section 128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall require that at least a majority of any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders shall be subject to the described public interest service and income restrictions therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires that the members of any board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be subject to conflict of interest disclosure requirements.

    With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), South Carolina satisfies the requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1) for the SC Board of Health and Environmental Control, which is the “board or body which approves permits and enforcement orders” under the CAA in South Carolina, through South Carolina statute 8-13-730. This statute provides that “[u]nless otherwise provided by law, no person may serve as a member of a governmental regulatory agency that regulates business with which that person is associated,” and statute 8-13-700(A) states in part that “[n]o public official, public member, or public employee may knowingly use his official office, membership, or employment to obtain an economic interest for himself, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated.” South Carolina statute 8-13-700(B)(1)-(5) provides for disclosure of any conflicts of interest by public official, public member or public employee, which meets the requirement of CAA Section 128(a)(2) that “any potential conflicts of interest . . . be adequately disclosed.” State statutes 8-13-730, 8-13-700(A), and 8-13-700(B)(1)-(5) have been approved into the South Carolina SIP as required by CAA section 128. Thus, EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) relating to state boards for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Monitoring System: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements addressing (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection. South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission describes how the State establishes requirements for emissions compliance testing and utilizes emissions sampling and analysis. It further describes how the State ensures the quality of its data through observing emissions and monitoring operations. These infrastructure SIP requirements are codified at Section III, Regulation 61-62.1, Emissions Inventory. South Carolina statute 48-1-22 requires owners or operators of stationary sources to compute emissions, submit periodic reports of such emissions and maintain records as specified by various regulations and permits, and to evaluate reports and records for consistency with the applicable emission limitation or standard on a continuing basis over time. The monitoring data collected and records of operations serve as the basis for a source to certify compliance, and can be used by South Carolina as direct evidence of an enforceable violation of the underlying emission limitation or standard. Accordingly, EPA is unaware of any provision preventing the use of credible evidence in the South Carolina SIP.

    Additionally, South Carolina is required to submit emissions data to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and the precursors that form them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. South Carolina made its latest update to the 2011 NEI on April 1, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).

    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: This section requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission identifies air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies as outlined in Regulation 61-62.3, Air Pollution Episodes. S.C. Code Ann. Section 1-23-130 provides SC DHEC with the authority to immediately promulgate emergency regulations if it finds an imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare, or to protect or manage natural resources if it finds abnormal or unusual conditions, immediate need, or the state's best interest requires immediate promulgation of emergency regulations. S.C. Code Ann. Section 48-1-50(3) provides SCDHEC with the authority to issue orders requiring the discontinuance of the discharge of air contaminants into the ambient air that create an undesirable level, resulting in pollution in excess of applicable standards, and S.C. Code Ann. Section 48-1-50(4) authorizes SCDHEC to file an action in court to seek injunctive relief to compel compliance with the Pollution Control Act. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for emergency powers related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(G).

    9. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary, requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan: (i) As may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any additional applicable requirements. SC DHEC has the authority for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS in South Carolina as indicated in South Carolina statute 48-1. This Section provides SC DHEC with the ability and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and South Carolina has provided a number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary.

    10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation With Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection: EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that provides for meeting the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, and visibility protection requirements of part C of the Act. With respect to South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA took final action to approve South Carolina's April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP for these requirements on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. EPA's rationale for its proposed action regarding applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, and visibility protection requirements is described below.

    110(a)(2)(J) (121 Consultation)—Consultation With Government Officials: Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments, designated organizations and federal land managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121 relative to consultation. Regulation 61-62.5(7), Prevention of Significant Deterioration, South Carolina statute 48-1-50(8), Powers of department, as well as South Carolina's Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding FLMs), provide for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development activities. S.C. Code Section 48-1-50(8) provides SC DHEC with the necessary authority to “Cooperate with the governments of the United States or other states or state agencies or organizations, officials, or unofficial, in respect to pollution control matters or for the formulation of interstate pollution control compacts or agreements.” South Carolina adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity. These consultation procedures include considerations associated with the development of mobile inventories for SIPs. Implementation of transportation conformity as outlined in the consultation procedures requires SC DHEC to consult with Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary.

    110(a)(2)(J) (127 Public Notification)—Public Notification: These requirements are met through Regulation 61-62.3, Air Pollution Episodes, which requires that SC DHEC notify the public of any air pollution alert, warning, or emergency. The SC DHEC Web site also provides air quality summary data, air quality index reports and links to more information regarding public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide public notification related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public notification.

    110(a)(2)(J)—Visibility Protection: EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that it does not treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process. SC DHEC referenced its regional haze program as germane to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program requirements under Part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B). However, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has determined that states do not need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP submittals so SC DHEC does not need to rely on its regional haze program to fulfill its obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP submission is approvable for the visibility protection element of section 110(a)(2)(J) and that South Carolina does not need to rely on its regional haze program.

    11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality and Modeling/Data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submission of such data to the EPA can be made. Regulation 61-62.1, Definitions and General Requirements, 61-62-5(2), Ambient Air Quality Standards, and 61-62-5(7), Prevention of Significant Deterioration, specify that required air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W “Guideline on Air Quality Models.” The state's permitting and reporting requirements provide the necessary tools to conduct, evaluate, and provide air quality modeling data if necessary. Also, S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-50(14) provides SC DHEC with the necessary authority to “Collect and disseminate information on air and water control.” These standards demonstrate that South Carolina has the authority to perform air quality monitoring and provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, South Carolina supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for NOX, which includes NO2. Taken as a whole, South Carolina's air quality regulations demonstrate that SC DHEC has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary.

    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: This element requires the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover: (i) The reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V.

    Funding for the South Carolina air permit program comes from a fees submitted by permit applicants under Regulation 61-30, Environmental Protection Fees, which prescribes fees applicable to applicants and holders of permits, licenses, certificates, certifications, and registrations, establishes procedures for the payment of fees, provides for the assessment of penalties for nonpayment, and establishes an appeals process for refuting fees. Also, South Carolina statute 48-2-50, Fees, which prescribes that SC DHEC charge fees for environmental programs it administers pursuant to Federal and State law and regulations including those that govern the costs to review, implement and enforce PSD and NNSR permits. Additionally, South Carolina has a fully approved title V operating permit program at Regulation 61-62.70, Title V Operation Permit Program,20 that covers the cost of implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).

    20 Title V program regulations are federally-approved but not incorporated into the federally-approved SIP.

    13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities: This element requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Regulation 61-62.5(7), Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and South Carolina statutes 48-1-50(8) and 1-23-40 authorize SC DHEC to cooperate, consult, and enter into agreements with other agencies of the state, the Federal government, other states, interstate agencies, groups, political subdivisions, and industries affected by the provisions of this act, rules, or policies of the department.” Furthermore, SC DHEC has demonstrated consultation with, and participation by, affected local entities through its work with local political subdivisions during the development of its Transportation Conformity SIP and Regional Haze Implementation Plan. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary.

    V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J) and the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility of prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is proposing to approve that South Carolina's April 30, 2014, infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS has met the above-described infrastructure SIP requirements.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed action for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, South Carolina statute 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” However, EPA has determined that because this proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe because, as noted above, this action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that South Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15145 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124 and 125 [EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145; FRL-9948-35-OW] RIN 2040-AF25 Notice of Extension to Comment Period on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Applications and Program Updates Proposed Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Extension of Comment Period.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is extending the comment period for the notice, “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates.” In response to stakeholder requests, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional 15 days, from July 18, 2016 to August 2, 2016.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the notice that was published on May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31344), is extended. Comments must be received on or before August 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Flannery-Keith, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566-0689; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 18, 2016 EPA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 31344) a proposed rule that would make targeted revisions to the NPDES regulations. These revisions would make the regulations consistent with the 1987 CWA Amendments and with applicable judicial decisions. These revisions would delete certain regulatory provisions that are no longer in effect and clarify the level of documentation that permit writers must provide for permitting decisions. EPA is also asking for public comments on potential ways to enhance public notice and participation in the permitting process. CWA section 402 established the NPDES permitting program and gives EPA authority to write regulations to implement the NPDES program. 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1), (2). The proposed rule, as initially published in the Federal Register, provided for written comments to be submitted to EPA on or before July 18, 2016 (a 60-day public comment period). Since publication, EPA has received a request for additional time to submit comments. EPA is extending the public comment period for 15 days until August 2, 2016.

    Dated: June 17, 2016. Joel Beauvais, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15134 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 123 Monday, June 27, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of Advocacy and Outreach [FOA No.: OAO-0010] Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) No.: 10.443. AGENCY:

    Office of Advocacy and Outreach, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) No.: 10.443.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of funds and solicits applications from eligible entities to compete for financial assistance through the Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program (hereinafter known as the “2501 Program”).

    The overall goal of the 2501 Program is to assist socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers in owning and operating farms and ranches while increasing their participation in agricultural programs and services provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This program will assist eligible community-based and non-profit organizations, higher education institutions, and tribal entities in providing outreach and technical assistance to socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers.

    DATES:

    Proposals must be received by July 29, 2016, at 11:59 p.m. EST, at www.grants.gov. Proposals received after this deadline will not be considered for funding.

    ADDRESSES:

    How to File a Complaint of Discrimination: To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, Fax: (202) 690-7442, Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Agency Contact

    U.S. Department of Agriculture, DM—Office of Advocacy and Outreach, Attn: Kenya Nicholas, Program Director, Whitten Building, Room 520-A, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 720-6350, Fax: (202) 720-7704, Email: [email protected]

    Persons with Disabilities: Persons who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Funding/Awards: The total funding potentially available for this competitive opportunity is $8.4 million. The Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO) will award new grants from this announcement, subject to availability of funds and the quality of applications received. All applications will be considered new projects and applicants will compete based on their organization's entity type (e.g., nonprofit organization, higher education institution), as described below. The maximum amount of requested federal funding for projects shall not exceed $200,000. Projects that are part of multi-year initiatives will only be funded for one year and will be eligible to compete for additional funding in subsequent years.

    Funding will be awarded based on peer competition within the three categories described below along with the amount of funding OAO anticipates awarding to organizations within each category. OAO reserves the discretion to allocate funding between the three categories based upon the number and quality of applications received. There is no commitment by OAO to fund any particular application or to select a specific number of awardees within each category.

    1. Category #1: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.2, III.A.3, and III.A.4 (1890 Land Grant colleges and universities, 1994 Alaska Native and American Indian Tribal colleges and universities, and Hispanic-Serving colleges and universities).

    2. Category #2: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.1 and III.A.6 (i.e., nonprofit organizations, community-based organizations, including a network or a coalition of community-based organizations, Indian tribes (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b), and national tribal organizations).

    3. Category #3: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.5 and III.A.7 (i.e., all other institutions of higher education and other organizations or institutions, including those that received funding under this program before January 1, 1996).

    Contents of This Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description II. Award Information III. Eligibility Information IV. Proposal and Submission Information V. Application Review Information VI. Award Administration Information I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Background

    OAO is committed to ensuring that socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers are able to equitably participate in USDA programs. Differences in demographics, culture, economics, and other factors preclude a single approach to identifying solutions that can benefit our underserved farmers and ranchers. Community-based and non-profit organizations, higher education institutions, and eligible tribal entities can play a critical role in addressing the unique difficulties they face and can help improve their ability to start and maintain successful agricultural businesses. With 2501 Program funding, organizations can extend our outreach efforts to connect with and assist socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers and to provide them with information on available USDA resources.

    1. The 2501 Program was authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 expanded the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to provide awards under the program and transferred the administrative authority to OAO. The 2014 Farm Bill further expanded the program to include outreach and assistance to veterans. The 2501 Program extends USDA's capacity to work with members of farming and ranching communities by funding projects that enhance the equitable participation of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers in USDA programs. It is OAO's intention to build lasting relationships between USDA, awardee organizations, and socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers.

    2. Organizations may only submit one proposal for funding.

    B. Scope of Work

    The 2501 Program provides funding to eligible organizations for training and technical assistance projects designed to assist socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers in owning and operating viable agricultural enterprises. Proposals must be consistent with requirements stated in 7 U.S.C. 2279(a)(2). Under this statute, “outreach and technical assistance shall be used exclusively:

    (A) To enhance coordination of the outreach, technical assistance, and education efforts authorized under agriculture programs; and

    (B) To assist the Secretary in:

    (i) Reaching current and prospective socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers and veteran farmers or ranchers in a linguistically appropriate manner; and

    (ii) improving the participation of those farmers and ranchers in Department programs, as reported under section 2279-1 of this title”.

    Proposal applications from eligible entities must address two or more of the following priority areas:

    1. Assist socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers in owning and operating successful farms and ranches;

    2. Improve participation among socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers in USDA programs;

    3. Build relationships between current and prospective farmers and ranchers who are either socially disadvantaged or veterans and USDA's local, state, regional, and National offices;

    4. Introduce agriculture-related information to socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers through innovative training and technical assistance techniques; and

    5. Introduce agricultural education targeting socially disadvantaged youth and/or socially disadvantaged beginning farmers and workers, including but not limited to StrikeForce and Promise Zone areas.

    To encourage information sharing and to build capacity among awardees, the OAO may require Project Directors to attend an annual training conference that can be expensed with awarded grant funds not to exceed $1,000 for up to two authorized grantee personnel. The conference will allow awardees to share ideas and lessons learned, provide training on performance and financial reporting requirements, and provide information on USDA programs and services. In addition, Project Directors will have an opportunity to make contacts and gather information on best practices.

    C. Anticipated Outputs (Activities), Outcomes (Results), and Performance Measures

    1. Outputs (Activities). The term “output” means an outreach, educational component or assistance activity, task, or associated work product related to improving the ability of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers to own and operate farms and ranches, assistance with agriculture related activities, or guidance for participation in USDA programs. Outputs may be quantitative or qualitative but must be measurable during the period of performance.

    Examples of outputs from the projects to be funded under this announcement may describe an organization's activities and their participants such as: Number of workshops or meetings held and number of participants attending; frequency of services or training delivered, and to whom; and/or development of products, curriculum, or resources provided. Other examples include but are not limited to, the following:

    a. Number of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers or ranchers served;

    b. number of conferences or training sessions held and number of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers who attended;

    c. type and topic of educational materials distributed at outreach events;

    d. creation of a program to enhance the operational viability of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers;

    e. number of completed applications submitted for consideration for USDA programs; or

    f. activity that supports increased participation of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and veteran farmers and ranchers in USDA programs.

    Creation of progress and final reports will be required, as specified in Section VI, Subsection D, “Reporting Requirement.”

    2. Outcomes (Results). The term “outcome” means the difference or effect that has occurred as a result from carrying out an activity, workshop, meeting, or from delivery of services related to a programmatic goal or objective. Outcomes refer to the final impact, change, or result that occurs as a direct result of the activities performed in accomplishing the objectives and goals of your project. Outcomes may refer to results that are agricultural, behavioral, social, or economic in nature. Outcomes may reflect an increase in knowledge or skills, a greater awareness of available resources or programs, or actions taken by stakeholders as a result of learning.

    Project Directors will be required to document anticipated outcomes that are funded under this announcement which should include but are not limited to:

    a. Increase in participation in USDA programs among socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers;

    b. increase in receptiveness of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers to outreach efforts through effective communication;

    c. increase in economic stability of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers within a defined geographic area;

    d. increase in community marketing and sales opportunities for the products of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers; or

    e. increase use of resource conservation and sustainability practices among socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers.

    3. Performance Measures. Performance measures are tied to the goals or objectives of each activity and ultimately the overall purpose of the project. They provide insight into the effectiveness of proposed activities by indicating areas where a project may need adjustments to ensure success. Applicants must develop performance measure expectations which will occur as a result of their proposed activities. These expectations will be used as a mechanism to track the progress and success of a project. Project performance measures should include statements such as: Whether workshops or technical assistance will meet the needs of farmers or ranchers in the service area and why; how much time will be spent in group training or individual hands-on training of farmers and ranchers in the service area; or whether activities will meet the demands of stakeholders. Project performance measures must include the assumptions used to make those estimates.

    Consider the following questions when developing performance measurement statements:

    • What is the measurable short-term and long-term impact the project will have on servicing or meeting the needs of stakeholders?

    • How will the organization measure the effectiveness and efficiency of their proposed activities to meet their overall goals and objectives?

    II. Award Information A. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is 7 U.S.C. 2279, as amended, which authorizes award funding for projects designed to provide outreach and assistance to socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers.

    B. Expected Amount of Funding

    The total estimated funding expected to be available for awards under this competitive opportunity is $8.4 million. Funding will be awarded based on peer competition within the three categories listed below. OAO reserves the discretion to allocate funding between the categories based upon the number and quality of applications received. There is no commitment by OAO to fund any particular application or to make a specific number of awards within each category.

    1. Category #1: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.2, III.A.3, and III.A.4 (1890 Land Grant colleges and universities, 1994 Alaska Native and American Indian Tribal colleges and universities, and Hispanic-Serving colleges and universities). OAO anticipates making awards totaling at least $2 million for Category #1 applicants.

    2. Category #2: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.1 and III.A.6 (i.e., nonprofit organizations, community-based organizations, including a network or a coalition of community-based organizations, Indian tribes (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b), and National tribal organizations). OAO anticipates making awards totaling at least $2 million for Category #2 applicants.

    3. Category #3: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.5 and III.A.7 (i.e., all other institutions of higher education and other organizations or institutions, including those that received funding under this program before January 1, 1996). OAO anticipates making awards totaling at least $1 million for Category #3 applicants.

    C. Project Period

    The performance period for projects selected from this solicitation will not begin prior to the effective award date and may not exceed one (1) year. Projects that are part of multi-year initiatives will only be funded for one year and will be eligible to compete for additional funding in subsequent years.

    D. Award Type

    Funding for selected projects will be in the form of a grant which must be fully executed no later than September 30, 2016. The anticipated Federal involvement will be limited to the following activities:

    1. Approval of awardees' final budget and statement of work accompanying the grant agreement;

    2. Monitoring of awardees' performance through quarterly and final financial and performance reports; and

    3. Evaluation of awardees' use of federal funds through desk audits and on-site visits.

    III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Entities

    1. Any community-based organization, network, or coalition of community-based organizations that:

    • Demonstrates experience in providing agricultural education or other agricultural-related services to socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers;

    • provides documentary evidence of work with, and on behalf of, socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers during the 3-year period preceding the submission of a proposal for assistance under this program; and

    • does not or has not engaged in activities prohibited under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

    2. An 1890 or 1994 institution of higher education (as defined in 7 U.S.C. 7601).

    3. An American Indian tribal community college or an Alaska Native cooperative college.

    4. A Hispanic-Serving Institution of higher education (as defined in 7 U.S.C. 3103).

    5. Any other institution of higher education (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1001) that has demonstrated experience in providing agricultural education or other agricultural-related services to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

    6. An Indian tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b) or a National tribal organization that has demonstrated experience in providing agricultural education or other agriculturally-related services to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

    7. All other organizations or institutions that received funding under this program before January 1, 1996, but only with respect to projects that the Secretary considers are similar to projects previously carried out by the entity under this program.

    B. Cost-Sharing or Matching

    Matching is not required for this program.

    C. Threshold Eligibility Criteria

    Applications from eligible entities that meet all criteria will be evaluated as follows:

    1. Proposals must comply with the submission instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV of this announcement. Pages in excess of the page limitation will not be considered.

    2. Proposals must be received through www.grants.gov as specified in Section IV of this announcement on or before the proposal submission deadline. Applicants will receive an electronic confirmation receipt of their proposal from www.grants.gov.

    3. Proposals received after the submission deadline will not be considered. Please note that in order to submit proposals organizations must create accounts in www.grants.gov and in the System for Awards Management (SAM.gov); both of which could take up to 3 days or longer. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that organizations begin this process immediately. Registering early could prevent unforeseen delays in submitting your proposal.

    4. Proposals must address a minimum of two or more of the priority areas that provide outreach and assistance to socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers as stated in section I, subsection B, Scope of Work.

    IV. Proposal and Submission Information A. System for Award Management (SAM)

    It is a requirement to register for SAM (www.sam.gov). There is NO fee to register for this site.

    Per 2 CFR part 200, applicants are required to: (i) Be registered in SAM before submitting an application; (ii) provide a valid unique entity identifier in the application; and (iii) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the organization has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. The OAO may not make a Federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the OAO is ready to make a Federal award, OAO may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.

    SAM contains the publicly available data for all active exclusion records entered by the Federal government identifying those parties excluded from receiving Federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and certain types of Federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits. All applicant organizations and their key personnel will be vetted through SAM.gov to ensure they are in compliance with this requirement and not on the Excluded Parties List.

    B. Obtain Proposal Package From www.grants.gov

    Applicants may download individual grant proposal forms from www.grants.gov. For assistance with www.grants.gov, please consult the Applicant User Guide at (http://grants.gov/assets/ApplicantUserGuide.pdf).

    Applicants are required to submit proposals through www.grants.gov. Applicants will be required to register through www.grants.gov in order to begin the proposal submission process. We strongly suggest you initiate this process immediately to avoid processing delays due to registration requirements.

    Federal agencies post funding opportunities on www.grants.gov. The OAO is not responsible for submission issues associated with www.grants.gov. If you experience submission issues, please contact www.grants.gov support staff for assistance.

    Proposals must be submitted by July 29, 2016, via www.grants.gov at 11:59 p.m. EST. Proposals received after this deadline will not be considered.

    C. Content of Proposal Package Submission

    All submissions must contain completed and electronically signed original application forms, as well as a Narrative Proposal, as described below:

    1. Forms. The forms listed below can be found in the proposal package at www.grants.gov.

    • Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance;

    • Standard Form (SF) 424A, Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs; and

    • Standard Form (SF) 424B, Non-Construction Programs.

    • Key Contacts Form

    • Form AD-1047 Certification Regarding Debarment and Suspension

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying

    • Form AD-1049 Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace

    2. Attachments. The elements listed below are required for all grant proposals and are included in the proposal package at www.grants.gov as fillable PDF templates. Applicants must download and complete these attachments and save the completed PDF files to the application submission portal at www.grants.gov. Attachment 1 will consist of the Project Summary Page and the Project Narrative. Attachment 2 will consist of the Budget Narrative. Attachment 3 will consist of Appendices. NOTE: Please number each page of each attachment and indicate the total number of pages per attachment (i.e., 1 of 10, 2 of 10, etc.).

    Attachment 1: Project Summary Page and Project Narrative. The proposal must contain a Project Summary Page, which should not be numbered and must follow immediately after the SF Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance form. The Project Summary Page is limited to 250 words. It should be a synopsis or summary of the project's goals and objectives. It should be written as a CONCISE notice or advertisement about your organization, including its name; two or three sentences describing your project; the project's geographic service area; and the Project Director's name, email address, and telephone number. No points will be given or subtracted for the Project Summary Page. This will allow OAO to quickly glean pertinent information on the project. Organizations can expect that the Project Summary Page may be used in its entirety or in part for media purposes to include press releases, in informational emails to potential stakeholders or partners, to provide upper echelons of government with a snapshot of an organization, and for demographic purposes. Please do not restate the objectives of the 2501 Program (i.e. “to provide outreach and assistance for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and veterans farmers and ranchers”); it should reflect the goal of your specific project.

    Attachment 1: Project Narrative. In 15 double-spaced pages or less, using one-inch margins and 12-point font, indicate the organization that will conduct the project, the geographical area served by the project, and the priority areas that will be addressed by the project. Please be concise and note, members of the reviewing panel will not be required to review proposals of organizations which have deviated from these formatting specifications or have used alternative font sizes and margins.

    ○ Discuss the merits of your proposed project. Specifically, proposals must: (1) Define and establish the existence of the needs of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, veteran farmers and ranchers, or both in the defined geographic area; (2) identify the experience of the organization(s) taking part in the project; (3) identify the geographic area of service; and (4) discuss the potential impact of the project.

    ○ Identify the qualifications, relevant experience, education, and publications of each Project Director or collaborator. Also, specifically address the work to be completed by key personnel and the roles and responsibilities within the scope of the proposed project. This includes past completed projects and financial management experiences.

    ○ In an organized format, create a timeline for each task to be accomplished during the period of performance timeframe. Relate each task to one of the four priority areas in Section I, Subsection B. The timeline is part of the 15 page limit but can be as simple as a one-page description of tasks.

    Attachment 2: Budget Narrative. The Budget Narrative should identify and describe the costs associated with the proposed project, including sub-awards or contracts and indirect costs. An eligible entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10 percent of modified total direct costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). Organizations with previously approved indirect cost rates must submit their negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA) with this application in Attachment 3. Other funding sources may also be identified in this attachment. Each cost indicated must be reasonable, allocable, necessary and allowable under the Federal Cost Principles (2 CFR part 200, subpart E-Cost Principles) in order to be funded. The Budget Narrative should not exceed two pages and is not part of the Project Narrative.

    Attachment 3: Appendices. Organizations may submit Letters of Commitment, Letters of Support, or other supporting documentation which is encouraged but not required. Applicants can consolidate all supplemental materials into one additional attachment. Do not include sections from other attachments as an Appendix.

    Checklist of documents to submit through www.grants.gov:

    1. SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance

    Note: Ensure this is completed with accuracy; particularly email addresses and phone numbers. OAO may not be able to reach you if your information is incorrect.

    2. Project Summary Page (no more than 250 words).

    3. Project Narrative including a timeline (no more than 15 pages, 12 point font, and 1 inch margins only).

    Note:

    To ensure fairness and uniformity for all applicants, Project Narratives not conforming to this stipulation may not be considered.

    4. SF-424A Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs.

    5. Budget Narrative (not to exceed 2 pages).

    6. Key Contacts Form

    Note: Please ensure these are completed with accuracy; individuals not on applicants' Key Contact Form will not receive information about or access to data that concerns the applicant organization.

    7. Form AD-1047 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters.

    8. Certification Regarding Lobbying.

    9. Form AD-1049 Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).

    10. Letters of Support, Letters of Recommendation, proof of 501(c)(3) status, résumés of key personnel, negotiated indirect cost rate agreements, etc.

    Best practice notes:

    * Only submit Adobe pdf file format documents to www.grants.gov.

    * Name your documents with short titles to prevent issues with uploading/downloading documents from www.grants.gov. Documents with long names may not always upload/download properly.

    * WHERE TO UPLOAD ATTACHMENTS ON YOUR APPLICATION: There are three blocks on the application where you may upload attachments: after block 14, after block 15, and after block 16. All attachments may be uploaded after each of these blocks on the tab that states: “Add Attachments.”

    D. Sub-Awards and Partnerships

    Funding may be used to provide sub-awards, which includes using sub-awards to fund partnerships; however, the awardee must utilize at least 50 percent of the total funds awarded, and no more than three subcontracts will be permitted. All sub-awardees must comply with applicable requirements for sub-awards. Applicants must provide documentation of a competitive bidding process for services, contracts, and products, including consultant contracts, and conduct cost and price analyses to the extent required by applicable procurement regulations.

    The OAO awards funds to one eligible applicant as the awardee. Please indicate a lead applicant as the responsible party if other organizations are named as partners or co-applicants or members of a coalition or consortium. The awardee is accountable to the OAO for the proper expenditure of all funds.

    E. Submission Dates and Times

    The closing date and time for receipt of proposal submissions is July 29, 2016, at 11:59 p.m., EST via www.grants.gov. Proposals received after the submission deadline will be considered late without further consideration. Proposals must be submitted through www.grants.gov without exception. Additionally, organizations must also be registered in the SAM (www.sam.gov). Creating an account for both Web sites can take several days to receive account verification and/or PIN numbers. Please allow sufficient time to complete access requirements for these Web sites. Proposal submission deadline is firm.

    F. Confidential Information

    In accordance with 2 CFR part 200, the names of entities submitting proposals, as well as proposal contents and evaluations, will be kept confidential to the extent permissible by law. If an applicant chooses to include confidential or proprietary information in the proposal, it will be treated in accordance with Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of the FOIA protects trade secrets, and commercial and financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential.

    G. Pre-Submission Proposal Assistance

    1. The OAO may not assist individual applicants by reviewing draft proposals or providing advice on how to respond to evaluation criteria. However, the OAO will respond to questions from individual applicants regarding eligibility criteria, administrative issues related to the submission of the proposal, and requests for clarification regarding the announcement. Any questions should be submitted to [email protected].

    2. The OAO will post questions and answers relating to this funding opportunity during its open period on the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section of our Web site: http://www.outreach.usda.gov/grants/. The OAO will update the FAQs on a weekly basis and conduct webinars on an as-needed basis.

    V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria

    Only eligible entities whose proposals meet the threshold criteria in Section III of this announcement will be reviewed according to the evaluation criteria set forth below. Applicants should explicitly and fully address these criteria as part of their proposal package. Each proposal will be reviewed under the regulations established under 2 CFR part 200.

    A review panel that is independent of OAO will use a point system to rate each proposal, awarding a maximum of 100 points (95 points, plus an additional 5 discretionary points for programmatic priorities). Each proposal will be reviewed by at least two members of the Independent Review Panel who will review and score all applications submitted. The Independent Review Panel will numerically score and rank each application within the three categories and funding decisions will be based on their recommendations to the designated approving official. Final funding decisions will be made by the designated approving official.

    B. Evaluation Criteria for New Grants Proposals Criteria Points 1. Project Narrative: Under this criterion, your proposal will be evaluated to the extent to which the narrative includes a well-conceived strategy for addressing the requirements and objectives stated in: Section I, Part B, Scope of Work, (see page 4, Project Narrative, for further clarification) identifying a minimum of two or more of the priority areas 45 In addition, the OAO may award up to five discretionary points (one point each) for the following Secretary priorities and initiatives: 5 • Projects assisting beginning farmers and ranchers (as defined in 7 U.S.C. 3319f); • Projects to assist StrikeForce states/communities as identified through the StrikeForce Initiative; • Projects that propose to assist with USDA's commitment to Tribal organizations with successful demonstration on implementation methods encompassing Tribal participation and buy-in; • Projects located in rural Promise Zones; • Projects with an emphasis on partnering with other USDA agencies, other Federal, state, and local entities, to maximize areas of coverage for outreach (i.e., research, small and beginning farmers, and feeding programs, etc.); 2. Programmatic Capability: Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on their ability to successfully complete and manage the proposed project taking into account the applicant's: Organizational experience, its staff's expertise and/or qualifications, and the organization's resources. The organization must also clearly document its historical successes and future plans to continue assisting socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers 10 3. Financial Management Experience: Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on their demonstrated ability to successfully complete and manage the proposed project taking into account the applicants' past performance in successfully completing and managing prior funding agreements identified, Section I, Part C, Performance Measures (see page 6). Past performance documentation on successfully completed projects may be at the Federal, state, or local community level. Per 2 CFR 200.205, if an applicant is a prior recipient of Federal awards, their record in managing that award will be reviewed, including timeliness of compliance with applicable reporting requirements and conformance to the terms and conditions of previous Federal awards 5 4. Budget: Under this criterion, proposed project budget will be evaluated to determine whether costs are reasonable, allowable, allocable and necessary to accomplish the proposed goals and objectives; and whether the proposed budget provides a detailed breakdown of the approximate funding used for each major activity. Additionally, indirect costs must be appropriately applied (see page 11). For a list of unallowable costs, please see 2 CFR part 200, subpart E 15 5. Tracking and Measuring: Under this criterion, the applicant's proposal will be evaluated based upon clearly documenting a detailed plan for tracking and measuring their progress toward achieving the expected project outputs and outcomes as stated in Section I, part C, Performance Measures (see pages 4 and 5). Applicants should indicate how they intend to clearly document the effectiveness of their project in achieving proposed thresholds or benchmarks in relation to stated goals and objectives. For example, state how your organization plans to connect socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers with USDA agricultural programs. Applicants must clearly demonstrate how they will ensure timely and successful completion of the project with a reasonable time schedule for execution of the tasks associated with the projects 20 C. Selection of Reviewers

    All applications will be reviewed by members of an Independent Review Panel. Panel members are selected based upon training and experience in relevant fields including outreach, technical assistance, cooperative extension services, civil rights, education, statistical and ethnographic data collection and analysis, and agricultural programs and are drawn from a diverse group of experts to create a balanced panel.

    VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices Proposal Notifications and Feedback

    1. The successful applicant will be notified by the OAO via telephone, email, or postal mail. The notification will advise the applicant that its proposed project has been evaluated and recommended for award. The notification will be sent to the Project Manager listed on the SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance. Project Managers should be the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) and authorized to sign on behalf of the organization. It is imperative that this individual is responsive to notifications by the OAO. If the individual is no longer in the position, please notify the OAO immediately to submit the new contact for the application. The award notice will be forwarded to the grantee for execution and must be returned to the OAO grants officer, who is the authorizing official. Once grant documents are executed by all parties, authorization to begin work will be given. At a minimum, this process can take up to 30 days from the date of notification.

    2. The OAO will also send notification to unsuccessful applicants via email or postal mail. The notification will be sent to the Project Manager listed on the SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance. Project Managers should be the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR).

    3. Within ten days of award status notification, unsuccessful applicants may request feedback on their application. Feedback will be provided as expeditiously as possible. Feedback sessions will be scheduled contingent upon the number of requests. 7 CFR 2500.026.

    B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    All awards resulting from this solicitation will be administered in accordance with the Office and Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards codified at 2 CFR part 200, as supplemented by USDA implementing regulations at 2 CFR parts 400 and 415, and OAO Federal Financial Assistance Programs—General Award Administrative Procedures, 7 CFR part 2500.

    In compliance with its obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 13166, it is the policy of the OAO to provide timely and meaningful access for persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) to projects, programs, and activities administered by Federal grant recipients. Recipient organizations must comply with these obligations upon acceptance of grant agreements as written in OAO's Terms and Conditions. Following these guidelines is essential to the success of our mission to improve access to USDA programs for socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers.

    C. Data Universal Numbering System, System for Award Management, and Central Contractor Registry Registration

    In accordance with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) and the USDA implementation, all applicants must obtain and provide an identifying number from Dun and Bradstreet's (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS). Applicants can receive a DUNS number, at no cost, by calling the toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711, or visiting the D&B Web site at www.dnb.com.

    In addition, FFATA requires applicants to register with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR) and the System for Award Management (SAM). This registration must be maintained and updated annually. Applicants can register or update their profile, at no cost, by visiting the SAM Web site at www.sam.gov which will satisfy both the CCR and SAM registration requirements. This is a requirement to register for www.grants.gov.

    D. Reporting Requirement

    In accordance with 2 CFR part 200, the following reporting requirements will apply to awards provided under this FOA. The OAO reserves the right to revise the schedule and format of reporting requirements as necessary in the award agreement.

    1. Quarterly Progress Reports and Financial Reports will be required.

    Quarterly Progress Reports. The awardee must submit the OMB-approved Performance Progress Report form (SF-PPR, Approval Number: 0970-0334). For each report, the awardee must complete fields 1 through 12 of the SF-PPR. To complete field 10, the awardee is required to provide a detailed narrative of project performance and activities as an attachment, as described in the award agreement. Quarterly progress reports must be submitted to the designated OAO official within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter.

    Quarterly Financial Reports. The awardee must submit the Standard Form 425, Federal Financial Report. For each report, the awardee must complete both the Federal Cash Transaction Report and the Financial Status Report sections of the SF-425. Quarterly financial reports must be submitted to the designated OAO official within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter.

    2. Final progress and financial reports will be required upon project completion. The final progress report should include a summary of the project or activity throughout the funding period, achievements of the project or activity, and a discussion of problems experienced in conducting the project or activity. The final financial report should consist of a complete SF-425 indicating the total costs of the project. Final progress and financial reports must be submitted to the designated OAO official within 90 days after the completion of the award period.

    Signed this 20th day of June 2016. Christian Obineme, Associate Director, Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15124 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 22, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) 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 regarding this information collection received by July 27, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics Study (CEP).

    OMB Control Number: 0584-NEW.

    Summary of Collection: Section 104(a) of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296) amended section 11(a) (1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)(the law) to provide an alternative to household applications for free and reduced- price meals in high poverty local education agencies (LEAs) and schools. This alternative is referred to as the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). In accordance with the law, CEP was phased in over a period of several years. CEP became available nationwide to all eligible LEAs and schools beginning July 1, 2014. The objective of the study is to examine operational issues and perceived incentives and barriers for adopting CEP as well as the impacts on National School Lunch Programs and School Breakfast Program participation and per meal revenues.

    Need and Use of the Information: This study is necessary to implement section 28(a)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This legislation directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to carry out annual national performance assessments of the School Breakfast Program and the National School Lunch Programs. With the expansion of CEP nationwide, the CEP Characteristics Study will include surveys of nationally representative samples of participating and eligible non-participating LEAs to obtain updated information on the characteristics of participating and non-participating districts and schools. It will also examine CEP impacts on student participation and per meal revenue.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 1,029.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: One time.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,621.

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: Special Nutrition Programs Quick Response Surveys.

    OMB Control Number: 0584-NEW.

    Summary of Collection: This is a new generic clearance that will allow the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to quickly collect and analyze specific information from State and local administrators of the Special Nutrition Programs (SNP), including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Summer Food Service Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Food Distribution on Indian Reservation, Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Currently, FNS conducts lengthy, large, and complex studies on broad topics about each SNP, which often take several years to complete. The Quick Response Surveys will provide a new mechanism for succinct, quick-turnaround studies to complement the larger SNP studies. This generic clearance will enable FNS to administer the SNPs more effectively by providing a mechanism for rapidly collecting current information on specific time-sensitive features or issues. The surveys submitted under this generic clearance will be voluntary surveys.

    Need and Use of the Information: The surveys submitted under this generic clearance will collect information from key administrators of the SNPs at the State, local, and site level in response to various program and research questions resulting from the larger and more complex SNP studies. The data collected from these quick turnaround studies will be used to answer policy and implementation questions posed by the larger studies and will enable FNS to monitor program funding, comply with statutes and regulations, and adopt program changes.

    Please note that in the 60-day Federal Register Notice published on November 20, 2015, the estimated burden for this collection was calculated on an annual basis and did not include estimates for the three-year approval period. This notice reports the total burden hours for the three year approval.

    Description of Respondents: Not-for profit institutions and State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 110,403.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On Occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 34,638.

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: Generic Clearance to Conduct Formative Research.

    OMB Control Number: 0584-0524.

    Summary of Collection: This information collection is based on section 19 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1787), section 5 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1754) and section 11(f) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020). This information collection will conduct research in support of FNS' goal of delivering science-based nutrition education to targeted audiences. From development through testing of materials and tools with the target audience, FNS plans to conduct data collections that involve formative research including focus groups, interviews (dyad, triad, telephone, etc.), surveys and Web-based collection tools.

    Need and Use of the Information: Obtaining formative input and feedback is fundamental to FNS' success in delivering science- based nutrition messages and reaching diverse segments of the population in ways that are meaningful and relevant. This includes conferring with the target audience, individuals who serve the target audience, and key stakeholders on the communication strategies and interventions that will be developed and on the delivery approaches that will be used to reach consumers. The formative research and testing activities described will help in the development of effective education and promotion tools and communication strategies. Collection of this information will increase FNS' ability to formulate nutrition education interventions that resonate with the intended target population, in particular low-income families.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households; Not for-profit institutions; Farms; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 113,775.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 43,803.

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: Food Program Reporting System (FPRS).

    OMB Control Number: 0584-0594.

    Summary of Collection: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is consolidating certain programmatic and financial data reporting requirements under the Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS), an electronic reporting system. The purpose is to give State agencies and Indian Tribal Organization (ITO) agencies one portal for the various reporting required for the programs that the State and ITO agencies operate.

    Need and Use of the Information: The data collected will be used for a variety of purposes, mainly program evaluation, planning, audits, funding, research, regulatory compliance and general statistics. The data is gathered at various times, ranging from monthly, quarterly, annual or final submissions. Without the information, FNS would be unable to meet its legislative and regulatory reporting requirements for the affected programs.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 5,095.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Quarterly, Semi-annually, Monthly; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 104,556.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15089 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act AGENCY:

    Siuslaw National Forest, Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Siuslaw National Forest is proposing to charge new fees at five recreation sites. Sites are undergoing new construction or amenities are being added to improve visitor services and experiences. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, market assessment, and public comment. Fee receipts would be used for the operation and maintenance of these recreation sites.

    Castle Rock and Rocky Bend campgrounds will be converted to group campgrounds offering a new opportunity for the public and available to reserve at $75/night. Major reconstruction of the historic Hebo Kitchen, a day use picnic shelter, at Hebo Lake is planned this year and would be available for groups to reserve at $50/day. A $5 day use fee at South Lake/Pioneer Indian Trailhead would be added and recreation passes honored. This site will have new interpretive materials and picnic tables as well as trash service. A $5 day use fee or recreation pass would also be honored at the new Cascade Head interpretive site along the Salmon River estuary within Cascade Head Scenic Research Area. This site is currently under construction and will be completed later this year.

    People are invited to comment on this proposal.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposal will be accepted through September 15, 2016. New fees would begin after January 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jeremiah C. Ingersoll, Forest Supervisor, Siuslaw National Forest, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97333.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dani Pavoni, Recreation Staff Officer, 541-750-7046 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established.

    Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed and a recommendation made by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.

    Visitors wanting to reserve Castle Rock, Rocky Bend or Hebo Kitchen group sites would need to do so through the national reservation system at www.recreation.gov or by calling 1-877-444-6777 when it becomes available.

    Dated: June 17, 2016. Jeremiah C. Ingersoll, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15156 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to re-establish the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board.

    SUMMARY:

    The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), intends to re-establish the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board). In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Board is being re-established to continue obtaining advice and recommendations on a broad range of forest issues such as forest plan revisions or amendments, forest health including fire management and mountain pine beetle infestations, travel management, forest monitoring and evaluation, recreation fees, and site-specific projects having forest wide implications.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Jacobson, Board Coordinator, USDA, Black Hills National Forest, by telephone: 605-673-9216, by fax: 605-673-9208, or by email: [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Board is a non-scientific program advisory board established by the Secretary of Agriculture in 2003 to provide advice and counsel to the U. S. Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, in the wake of increasingly severe and intense wild fires and mountain pine beetle epidemics.

    The purpose of the Board is to provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of forest issues such as forest plan revisions or amendments, travel management, forest monitoring and evaluation, and site-specific projects having forest-wide implications. The Board also serves to meet the needs of the Recreation Enhancement Act of 2005 as a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (RRAC) for the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Board provides timely advice and recommendations to the regional forester through the forest supervisor regarding programmatic forest issues and project-level issues that have forest-wide implications for the Black Hills National Forest.

    The Board meets approximately ten times a year, with one month being a field trip, held in August and focusing on both current issues and the educational value of seeing management strategies and outcomes on the ground. This Board has been established as a truly credible entity and a trusted voice on forest management issues and is doing often astonishing work in helping to develop informed consent for forest management.

    For years, the demands made on the Black Hills National Forest have resulted in conflicts among interest groups resulting in both forest-wide and site-specific programs being delayed due to appeals and litigation. The Board provides a forum to resolve these issues to allow for the Black Hills National Forest to move forward in its management activities. The Board is believed to be one of the few groups with broad enough scope to address all of the issues and include all of the jurisdictional boundaries.

    Significant Contributions

    The Board's most significant accomplishments include:

    1. A 2004 report on the Black Hills Fuels Reduction Plan, a priority following the major fires including the 86,000 acre Jasper Fire in 2000;

    2. A 2004 initial Off-Highway Vehicle Travel Management Subcommittee report;

    3. A report on their findings regarding the thesis, direction, and assumptions of Phase II of our Forest Plan produced in 2005;

    4. The Invasive Species Subcommittee Report in 2005 covering recommendations to better stop invasive species from infiltrating the Forest;

    5. A final Travel Management Subcommittee Report in 2006 in which the Board made 11 recommendations regarding characteristics of a designated motor vehicle trail system, the basis for our initial work to prepare our Motor Vehicle Use Map in 2010-2011;

    6. The Board's annual work to attract funding through grants based on the Collaborative Landscape Forest Restoration Program (CFLRP), a program of the Secretary of Agriculture CFLR Program to encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes;

    7. A letter to the Secretary and the Chief of the Forest Service to work, restore and maintain open space for wildlife habitat and recreation needs like snowmobile trails; and

    8. The annual reports to the Secretary detailing the Board's activities, issues, and accomplishments.

    The Board is deemed to be among the most effective public involvement strategies in the Forest Service and continues to lead by example for Federal, State, and local government agencies working to coordinate and cooperate in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming.

    Background

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. II), the Secretary of Agriculture intends to re-establish the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board. The Board provides advice and recommendations on a broad range of forest planning issues and, in accordance with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 108-447 (REA)), more specifically will provide advice and recommendations on Black Hills National Forest recreation fee issues (serving as the RRAC for the Black Hills National Forest). The Board membership consists of individuals representing commodity interests, amenity interests, and State and local government.

    The Board has been determined to be in the public interest in connection with the duties and responsibilities of the Black Hills National Forest. National forest management requires improved coordination among the interests and governmental entities responsible for land management decisions and the public that the agency serves.

    Advisory Committee Organization

    The Board consists of 16 members that are representative of the following interests (this membership is similar to the membership outlined by the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act for Resource Advisory Committees (16 U.S.C. 500, et seq.)):

    1. Economic development;

    2. Developed outdoor recreation, off-highway vehicle users, or commercial recreation;

    3. Energy and mineral development;

    4. Commercial timber industry;

    5. Permittee (grazing or other land use within the Black Hills area);

    6. Nationally recognized environmental organizations;

    7. Regionally or locally recognized environmental organizations;

    8. Dispersed recreation;

    9. Archeology or history;

    10. Nationally or regionally recognized sportsmen's groups, such as anglers or hunters;

    11. South Dakota State-elected offices;

    12. Wyoming State-elected offices;

    13. South Dakota or Wyoming county-or local-elected officials;

    14. Tribal government elected or- appointed officials;

    15. South Dakota State natural resource agency official; and

    16. Wyoming State natural resource agency official.

    The members of the Board will elect and determine the responsibilities of the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson will act in the Chairperson's stead. The Forest Supervisor of the Black Hills National Forest serves as the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) under sections 10(e) and (f) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. II).

    Members will serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses while performing duties on behalf of the Board, subject to approval by the DFO.

    Equal opportunity practices are followed in all appointments to the Board in accordance with USDA policies. To ensure that the recommendations of the Board have been taken into account the needs of diverse groups served by USDA, the membership shall include to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the needs of all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Gregory L. Parham, Assistant Secretary for Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15127 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Four Forest Restoration Initiative, Rim Country Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Tonto National Forests AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Tonto National Forests are proposing to conduct restoration activities within 1.24 million acres of ponderosa pine ecosystem over approximately 10 years. Treatment areas are located on the Black Mesa, and Lakeside Ranger Districts of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, the Mogollon and Red Rock Ranger Districts of the Coconino National Forest, and the Payson and Pleasant Valley Ranger Districts of the Tonto National Forest. Project treatments would occur in the vicinity of Happy Jack, Payson, Young, Heber-Overgaard, Show Low, and Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona. The objective of this project is to re-establish forest structure, pattern, and composition, which will lead to increased forest resilience and function. Resiliency increases the ability of ponderosa pine forests to survive natural disturbances such as insects and disease, fire, and climate change.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the proposed action in this notice must be received by August 11, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in July 2017 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in September 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Coconino National Forest, Attention: 4FRI, 1824 S. Thompson Street, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected], or via facsimile to (928) 527-3620.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Annette Fredette, 4FRI Planning Coordinator, at 928-226-4684, or [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of and Need for Action

    The purpose of the Rim Country Project is to reestablish and restore forest structure and pattern, forest health, and vegetation composition and diversity in ponderosa pine ecosystems to conditions within the natural range of variation, thus moving the project area toward the desired conditions. The outcome of improving structure and function is increased system resiliency. Resiliency increases the ability of an ecosystem to survive natural disturbances such as fire, insects and disease, and climate change without changing its inherent function.

    This project is needed to: Increase forest resiliency and sustainability, reduce risk of undesirable fire effects, improve terrestrial and aquatic species habitat, improve the condition and function of streams and springs, restore woody riparian vegetation, preserve cultural resources, and support sustainable forest products industries.

    Proposed Action

    To meet the purpose and need for the Rim Country Project and move the project area toward desired conditions, the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Tonto National Forests propose mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, and other restoration activities throughout the project area that would make the forest more resilient to natural disturbances such as fire, insects and disease, and climate change. Restoration activities are needed to maintain or restore forest structure and pattern, desired fire regimes, and watershed and ecosystem function in ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine-Gambel oak, ponderosa pine-evergreen oak, frequent fire mixed conifer (dry mixed conifer), aspen, and grassland cover types, moving them toward conditions within the natural range of variation. Facilitative operations may be needed in other cover types (such as pinyon juniper) to enable or complete treatments in target cover types, by reducing uncharacteristic fire risk, reducing ground disturbance from fireline construction, or improving operability. Restoration activities proposed for the Rim Country project area include:

    • Mechanically thin trees and/or implement prescribed fire on approximately 952,330 acres.

    ○ Mechanically thin trees and implement prescribed fire on approximately 1,260 acres in the Long Valley Experimental Forest (in coordination with the Rocky Mountain Research Station).

    ○ Implement prescribed fire alone on approximately 45,290 acres.

    ○ Mechanically thin and/or implement prescribed fire on approximately 68,360 acres of Mexican spotted owl (MSO) protected activity centers (PACs), approximately 128,800 acres of MSO recovery habitat, and approximately 500,940 acres of northern goshawk habitat.

    ○ Mechanically thin trees and/or implement prescribed fire to restore approximately 40,760 acres of grasslands and meadows (includes 21,550 acres of grassland cover type).

    ○ Conduct facilitative operations (thin and/or burn) on up to 157,270 acres of non-target cover types to support treatments in target cover types.

    ○ Planting, burning, and other activities to encourage reforestation on approximately 69,360 acres of understocked areas that were previously forested.

    • Decommission approximately 230 miles of existing system and unauthorized roads on the Coconino and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

    • Decommission approximately 20 miles of unauthorized roads on the Tonto NF.

    • Improve approximately 150 miles of existing non-system roads and construct approximately 350 miles of temporary roads for haul access; decommission when treatments are completed.

    • Relocate and reconstruct existing open roads adversely affecting water quality and natural resources, or of concern to human safety.

    • Restore hydrologic function and vegetation on approximately 9,570 acres of meadows.

    • Restore approximately 184 springs.

    • Restore function in up to 470 miles of riparian streams and intermittent and ephemeral stream channels (non-riparian).

    • Restore up to 360 miles of stream habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species.

    • Construct up to 200 miles of protective barriers around springs, aspen, Bebb's willows, and big-tooth maples, as needed for restoration.

    Possible Alternatives

    A full range of alternatives to the proposed action, including a no action alternative, will be considered. The no action alternative represents no change and serves as the baseline for the comparison of the action alternatives.

    Forest Plan Amendments

    To meet the project's purpose and need, the existing Coconino and Tonto Forest Plans would need to be amended to provide for areas of grass, forbs, and shrubs interspersed with tree groups and allow for treatments to move tree group patterns, interspaces, and stand density toward the natural range of variability. Amending these forest plans would allow for treatments that improve MSO nesting and roosting habitat as defined in the Mexican spotted owl recovery plan. The desired conditions related in the project's purpose and need are consistent with the revised Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Plan. Amendments to the Coconino and Tonto Forest Plans would provide consistency in meeting desired conditions for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests across the Rim Country project area.

    Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    Cooperating Agency status has been designated to the Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) to assist the Apache-Sitgreaves, Tonto, and Coconino National Forests in the preparation of the 4FRI Rim Country EIS, pursuant to the terms the Master Memorandum of Understanding (10-MU-11031600-019) between the Department and the Forest Service.

    Responsible Official

    The responsible officials are the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Tonto National Forest Supervisors.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Given the purpose and need of the project, the forest supervisors will review the proposed action, other alternatives, and the environmental effects analysis in order to determine: (1) Which alternative, or combination of alternatives, should be implemented; (2) the location and treatment methods for all restoration activities; (3) the design features, mitigation measures and monitoring requirements; and, (4) consistency with the forest plans in place at the time of the decision and the need for amendments.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process for the 4FRI Rim Country Project, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Public meetings are planned during the scoping period for the purposes of discussing and gathering comments on the proposed action. Meetings are planned on Thursday, July 14 in Show Low, AZ, and on Thursday, July 21 in Payson, AZ. For times and locations and other scheduled meetings, please visit the 4FRI Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/4FRIRimCountry. Please contact Annette Fredette at (928) 226-4684 for additional information.

    The intent of this comment period is to provide those interested in or affected by this proposed action with an opportunity to make their concerns known. Written, hand-delivered, electronic, and facsimile comments concerning this proposed action will be accepted. We invite you to provide any substantive comments you might have regarding the proposed action for the 4FRI Rim Country Project, those that are within the scope of the project and the decision to be made, are specific to the proposed activities and the project area, and have a direct relationship to the project. Please provide supporting reasons for us to consider. If you cite or include references with your comments, you need to state specifically how those references relate to the proposed action. Please include hard copies or internet links to any references to which you refer. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    This proposed project is an action implementing three land management plans and is subject to the objection process described in 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. As such, individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to file a predecisional objection must meet the information requirements in 36 CFR 218. Names and contact information submitted with comments will become part of the public record and may be released under the Freedom of Information Act. However, comments submitted anonymously will also be accepted and considered.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Scott Russell, 4FRI Chief Executive.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15104 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration First Responder Network Authority; First Responder Network Authority Board Meetings AGENCY:

    First Responder Network Authority, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) will convene an open public meeting on June 30, 2016, preceded by open public meetings of the Board Committees on June 29, 2016.

    DATES:

    On June 29, 2016 between 1 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. CST, there will be an open public joint meeting of the FirstNet Governance and Personnel, Finance, Technology, and Consultation and Outreach Committees. The full FirstNet Board will hold an open public meeting on June 30, 2016 between 8:30 a.m. and 12 p.m. CST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings on June 29-30, 2016, will be held at W Chicago—City Center, 172 West Adams Street, Chicago, IL 60603.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Miller-Kuwana, Board Secretary, FirstNet, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192; telephone: (571) 665-6177; email: [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to Ryan Oremland at (571) 665-6186.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that the Board of FirstNet will convene an open public meeting on June 30, 2016, preceded by open public meetings of the Board Committees on June 29, 2016.

    Background: The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 256 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.)) (the “Act”) established FirstNet as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that is headed by a Board. The Act directs FirstNet to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network. The FirstNet Board is responsible for making strategic decisions regarding FirstNet's operations. The FirstNet Board held its first public meeting on September 25, 2012.

    Matters to be Considered: FirstNet will post detailed agendas of each meeting on its Web site, http://www.firstnet.gov, prior to the meetings. The agenda topics are subject to change. Please note that the subjects that will be discussed by the Committees and the Board may involve commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, personnel matters, or other legal matters affecting FirstNet. As such, the Committee chairs and Board Chair may call for a vote to close the meetings only for the time necessary to preserve the confidentiality of such information, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 1424(e)(2).

    Times and Dates of Meetings: On June 29, 2016 between 1 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. CST, there will be an open public joint meeting of the Governance and Personnel, Finance, Technology, and Consultation and Outreach Committees. The full FirstNet Board will hold an open public meeting on June 30, 2016 between 8:30 a.m. and 12 p.m. CST.

    Place: The meetings on June 29-30, 2016 will be held at W Chicago—City Center, 172 West Adams Street, Chicago, IL 60603.

    Other Information: These meetings are open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. In order to get an accurate headcount, all expected attendees are asked to provide notice of intent to attend by sending an email to [email protected] If the number of RSVPs indicates that expected attendance has reached capacity, FirstNet will respond to all subsequent notices indicating that capacity has been reached and that in-person viewing may no longer be available but that the meeting may still be viewed by webcast as detailed below. For access to the meetings, valid government issued photo identification may be requested for security reasons.

    The meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Monica Welham, Executive Assistant, FirstNet, at (571) 665-6144 or [email protected], at least five (5) business days before the applicable meeting(s).

    The meetings will also be webcast. Please refer to FirstNet's Web site at www.firstnet.gov for webcast instructions and other information. Viewers experiencing any issues with the live webcast may email [email protected] or call 202-684-3361 x9 for support. A variety of automated troubleshooting tests are also available via the “Troubleshooting Tips” button on the webcast player. The meetings will also be available to interested parties by phone. To be connected to the meetings in listen-only mode by telephone, please dial 800-857-9642 and passcode 2162310.

    Records: FirstNet maintains records of all Board proceedings. Minutes of the Board Meeting and the Committee meetings will be available at www.firstnet.gov.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Karen Miller-Kuwana, Board Secretary, First Responder Network Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15158 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-TL-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.

    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before July 18, 2016. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.

    Docket Number: 15-052. Applicant: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, 211 TASF, Ames, IA 50011-3020. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI, Co., Czech Republic and Great Britain. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to perform microstructure examination, compositional analysis and orientation analysis on materials such as metals, compounds, alloys, oxides and organic materials. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: April 13, 2016.

    Docket Number: 16-007. Applicant: University of California, Riverside, 900 University Ave., Riverside, CA 92521. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to characterize the morphology and structure at microscopic down to atomic scale of materials and biological tissues. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: May 9, 2016.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Gregory W. Campbell, Director of Subsidies Enforcement, Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15139 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-043] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On February 12, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of stainless steel sheet and strip (stainless sheet and strip) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).1 On May 6, 2016, the Department received timely allegations that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under investigation.2 Based on information provided by Petitioners, data placed on the record of this investigation by the mandatory respondent, and data collected by the Department, the Department preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of stainless sheet and strip from the PRC.

    1See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the People's Republic of China—Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,” February 12, 2016 (Petition). The petitioners for these investigations are AK Steel Corporation, Allegheny Ludlum, LLC d/b/a ATI Flat Rolled Products, North American Stainless, and Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC (collectively, Petitioners).

    2See Letter from Petitioners, “Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the People's Republic of China—Petitioners Allegation of Critical Circumstances,” May 6, 2016 (Critical Circumstances Allegation).

    DATES:

    Effective on June 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0176.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in CVD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A) That “the alleged countervailable subsidy” is inconsistent with the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement of the World Trade Organization, and (B) that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 19 CFR 351.206 provides that imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the “relatively short period” to be considered “massive” and defines a “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later.3 The regulations also provide, however, that, if the Department finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.4

    3See 19 CFR 351.206(i).

    4Id.

    On March 25, 2016, the Department selected Ningbo Baoxin Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Baoxin) and Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd. (Taigang) as mandatory respondents.5 Since Ningbo Baoxin has not participated in this proceeding, we selected Daming International Import Export Co Ltd (Daming) as an additional mandatory respondent on May 5, 2016.6 Daming has not participated in this proceeding.

    5See Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection,” March 25, 2016.

    6See Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Second Analysis Regarding Respondent Selection,” May 5, 2016.

    Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are Inconsistent With the SCM Agreement

    To determine whether an alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department considered the evidence currently on the record of this investigation. Specifically, as determined in our initiation checklist, the following subsidy programs, alleged in the Petition and supported by information reasonably available to Petitioners, appear to be either export contingent or contingent upon the use of domestic goods over imported goods, which would render them inconsistent with the SCM Agreement: Preferential Lending to Stainless Sheet and Strip Producers and Exporters Classified As “Honorable Enterprises,” 7 Export Loans,8 Export Credit Guarantees,9 Income Tax Credits for Domestically-Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment,10 Subsidies for Development of Famous Brands and China World Top Brands,11 and Export Assistance Grants.12 Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that there are alleged subsidies in this CVD investigation that are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.

    7See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, March 3, 2016, at 9.

    8Id., at 10.

    9Id., at 12.

    10Id., at 21.

    11Id., at 32.

    12Id., at 36.

    Massive Imports

    In determining whether there are “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the “base period”) to a comparable period of at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the “comparison period”). Imports normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during the base period.

    Petitioners did not provide any argument or evidence pursuant to CFR 351.206(i), that importers, exporters or producers had a reason to believe, at some time prior to the filing of the petition, that a proceeding was likely. Thus, in order to determine whether there has been a massive surge in imports for the cooperating mandatory respondent, we have used a comparison period starting with the month the petition was filed in (i.e., February 2016), up to the most recent month we have shipping data for on the record (i.e., April 2016). We then selected a base period with the same number of months, starting in the month prior to the filing of the petition (i.e., November 2015 through January 2016). Based on this analysis, we preliminarily determine that Taigang had massive imports.13

    13See Memorandum, “Monthly Shipment Quantity and Value Analysis for Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination,” June 20, 2016.

    For “all other” exporters or producers, the Department compared Global Trade Atlas (GTA) data for the period February through April (the last month for which GTA data is currently available) with the proceeding three-month period of November 2015 through January 2016.14 We then subtracted shipments reported by the cooperating mandatory respondent from the GTA data. Based on this analysis, we preliminarily determine that “all other” exporters or producers had massive imports.15

    14 The Department gathered GTA data under the following harmonized tariff schedule numbers: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.13.0081, 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.23.0030, 7219.23.0060, 7219.24.0030, 7219.24.0060, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.32.0045, 7219.32.0060, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.33.0045, 7219.33.0070, 7219.33.0080, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.34.0050, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.35.0050, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080.

    15Id.

    Because we do not have verifiable shipment data from the non-cooperating mandatory respondents (i.e., those mandatory respondents that did not respond to the initial questionnaire or who otherwise indicated their unwillingness to participate in the investigation), we determined, on the basis of adverse facts available,16 that there has been a massive surge in imports. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the following producers/exporters had massive surges in imports: Ningbo Baoxin, and Daming.17

    16See Section 776 of the Act.

    17See Memorandum, “Monthly Shipment Quantity and Value Analysis for Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination,” dated concurrently with this Federal Register notice.

    Conclusion

    Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of stainless sheet and strip shipped by Taigang, Ningbo Baoxin, Daming, and “all other” exporters or producers.

    Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    We will issue a final determination concerning critical circumstances when we issue our final subsidy determination. All interested parties will have the opportunity to address this determination in case briefs to be submitted after completion of the preliminary CVD determination.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with sections 703(e)(2), because we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports exported by certain producers and exporters, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been provided to these same producers/exporters at above de minimis rates,18 we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from these producers/exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior to the effective date of “provisional measures” (e.g., the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been provided at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated preliminary subsidy rates reflected in the preliminary determination published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    18 The preliminary determinations concerning the provision of countervailable subsidies is currently scheduled for July 11, 2016.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15132 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-830] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is amending the Final Results1 of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico to correct ministerial errors. The period of review (“POR”) is October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014.

    1See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 81 FR 31,592 (May 19, 2016) (“Final Results”).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone 202-482-3965.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 16, 2016, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the Final Results. 2 On May 23, 2015, we received ministerial error allegations from Nucor Corporation 3 and Deacero S.A.P.I de C.V. and Deacero USA (“Deacero”) regarding the Department's final margin calculations.4

    2See Memorandum, “Calculation Memorandum for Daecero S.A. de C.V. and Deacero USA, INC. (collectively, Deacero)” dated May 6, 2015.

    3 Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”) is a domestic interested party.

    4See Letter from Nucor, “Eighth (12/13) Administrative Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico—Petitioner's Comments on a Ministerial Error in Final Results” dated May 18, 2015; and Letter from Deacero “Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Ministerial Error Comments” dated May 18, 2015.

    Period of Review

    The POR covered by this review is October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059. Although the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.5

    5 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see “Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Administrative Review; 2012-2013” dated May 6, 2015 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Ministerial Errors

    Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), defines a “ministerial error” as including “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.” We analyzed Nucor's and Deacero's ministerial error comments and determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that there were ministerial errors in our calculation of Deacero's margin for the Final Results. For a complete discussion of these allegations, see the Department's Ministerial Errors Memorandum.6

    6See “2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Order on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Ministerial Error Allegations for Final Results” dated concurrently with this notice (“Ministerial Errors Memorandum”).

    In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results. 7 The revised weighted-average dumping margin is detailed below.

    7Id.

    Amended Final Results

    As a result of correcting for these ministerial errors, we determine the following margin exists for the period October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013.

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and Deacero USA, Inc. (collectively, Deacero) 1.13 ad valorem.
    Assessment Rate

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the amended final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review.

    For assessment purposes, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    We calculated such rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. If an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent) or the exporter has a weighted-average dumping margin that is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer's entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by a respondent for which it did not know that 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. For a full discussion of this assessment practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of amended final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the amended final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Deacero will be the rate established in the amended final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative 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 recent period; (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 most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 20.11 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.8 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    8See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final 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 review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results to interested parties within five business days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b)

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15130 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-008] Calcium Hypochlorite From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Intent To Rescind the New Shipper Review of Haixing Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd. AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a July 17, 2015 request from Haixing Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd. (“Jingmei”), and its affiliated producer, Haixing Eno Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Eno”), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of Haixing Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd. (“Jingmei”), regarding the antidumping duty order on calcium hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is July 25, 2014, through June 30, 2015.1 The Department preliminarily determines to rescind this review because we requested but were not provided sufficient information to conduct a bona fide analysis as required by the statute, and accordingly cannot determine whether Jingmei's new shipper sales are bona fide. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    1See Calcium Hypochlorite From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2015, 80 FR 51774 (August 26, 2015).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On August 26, 2015, the Department published notice of initiation of a new shipper review of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC for the period July 25, 2014, through June 30, 2015.2 On November 5, 2015, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results to June 14, 2016.3 The Department tolled the deadline for these preliminary results by an additional four business days as a result of the Government closure due to Snowstorm “Jonas,” which extended the deadline to June 20, 2016.4

    2See Calcium Hypochlorite From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2015, 80 FR 51774 (August 26, 2015).

    3See Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, Director, Office V, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations “Extension of Deadline for Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review; 2014-2015” (November 5, 2015).

    4See Memorandum for the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure during Snowstorm `Jonas' ” (January 27, 2016).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the Order is calcium hypochlorite, regardless of form (e.g., powder, tablet (compressed), crystalline (granular), or in liquid solution), whether or not blended with other materials, containing at least 10% available chlorine measured by actual weight. Calcium hypochlorite is currently classifiable under the subheading 2828.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.5

    5See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China: Haixing Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd.” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”) for a complete description of the Scope of the Order. See also Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, Office V, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from Kabir Archuletta, Senior International Trade Analyst, titled “Bona Fide Nature of the Sales in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China: Haixing Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd.” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Department's 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/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Rescission of Jingmei New Shipper Review

    For the reasons detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department preliminarily finds that, as a result of Jingmei's customers' failure to provide necessary information, we cannot determine whether Jingmei's sales under review are bona fide, and, therefore, whether they provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin. As result, the Department is preliminarily rescinding the new shipper review of Jingmei.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose the analysis performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments by no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.6 Rebuttals, limited to issues raised in the written comments, may be filed by no later than five days after the written comments are filed.7

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(c).

    7See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.8 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.9

    8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    9See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the final results, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If we proceed to a final rescission of the new shipper review, Jingmei's entries will be assessed at the rate entered.10 If we do not proceed to a final rescission of the new shipper review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis.11

    10See 19 CFR 351.212(c).

    11See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Effective upon publication of the final rescission or the final results of this new shipper review, we will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise by Jingmei. If the Department proceeds to a final rescission of the new shipper review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate. If we issue final results of the new shipper review for Jingmei, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits, effective upon the publication of the final results, at the rates established therein.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also 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 review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Methodology V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-15135 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE689 Marine Mammals; File No. 18529 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Janice Straley, Ph.D., University of Alaska Southeast, 1332 Sward Ave., Sitka, AK 99835, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on 16 species of cetaceans.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before July 27, 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. 18529 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:

    Carrie Hubard or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), 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 proposes to further the understanding of large whales in Alaskan waters by conducting vessel research, including photo-identification, behavioral observations, acoustic playbacks, biopsy sampling, suction cup and dart tagging, underwater photography/video, and prey-mapping sonar. Prey samples, blow, sloughed skin and feces would also be collected. Research would occur in all Alaskan waters, including southeastern Alaska, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Prince William Sound, Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea. Specific goals are to: (1) Continue and expand a study of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae); (2) study sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) movements, foraging behavior, and depredation on longline fishing gear; (3) study killer whale (Orcinus orca) seasonal movements, foraging, migration patterns and depredation; and (4) enhance the body of knowledge, stock structure, and current status of other cetacean species in the study area. In addition to the three focus species, six other large whale species and seven other small cetaceans would be targeted for research. The permit would be valid for five years.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15095 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Patent Cooperation Treaty

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    Title: Patent Cooperation Treaty.

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0021.

    Form Numbers:

    • PCT/RO/101 • PCT/RO/134 • PCT/IB/372 • PCT/IPEA/401 • PTO-1382 • PTO-1390 • PTO/SB/61/PCT • PTO/SB/64/PCT

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 423,970 responses per year.

    Average Hours per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 0.25 hours (15 minutes) to 8 hours to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or documents, and submit the information to the USPTO.

    Burden Hours: 364,830 burden hours per year.

    Cost Burden: $149,380,300 per year.

    Needs and Uses: The purpose of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is to provide a standardized filing format and procedure that allows an applicant to seek protection for an invention in several countries by filing one international application in one location, in one language, and paying one initial set of fees. The information in this collection is used by the public to submit a patent application under the PCT and by the USPTO to fulfill its obligation to process, search, and examine the application as directed by the treaty.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraiser, email: [email protected]. Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Further information can be obtained by:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0021 copy request” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before July 27, 2016 to Nicholas A. Fraiser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-5167, marked to the attention of Nicholas A. Fraiser.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15108 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Request for Nominations AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Request for Nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Army, independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the Committee's advice and recommendations. The Committee is comprised of no more than nine (9) members. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army appoints no more than seven (7) of these members. The purpose of this notice is to solicit nominations from a wide range of highly qualified persons to be considered for appointment to the Committee. Nominees may be appointed as members of the Committee and its sub-committees for terms of service ranging from one to four years. This notice solicits nominations to fill Committee membership vacancies that may occur through 31 December, 2016. Nominees must be preeminent authorities in their respective fields of interest or expertise.

    DATES:

    All nominations must be received at (see ADDRESSES) no later than September 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons may submit a resume for consideration by the Department of the Army to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer at the following address: Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, ATTN: Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (Ms. Yates), Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Renea C. Yates, Designated Federal Officer, by email at [email protected] or by telephone 877-907-8585.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery was established pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 4723. The selection, service and appointment of members of the Committee are covered by the Committee Charter, available on the Arlington National Cemetery Web site http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Advisory-Committee-on-Arlington-National-Cemetery/Charter. The substance of these provisions of the Charter is as follows:

    a. Selection. The Committee Charter provides that the Committee shall be comprised of no more than nine members, all of whom are preeminent authorities in their respective fields of interest or expertise. Of these, no more than seven members are nominated by the Secretary of the Army.

    By direction of the Secretary of the Army, all resumes submitted in response to this notice will be presented to and reviewed by a panel of three senior Army leaders. Potential nominees shall be prioritized after review and consideration of their resumes for: demonstrated technical/professional expertise; preeminence in a field(s) of interest or expertise; potential contribution to membership balance in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed; potential organizational and financial conflicts of interest; commitment to our Nation's veterans and their families; and published points of view relevant to the objectives of the Committee. The panel will provide the DFO with a prioritized list of potential nominees for consideration by the Executive Director, Army National Military Cemeteries, in making an initial recommendation to the Secretary of the Army. The Executive Director, Army National Military Cemeteries; the Secretary of the Army; and the Secretary of Defense are not limited or bound by the recommendations of the Army senior leader panel. Sources in addition to this Federal Register notice may be utilized in the solicitation and selection of nominations.

    b. Service. The Secretary of Defense may approve the appointment of a Committee member for a one-to-four year term of service; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may serve on the Committee or authorized subcommittee for more than two consecutive terms of service. The Secretary of the Army shall designate the Committee Chair from the total Advisory Committee membership. The Committee meets at the call of the DFO, in consultation with the Committee Chair. It is estimated that the Committee meets four times per year.

    c. Appointment. The operations of the Committee and the appointment of members are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended) and departmental implementing regulations, including Department of Defense Instruction 5105.04, Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committee Management Program, available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/510504p.pdf. Appointed members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees shall be appointed as experts and consultants under the authority of Title 5, United States Code, Section 3109 and shall serve as special government employees. Committee members appointed as special government employees shall serve without compensation except that travel and per diem expenses associated with official Committee activities are reimbursable.

    Additional information about the Committee is available on the Internet at: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Advisory-Committee-on-Arlington-National-Cemetery/Charter

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15151 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2016-HQ-0026] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Assistant G-1 for Civilian Personnel, Non-Appropriated Funds Policy and Programs Division, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Assistant G-1 for Civilian Personnel, Non-Appropriated Funds Policy and Programs Division 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 26, 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, ATTN: 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 Department of the Army, Assistant G-1 for Civilian Personnel, Non-Appropriated Funds Policy and Programs Division, ATTN: DAPE-CPN, 6010 6th Street, Building 1465, Fort Belvoir, VA 33060, or call 703-806-3097.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Application for Non-Appropriated Funds Employment, DA Form 3433; OMB Control Number: 0702-XXXX.

    Needs And Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to determine qualification requirements and suitability of an applicant seeking employment with Non-Appropriated Funds Instrumentalities.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Federal Government.

    Annual Burden Hours: 158,875.

    Number of Respondents: 317,751.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 317,751.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are applicants seeking employment with Non-Appropriated Funds Instrumentalities. DA Form 3433, Application for Non-Appropriated Funds Employment, records employment history and qualifications of applicants to determine their eligibility for employment. The completed form is maintained electronically in the Official Personnel Folder system for the selected applicants upon appointment, and for non-selected applicants, the application is maintained in the staffing case file and destroyed after 1 year.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15122 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2016-HQ-0025] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army proposes to alter a system of records notice A0145-1 TRADOC, entitled “Army Reserve Officer's Training Corps (ROTC) and Financial Assistance Programs” to provide a central database of potential prospects for enrollment in the ROTC and the Senior Army ROTC program, provide training and commissioning of eligible cadets in active Army and to assist prospects by providing information concerning educational institutions having ROTC programs; scholarship information and applications, information on specialized programs such as nursing, Green to Gold and historically Black Colleges and Universities and information regarding other Army enlistment, reserve or National Guard programs. This program also administers the financial assistance program; renders the selection of recipients for 2, 3, and 4 year scholarships; monitor selectees performance (academic and ROTC) and also develop policies and procedures, compile statistics and render reports.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before July 27, 2016. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking 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, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tracy Rogers, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905; telephone (703) 428-6185.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on June 8, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000 65 FR 77677).

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. A0145-1 TRADOC System name:

    Army Reserve Officer's Training Corps (ROTC) and Financial Assistance Programs (May 10, 2001, 66 FR 23899)

    Changes: System identifier:

    Delete entry and replace with “A0145-1 AHRC.”

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Commander, US Army Human Resources Command, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122-5500.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual applications and/or prospect referrals for appointment which include personal data including: name, Social Security Number (SSN), sex, ethnicity, race, height, weight, date and place of birth, citizenship, home address, home and cell phone numbers, email address, marital status, number of dependents, parental information; parent/guardian home of record state, email address, mother's maiden name, name of high school, high school graduation date, grade point average, Scholastic Assessment Test, American College Testing, Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Testing scores, college admission status, college(s) expected to attend, desired academic major(s), academic transcripts and certificates of education to prior military service information, training, college board scores and test results, medical examination, acceptance/declination, interview board results, financial assistance document awards, ROTC contract and evaluation from Professor of Military Science commanding officer, photographs, references, correspondence between the member and the Army or other Federal agencies, letters of recommendation, inquiries regarding applicant's selection or non-selection, letter of appointment in Active Army on completion of ROTC status, security clearance documents, reports of Reserve Officer Training Corps Advanced, Ranger, or Basic Camp performance of applicant.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; 10 U.S.C. 2031, Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps; 10 U.S.C. 2104, Advanced training; eligibility for; 10 U.S.C 2107, Financial assistance program for specially selected members; Army Regulation 145-1, Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program: Organization, Administration, and Training; Army Regulation 145-2, Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program: Organization, Administration, Operation, and Support; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To the Federal Aviation Administration to obtain flight certification and/or licensing.

    To the Department of Veterans Affairs for member Group Life Insurance and/or other benefits.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Paper records and electronic storage media.”

    Retreivability:

    Delete entry and replace with “By name and SSN.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “DoD Components and approved users ensure that electronic records collected and used are maintained in controlled areas accessible only to authorized personnel in the performance of their duties. Physical security differs from site to site, access to computerized data is restricted by use of common access cards (CACs) and is accessible only by users with an authorized account. The system and electronic backups are maintained in controlled facilities that employ physical restrictions and safeguards such as security guards, identification badges, key cards, and locks.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “CC Form 139-R, Cadet Enrollment Record is retained in the ROTC unit for 5 years after cadet leaves the institution or is disenrolled from the ROTC program.

    Following successful completion of ROTC and academic programs and appointment as a commissioned officer with initial assignment to active duty for training, copy of pages 1 and 2 are reproduced and sent to the commandant of individual's basic branch course school. Records of rejected ROTC applicants are destroyed. Other records mentioned in preceding paragraphs are immediately destroyed unless the records are for financial assistance which are retained for 1 year then destroyed or if they are not required to become part of individual's Military Personnel Records Jacket.

    ROTC QUEST records are retained for 3 years then destroyed. ROTC Scholarship application records are destroyed 1 year after graduation or disenrollment.

    Paper records are destroyed by tearing, burning, melting, chemical decomposition, pulping, pulverizing, shredding, or mutilation. Electronic records and media are destroyed by overwriting, degaussing, disintegration, pulverization.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Commander, US Army Human Resources Command, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122-5500.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Commander, US Army Human Resources Command, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122-5500.

    Individuals should provide their full name, current address, telephone number and signature.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).' ”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Commander, US Army Human Resources Command, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122-5500.

    Individuals should provide their full name, current address, telephone number and signature.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: 'I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).' ”

    Contesting record procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Army's rules for accessing records, contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 505, Army Privacy Program or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “From the individual, civilian educational institutions and staff, college registrars, dormitory directors, national testing organizations, honor societies, boys' clubs, boy scout organizations, Future Farmers of America, minority and civil rights organizations, fraternity and church organizations; neighborhood youth centers, YMCA, YWCA, social clubs, athletic clubs, scholarship organizations, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Military Academy Liaison officers, West Point non-select listing, previous employers, trade organizations, and military service.”

    [FR Doc. 2016-15097 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2013-0013] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Army Career Tracker; DA Form 5434; OMB Control Number 0702-XXXX.

    Type of Request: Existing collection in use without an OMB Control Number.

    Number of Respondents: 173,338.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 173,338.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 28,889.

    Needs And Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and obtain and retain sponsorship program entitlements, and to provide information to gaining battalion or activity of new members.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID 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.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15043 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0075] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Pentagon Force Protection Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Pentagon Force Protection Agency 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 26, 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 Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Policy Office, 9000 Defense Pentagon, ATTN: John Rudaski, Washington, DC 20301-9000 or call (703) 695-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) Firearms Identification Cards (FICs); PA Form 105; OMB Number 0704-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain information from individuals to validate eligibility of separating or separated PFPA law enforcement officers applying for a LEOSA FIC, to include Defense Protective Service of other predecessor agency law enforcement officers.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 50 minutes.

    Number of Respondents: 25.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 25.

    Average Burden per Response: 2 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are separating or separated Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Defense Protective Service, or other predecessor agency law enforcement officers applying for an identification card identifying them as a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” under 18 U.S.C. 926C and DoD Instruction 5525.12, “Implementation of the Amended Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004.”

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15140 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0076] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; HEAL Program: Physician's Certification of Borrower's Total and Permanent Disability AGENCY:

    Department of Education (ED), Federal Student Aid (FSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 26, 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-0076. 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-347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    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: HEAL Program: Physician's Certification of Borrower's Total and Permanent Disability.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0124.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 70.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 18.

    Abstract: This is a request for an extension of OMB approval of information collection requirements associated with the form for the Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program, Physician's Certification of Borrower's Total and Permanent Disability currently approved under OMB No. 1845-0124. The form is HEAL Form 539. A borrower and the borrower's physician must complete this form. The borrower then submits the form and additional information to the lending institution (or current holder of the loan) who in turn forwards the form and additional information to the Secretary for consideration of discharge of the borrower's HEAL loans. The form provides a uniform format for borrowers and lenders to use when submitting a disability claim.

    Dated: June 23, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15234 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0075] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Form AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 August 26, 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-0075. 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-347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    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: Application for Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Form.

    OMB Control Number: 1845—NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 10,000.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10,000.

    Abstract: The Department of Education (the Department) requests approval of this new collection of an Application for Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment form (“Universal Borrower Defense Form”) to ensure that all borrowers have a consistent platform to petition for relief, and to facilitate the Department's receipt of clear and complete information necessary to process applications efficiently. This form will facilitate processing claims from student borrowers who believe that they have a Borrower Defense claim regarding their Federal Loans. The form will provide borrowers with an easily accessible and clear method to provide the information necessary for the Department to review and process claim applications efficiently. The Universal Borrower Defense Form will set forth examples of the types of activities that could form the basis of borrowers' claims for Borrower Defense relief. A successful Borrower Defense claim would provide a full or partial discharge of a borrower's loans, as well as reimbursement of amounts previously paid (if appropriate).

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15107 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Case No. RF-045] Notice of Interim Waiver and Request for Waiver to AGA Marvel From the Department of Energy Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of granting of interim waiver; notice of request for waiver; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces receipt of a petition for waiver from AGA Marvel seeking an exemption from specified portions of the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedure for determining the energy consumption of electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. AGA Marvel seeks to apply an alternative test procedure for measuring the energy usage of combination cooler-refrigerator basic models. DOE has reviewed AGA Marvel's alternate procedure. Rather than permit the use of this alternative procedure, which would effectively alter both the test procedure and the standard that AGA Marvel's products would need to meet, DOE has tentatively concluded that it is more appropriate to apply the alternative procedure that other manufacturers of similar products have been permitted to use in prior waivers granted by DOE. This approach would allow AGA Marvel to measure the energy use of its products while alleviating the testing problems that prompted AGA Marvel's request. Accordingly, DOE is granting to AGA Marvel an interim waiver to permit it to use this alternative testing method to measure the energy usage of its combination cooler-refrigerator basic models. DOE notes that the method detailed in this interim waiver is consistent with the most recent approach that DOE outlined in an interim waiver issued earlier this year for other similar products. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning AGA Marvel's petition and suggestions on the alternate test procedure DOE is permitting AGA Marvel to use as a condition of its interim waiver.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information with regard to the proposed modification until July 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Case Number RF-045, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include [Case No. RF-043] in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in Microsoft Word or PDF file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

    Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B/1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed original paper copy.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 6094, Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed original paper copy.

    Docket: For access to the docket to review the background documents relevant to this matter, you may visit the U.S. Department of Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024; (202) 586-2945, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Available documents include the following items: (1) This notice; (2) public comments received; (3) the petition for waiver and application for interim waiver; and (4) prior DOE waivers and rulemakings regarding similar clothes washer products. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above telephone number for additional information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371, Email: [email protected] Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected]
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 26, 2016, AGA Marvel submitted a petition for waiver and application for interim waiver under 10 CFR 430.27 for its combination cooler-refrigerator models. (A subsequent email from AGA Marvel sent on March 9, 2016, identified the specific basic models addressed in its petition.) AGA Marvel's submission seeks to use an alternative to the test procedure found at appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. The basic models at issue incorporate wine chiller/beverage compartments (referred to as cooler compartments) that prevent the manufacturer from testing these products in accordance with the applicable test procedure in appendix A. Specifically, the cooler compartments operate at temperatures higher than the standardized compartment temperatures used for testing in appendix A. Accordingly, these basic models cannot be rated based on the test procedure in appendix A. DOE is granting AGA Marvel with an interim waiver but modifying the alternative testing method approach outlined in AGA Marvel's petition to ensure consistency with the approach outlined in a recently issued interim waiver issued for similar products.

    I. Background and Authority

    Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances, which includes the electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that are the focus of this notice.1 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part B authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for electric refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A.

    1 For editorial reasons, part B of EPCA was codified as part A in the U.S. Code.

    DOE's regulations allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a type of covered consumer product when (1) the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) when the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).

    The granting of a waiver is subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l). The waiver process also allows the granting of an interim waiver from test procedure requirements to manufacturers that have petitioned DOE for a waiver of such prescribed test procedures upon a finding that it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) Publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(1).

    A petitioner may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition. DOE will publish any such extension in the Federal Register. 10 CFR 430.27(g).

    II. Application for Interim Waiver and Petition for Waiver

    By letter dated January 26, 2016, AGA Marvel submitted a petition for waiver and application for interim waiver under 10 CFR 430.27(a) for 12 basic models of combination cooler-refrigerators that are required to be tested using the test procedure detailed at appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. AGA Marvel supplemented its filing with a March 9, 2016, email identifying the basic models. Appendix A requires measuring the energy consumption of refrigerators using a standardized compartment temperature of 39 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), a temperature which AGA Marvel's products are not capable of achieving in all compartments. As a result, AGA Marvel seeks a waiver to appendix A's procedure to apply a standardized compartment temperature of 55 °F to the cooler compartments within its products. These compartments maintain a higher temperature typical for storing beverages. AGA Marvel also requested that the products be tested with a 0.55 usage factor, rather than with no usage factor as required according to appendix A, which is consistent with the test procedure approach recommended by the Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products (“MREF”) Working Group. The Working Group's approach, which was developed during a recent negotiated rulemaking, is detailed in the relevant October 20, 2015, Term Sheet (“Term Sheet #1”).2

    2 See docket ID EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043 on regulations.gov for information on the MREF Working Group. Document 113 (Term Sheet #1) within that docket includes the Working Group's recommended test procedures.

    DOE notes that it previously granted a similar waiver to Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation of America (“PAPRSA”) through an interim waiver (78 FR 35894 (June 14, 2013)) and a subsequent Decision and Order (78 FR 57139 (September 17, 2013)) under Case No. RF-031. DOE also granted an extension of waiver (79 FR 55769 (September 17, 2014)) to PAPRSA under Case No. RF-041. Additionally, DOE granted a similar waiver to Sanyo E&E Corporation (“Sanyo”) through an interim waiver (77 FR 19654 (April 2, 2012)) and a subsequent Decision and Order (77 FR 49443 (August 16, 2012)) under Case No. RF-022. On October 4, 2012, DOE issued a notice of correction to the Decision and Order incorporating a K-factor (correction factor) value of 0.85 when calculating the energy consumption (77 FR 60688). Sanyo E&E Corporation has since changed its corporate name to Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation of America, meaning that it is the same manufacturer to which DOE granted the August 2012 waiver. More recently, DOE became aware of minor issues with regard to the equations detailed in the prior waiver decisions. On January 26, 2016, DOE issued a proposed modification of its prior waivers and granted PAPRSA with an interim waiver (81 FR 4270) under Case No. RF-043 to correct the known issues.

    AGA Marvel's petition for waiver included an alternate test procedure to account for the energy consumption of its combination cooler-refrigerator products. Specifically, it proposed using the test procedure for combination cooler refrigeration products detailed in the MREF Working Group's Term Sheet #1 noted earlier. In AGA Marvel's view, the Working Group's test procedure calculations, when compared with the current DOE test procedure's calculations, are the most representative of the annual energy usage of its combination cooler refrigeration products. However, DOE's recent notice detailing a modified version of the calculation method used to measure and rate the energy use of products similar to AGA Marvel's combination cooler-refrigerators provides a simpler and equitable solution to the problems identified in AGA Marvel's petition. See 81 FR 4270 (proposal to modify PAPRSA's alternative test method for combination cooler refrigeration products). Accordingly, applying the test method outlined in the recent PAPRSA interim waiver to determine compliance with the existing refrigerator standards would follow an already-established approach and help ensure consistency when testing similar products.

    AGA Marvel also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. An interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2).

    DOE understands that absent an interim waiver, AGA Marvel's products cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the alternate procedure offered by AGA Marvel and concludes that whatever procedure AGA Marvel uses should be consistent with the approach taken with similar interim waivers that have been granted to other manufacturers to allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of these products, while alleviating the testing problems that prompted AGA Marvel's request. Consequently, while DOE has determined that AGA Marvel's petition for waiver will likely be granted, based on similar waivers that have been granted in the past, in DOE's view, the alternate test procedure used by AGA Marvel should be consistent with the approach permitted by DOE for other manufacturers with similar products. Accordingly, DOE, is granting AGA Marvel an interim waiver based on the modified test approach detailed in Section III of this document. In addition to the revised test procedure, DOE clarifies in this document the specific basic models that would be tested under the alternate approach.

    Under the interim waiver, the alternate test procedure must be used, going forward, with respect to all of the basic models AGA Marvel identified in the collective portions of its petition. These models are listed in the following section.

    III. Conclusion

    Therefore, DOE has issued an Order, stating:

    After careful consideration of all the material submitted by AGA Marvel in this matter, DOE grants an interim waiver regarding 12 basic models identified below. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

    (1) AGA Marvel must, going forward, test and rate the following AGA Marvel basic models as set forth in paragraph (2) below.

    Basic models under the MARVEL brand:

    ML24WBG***1 ML24WBF***1 ML24WBS***1 ML24WBP***1

    Basic models under the MARVEL Outdoor brand:

    MO24WBG***1 MO24WBF***1 MO24WBS***1 MO24WBP***1

    Basic models under the MARVEL Professional brand:

    MP24WBG***1 MP24WBF***1 MP24WBS***1 MP24WBP***1

    Where (*) represents a character in the model number that corresponds to door swing, door style, color, or marketing features and has no impact on the number of compartments, compartment function, product class, or test method.

    (2) The applicable method of test for the AGA Marvel basic models listed in paragraph (1) is the test procedure for electric refrigerator-freezers prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, appendix A, except that the test temperature for the “cooler compartment” (i.e., the compartment designed to store wine or other beverages) is 55 °F, instead of the prescribed 39 °F.

    The K-factor (i.e., correction factor) value is 0.85. The test must include (where applicable) the icemaking energy usage as defined in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, sec. 6.2.2.1.

    Therefore, the energy consumption is defined by:

    If compartment temperatures are below their respective standardized temperatures for both test settings (according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, sec. 6.2.2.1):

    E = (ET1 × 0.85) + IET.

    If compartment temperatures are not below their respective standardized temperatures for both test settings, the higher of the two values calculated by the following two formulas (according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, sec. 6.2.2.2):

    Energy consumption of the “cooler compartment”:

    ECooler Compartment = (ET1 + [(ET2−ET1) × (55 °F−TW1)/(TW2−TW1)]) *0.85 + IET.

    Energy consumption of the “fresh food compartment”:

    EFreshFood Compartment = (ET1 + [(ET2−ET1) × (39 °F−TBC1)/(TBC2−TBC1)]) *0.85 + IET.

    If the optional test for models with two compartments and user operable controls is used (according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, sec. 6.2.2.3):

    E = (Ex × 0.85) + IET.

    (3) Representations. AGA Marvel may make representations about the energy use of its combination cooler-refrigerator products for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such products have been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth above and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR 429.14(a).

    (4) This interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(h), (k), and (l).

    (5) This interim waiver is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid. DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.

    (6) Granting of this interim waiver does not release AGA Marvel from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

    IV. Summary and Request for Comments

    Through this notice, DOE has granted AGA Marvel an interim waiver from the specified portions of the test procedure for certain basic models of AGA Marvel combination cooler-refrigerators and announces receipt of AGA Marvel's request for petition of waiver from those same portions of the test procedure. DOE is publishing AGA Marvel's request for a petition of waiver in its entirety pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure to determine the energy consumption of AGA Marvel's specified combination cooler-refrigerators. AGA Marvel is required to follow this alternate procedure, as modified in Section III of this document, as a condition of its interim waiver. DOE will consider the continued use of this procedure in its subsequent Decision and Order.

    DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Joshua Ambrose, Project Engineer, AGA Marvel, 1260 E. VanDeinse St., Greenville, MI 48838. All comment submissions to DOE must include the Case Number RF-045 for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. January 26, 2016 U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Office Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20585-0121 To whom it may concern:

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27, AGA Marvel respectfully submits this Petition for Waiver and application for Interim Waiver for AGA Marvel combination cooler refrigerator models on the grounds that the affected models listed below contain one or more design characteristics that prevent testing of the basic model according to the test procedures prescribed in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix A. Without this waiver, AGA Marvel is unable to certify models as compliant with 2014 DOE energy conservation standards. This request is similar to past petitions for waivers that have been granted by DOE to Sub-Zero (80 FR 7854), PAPRSA (78 FR 35894), and Sanyo (77 FR 49443), who make similar combination cooler refrigerator products.

    10 CFR 430.27 states: “DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either the basic model(s) for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic which either prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.” AGA Marvel requests that the DOE grant this petition on both grounds.

    In November 2011, the DOE began a process to consider whether to include as covered products, and establish energy conservation standards for certain types of refrigeration products, that largely fall outside of DOE's regulations pertaining to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. To help better inform its potential regulation of these items, DOE established a negotiated rulemaking Working Group that would operate under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) with the purpose of exploring possible energy efficiency requirements for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products (MREFs) (80 FR 17355). The Working Group ultimately reached consensus among its members on a variety of issues, including the potential scope of coverage, applicable definitions, test procedure details, and energy conservation standards that would apply to these products and compiled these recommendations into a term sheet for consideration by ASRAC (EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043).

    In granting the most recent petition to Sub-Zero, DOE confirmed the previous rulings for Sanyo, and PAPRSA, that cooler compartments cannot be tested at the prescribed temperature of 39 °F because the minimum compartment temperature is higher than the standardized temperature of 39 °F. The Working Group has defined a cooler compartment as, “a refrigerated compartment designed exclusively for wine or other beverages within a consumer refrigeration product that is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures either (a) no lower than 39 °F (3.9 °C), or (b) in a range that extends no lower than 37 °F (2.8 °C) but at least as high as 60 °F (15.6 °C) as determined according to § 429.14(d)(2) or § 429.61(d)(2).”

    The alternate test procedure used in all three previous waivers (originally submitted by Sanyo), accounts for the energy consumption of combination cooler refrigerator models. The procedure tests the wine storage compartment at 55 °F, instead of the prescribed 39 °F. 55 °F is presumed to be representative of expected consumer use, as it is the ideal long-term storage temperature for both red and white wine. 55 °F is also used in the test procedures for wine products adopted by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), California Energy Commission (CEC), and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan).

    The test procedure recommended by the MREF Working Group is slightly modified from the test procedure used in the previous waivers, and has been agreed to in the final ASRAC Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Term Sheet dated October 20, 2015.

    Affected Models

    The basic models affected that are manufactured by AGA Marvel use the following model number layout:

    *WB⁁ Where: WB—Represents the model platform, which corresponds to Dual-Zone Wine/Beverage Center (combination cooler refrigerator) containing exactly one cooler compartment and one refrigerator compartment. (*)—Represents characters in the model number that correspond to brand and width (⁁)—Represents characters in the model number that correspond door swing, door style, color, and marketing features.

    The * and ⁁ characters have no impact on the number of compartments, compartment function, product class, or test method.

    Design Characteristics Dictating a Waiver

    AGA Marvel is requesting a waiver to the test procedures for its combination cooler/refrigerator models that consist of one refrigerated storage compartment and one cooler compartment. The DOE considers combination cooler/refrigerator models as covered products to be tested according to DOE test procedures for All-Refrigerators prescribed in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix A. The test conditions specify that energy consumption is to be determined using the fresh food compartment standardized temperature of 39 °F for both compartments.

    It is not possible to test and rate these combination models under the existing testing procedures, as the cooler compartment of these models is not designed for, nor capable of meeting the standardized temperature of 39 °F. AGA Marvel has designed the cooler compartments of its products to achieve a temperature range ideal for wine storage, with the coldest temperature setting for the compartment being above 39 °F. Also, the current testing requirements do not measure energy usage in a manner that truly represents the energy-consumption characteristics of these products.

    AGA Marvel requests an interim waiver until a waiver for the affected models is granted or a final ruling is made on the energy efficiency requirements and test procedures for this combination cooler refrigeration product under the MREF DOE ruling. It is essential that an interim waiver is granted, as AGA Marvel has planned sales volumes for the affected models in the annual budget, with a planned launch date of 3rd quarter of 2016.

    Proposed Modified Test Procedure

    AGA Marvel proposes to use the test procedure for combination cooler refrigeration products, listed in ASRAC Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Term Sheet dated October 20, 2015, as the calculations are most representative of AGA Marvel's combination product annual energy usage. The affected basic models are defined as “cooler-all refrigerators” in Appendix 2 of the Term Sheet, as the basic models have one cooler compartment and one refrigerator compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C).

    In section 4 subpart 4.2 of the Term Sheet, “The working group recommends product classes for combination cooler refrigeration products that are analogous to the 2014 refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product classes. A product would be classified into a product class of combination cooler refrigeration product based on how the product would be classified without a cooler compartment.” Without a cooler compartment, the affected basic models are covered by the 13A standard (Compact All-Refrigerator—Automatic Defrost).

    Appendix 3 subpart 3.2 of the Term Sheet states the test shall use a standardized temperature of 39 °F for the fresh food compartment and a standardized temperature of 55 °F for the cooler compartment. The test sequence follows the same test sequence for all-refrigerators in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix A.

    Appendix 3 subpart 5.2.1.1 of the Term Sheet defines the energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day as:

    ET = (EP × 1440 × K)/T Where: K = dimensionless correction factor of 0.55 for combination cooler refrigeration products to adjust for average household usage.

    Appendix 3 subpart 6.2.4.2 of the Term Sheet defines the average per-cycle energy consumption as the higher of the two values calculated by the following two formulas:

    Energy consumption of the wine compartment:

    E Cooler = (ET1 + [(ET2−ET1) × (55 °F−TC1)/(TC2−TC1)]) + IET

    Energy consumption of the refrigerated beverage compartment:

    E Fresh Food = ET1 + [(ET2−ET1) × (39 °F−TR1)/(TR2−TR1)] + IET Where: IET equals 0 for all products without an automatic icemaker.

    Combination refrigerator coolers are currently certified to the 2014 DOE Energy Consumption Standards using the alternative test procedure established in the waivers granted to petitioning manufacturers. The 2014 13A standard needs to be adjusted to reflect the new .55 usage factor for coolers and combination cooler refrigerators. To do this the AEU equation must first be divided by .85(15% usage credit used in granted waivers) to establish the maximum allowable energy consumption of a combination product to the existing 2014 standard. That value is then multiplied by .55 to reflect the new energy consumption standard for combination product. In section 4 subpart 4.2 of the Term Sheet, to simplify conversion, the AEU equation is multiplied by a correction factor of .647(.55/.85).

    Thus, the maximum AEU in kWh/year for a compact combination cooler refrigerator is defined as:

    AEU = (9.17AV + 259.3) * 0.647

    In conclusion, 2014 Energy Conservation Standards do not allow an energy use rating to be calculated for the affected basic models listed, and AGA Marvel respectfully requests that DOE considers this petition for an interim and final waiver. AGA Marvel would be pleased to discuss this waiver petition with DOE and provide any additional information that DOE might require.

    Sincerely, Joshua Ambrose, Project Engineer. James R. Holland, Director of Engineering. AGA Marvel, 1260 E. VanDeinse St., Greenville, MI 48838 USA, T. 616-754-5601, F. 616-754-9690, www.agamarvel.com. Supplemental E-Mail from AGA Marvel From: Joshua Ambrose Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 11:05 a.m. To: Berringer, Bryan Subject: RE: Petition for Waiver—AGA Marvel Bryan,

    AGA Marvel is the manufacturer of all models in the petition and all models are under the Marvel brand. In the Marvel brand we have (3) “series” of product, and the series associated with the model numbers are as follows:

    MARVEL — ML24WBG***1 — ML24WBF***1 — ML24WBS***1 — ML24WBP***1 MARVEL Outdoor — MO24WBG***1 — MO24WBF***1 — MO24WBS***1 — MO24WBP***1 MARVEL Professional — MP24WBG***1 — MP24WBF***1 — MP24WBS***1 — MP24WBP***1

    Let me know if you need anything else.

    Thanks, Josh Ambrose, Project Engineer, AGA MARVEL, 1260 East Van Deinse Street, Greenville, MI 48838.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15142 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0665; FRL-9948-34-OW] RIN 2040-ZA25 Preliminary 2016 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Preliminary 2016 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Preliminary 2016 Plan) and solicits public comment. Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to biennially publish a plan for new and revised effluent limitations guidelines, after public review and comment. The Preliminary 2016 Plan identifies any new or existing industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards and provides a schedule for their development. EPA typically publishes a preliminary plan upon which the public is invited to comment, and then publishes a final plan thereafter. The information and analyses from the 2015 Annual Review were used in developing the Preliminary 2016 Plan.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0665, 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. 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. William F. Swietlik, Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Water, 4303T, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1129; fax number: (202) 566-1053; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information

    A. Supporting Documents—A key document providing additional information includes the 2015 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report.

    B. How Can I Get Copies of These Documents and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established official public dockets for these actions under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0665. The official public docket is the collection of materials that are available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    2. Electronic Access. You can access this Federal Register document electronically through the United States government online source for Federal regulations at http://www.regulations.gov.

    3. Internet access. Copies of the supporting documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/eg/effluent-guidelines-plan.

    C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions—The agency might ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. How is this document organized?

    The outline of this notice follows.

    A. Legal Authority B. Summary of the Preliminary 2016 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan C. Request for Public Comments and Information A. Legal Authority

    This notice is published under the authority of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., and in particular sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), 306, 307(b), and 308 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(d), 1314(b), 1314(g), 1314(m), 1316, 1317(b), and 1318.

    B. Summary of the Preliminary 2016 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

    EPA prepared the Preliminary 2016 Plan pursuant to CWA section 304(m). The Preliminary 2016 Plan provides a summary of EPA's review of effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards, consistent with CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), and 307(b). From these reviews, the Preliminary 2016 Plan identifies any new or existing industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards rulemakings, and provides a schedule for such rulemakings. In addition, the Preliminary 2016 Plan presents any new or existing categories of industry selected for further review and analysis. The Preliminary 2016 Plan and 2015 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report can be found at http://www.epa.gov/eg/effluent-guidelines-plan.

    C. Request for Public Comments and Information

    EPA requests comments and information on the following topics:

    1. Data Sources and Methodologies

    EPA solicits comments on the evaluation factors, criteria, and data sources used in conducting its 2015 Annual Review and in developing the Preliminary 2016 Plan. EPA also solicits comment on other data sources it might use in its annual reviews and biennial planning process.

    2. The Preliminary 2016 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

    EPA solicits comments on its Preliminary 2016 Plan, including the data and information used to support the findings, actions, and conclusions as stated in the Preliminary 2016 Plan. Specifically, EPA solicits public comment and stakeholder input, data and information on:

    (a) Industry Reviews. EPA is initiating or continuing to review wastewater discharges for the following industry categories: Iron and Steel Manufacturing; Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers; Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard; Battery Manufacturing; and Electrical and Electronic Components Manufacturing. EPA solicits data and information regarding the discharge and treatment of pollutants identified in the Preliminary 2016 Plan from these industrial processes, as well as any other information relevant to EPA's review.

    (b) Continued Study of Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities. EPA gathered information about CWT facilities across the country and identified those facilities that currently accept or have in the past accepted oil and gas extraction wastewaters. EPA included a memorandum in the record that identifies these facilities. EPA requests comment on the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in this memorandum, as well as any other information relevant to EPA's study of CWT facilities.

    (c) Conventional Extraction in the Oil and Gas Industry. EPA solicits data and information for the first time on known transfers of wastewater originating from conventional oil and gas extraction facilities to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). In particular, EPA seeks information on the extent to which this practice is occurring, including the identification of conventional oil and gas facilities which discharge to POTWs. EPA also requests information on wastewater volumes transferred to POTWs as well as information on the pollutants in these wastewater (type, concentration, etc.) and any other known characteristics of the pollutants.

    (d) Produced Water Discharges in the Oil and Gas Industry. EPA solicits information for the first time on the quantity, composition, and purpose of well treatment and workover fluids in produced water discharges authorized under 40 CFR part 435, subpart E (Agricultural and Wildlife Water Use Subcategory) which, if good enough quality, can be used for wildlife or livestock watering or other agricultural uses, and are actually put to such use during periods of discharge. EPA solicits information on both conventional and unconventional oil and gas extraction. For this solicitation, “Well treatment fluids” means any fluid used to restore or improve productivity by chemically or physically altering hydrocarbon-bearing strata after a well has been drilled. “Workover fluids” means salt solutions, weighted brines, polymers, or other specialty additives used in a producing well to allow for maintenance, repair, or abandonment procedures.

    3. Innovation and Technology in the Effluent Guidelines Program

    EPA solicits input on ideas, approaches and information on how to design smart regulations to support emerging technologies as described in “A Strategy for American Innovation,” prepared by the National Economic Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy. October 2015. See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_for_american_innovation_october_2015.pdf.

    Dated: June 17, 2016. Joel Beauvais, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15133 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9948-36-Region 9] Casmalia Resources Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Administrative De Minimis Settlement AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA) and section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby providing notice of a proposed administrative de minimis settlement concerning the Casmalia Resources Superfund Site in Santa Barbara County, California (the Casmalia Resources Site). Section 122(g) of CERCLA provides EPA with the authority to enter into administrative de minimis settlements. This settlement is intended to resolve the liabilities of the 171 settling parties identified below for the Casmalia Resources Site under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA and section 7003 of RCRA. These parties have also elected to resolve their liability for response costs and potential natural resource damage claims by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These 171 parties sent 27,811,584 lbs. of waste to the Casmalia Resources Site, which represents 0.005 (0.5%) of the total Site waste of 5.6 billion pounds. This settlement requires these parties to pay over $1.7 million to EPA.

    DATES:

    EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement until July 27, 2016. EPA will consider all comments it receives during this period, and may modify or withdraw consent to the settlement if any comments disclose facts or considerations indicating that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

    Public Meeting: In accordance with section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d), commenters may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area. The deadline for requesting a public meeting is July 11, 2016. Requests for a public meeting may be made by contacting Russell Mechem by email at [email protected] If a public meeting is requested, information about the date and time of the meeting will be published in the local newspaper, The Santa Maria Times, and will be sent to persons on the EPA's Casmalia Resources Site mailing list. To be added to the mailing list, please contact: Alejandro Diaz at (415) 972-3242 or by email at [email protected]

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be addressed to Casmalia Case Team, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street (mail code SFD-7-1), San Francisco, California 94105-3901, or may be sent by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the settlement document and additional information about the Casmalia Resources Site and the proposed settlement may be obtained on the EPA-maintained Casmalia Resources Site Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/region09/casmalia or by calling Russell Mechem at (415) 972-3192.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Settling Parties: Parties that have elected to settle their liability with EPA at this time are as follows:

    3M/McGhan Medical Corporation; A&E Products Group, Inc.; Aberdeen American Petroleum Company; Advance Packaging Systems/Interamics; AGL Resources, Inc. and its subsidiaries; AHMC Healthcare, Inc.; Alhambra Unified School District; Amvac Chemical Corporation; Apache Nitrogen Products, Inc.; Applied Graphics Technologies; AVX Corporation; Bank of America, N.A., successor in interest to Security Pacific Corp—Brea Operations; Barclays American Business Credit; Bayer; Benge Trumpet Co.; BGN Fremont Square, LTD; BHP Billiton Petroleum; BMW of San Diego; Broadway So. Calif Crenshaw Shopping; Bulk Transportation; Burbank Plating Service Corporation; Burlington Engineering, Inc.; Canon, Inc.; Carmen Plaza Car Wash; Casitas Municipal Water District; CenterPoint Energy, Inc and it's wholly owned subsidiaries Primary Fuels, Inc.; Central Coast Analytical Services; Certified Freight Lines; City of Benicia; City of El Monte; City of Escondido; City of Piedmont; City of West Covina; Consolidated Container Company LP for itself and as an alleged successor in interest to Stewart/Walker Co; Consolidated Oil & Gas, Inc.; Cooper Companies, Inc.; County of Napa; County of Solano; County of Stanislaus; Creative Press; Danco Metal Surfacing; Data General Corp; Davlin Paint Co.; Daylight Transport, LLC; Deep Water Oil and Gas Corp; Dignity Health; Dole Food Company; Dura Tech Processes, Inc.; EKC Technology, Inc.; El Dorado Newspapers dba McClatchy Printing Co; ENGS Motor Truck Company; Ennis Business Forms; Excellon Automation; Farrar Grinding; Federal Envelope Company; Foster Lumber; Fujitsu; Gardena Specialized Processing; Genstar Roofing Products Company; GEO Western Drilling Fluids; Gerald V. Dicker Commercial Properties; Gooch & Housego PLC; Gorham Manufacturing Company; Granitize Products, Inc.; H Koch & Sons Div; Handy & Harman Electronic Materials Corp; Helix Water District; Henry Soss & Co; Hordis Brothers, Inc.; Hycor Biomedical, Inc.; Immunetech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Inamed Corporation; Industrial Process & Chemical Co., Inc.; International Paper Company; Interstate Consolidation; J B Hunt; J E Dewitt, Inc.; J.C. Penneys; John Deere Parts Depot; John L. Armitage & Co.; Kasler Continental Heller; Kester Solder; Knape & Vogt Mfg.; Knight Foundry, Inc.; Lehigh Hanson, Inc.; Levins Metal Corp; LH Research, Inc.; Lincoln Blvd. Car Wash; Liquid Air Corporation; Loma Linda Foods Co.; Ludlow Saylor n/k/a Metso Minerals Industries, Inc.; Marbro Lamp Company; McClatchy Newspaper Inc.; Mission Kleensweep Products, Inc.; Model Lands, Inc.; MWH Global; Myers Electronic Products, Inc.; National Airmotive Corporation; New Mexico Institute of Technology; New Mexico State University; Newpark Resources, Inc.; Newport Adhesive; Newport Specialty Hospital for itself and on behalf of Prospect Medical Holdings; Nike, Inc.; North American Philips; North American Van Lines; NuSil Technology, LLC; Opto Electronics; Overton Moore & Associates, Inc.; P.T.I. Technologies, Inc.; Pacific Wood Preserving Co.; PacOrd, Inc.; Palomar Systems & Machine; Paramount Machine Co.; Peen Rite, Inc.; Pell Development Company; Petoseed Company; Petrol Transport, Inc.; Petrominerals Corp.; Pfizer; Pharm-Eco Laboratories, Inc.; Pick-A-Part Auto Recycling; Pirelli Cable; Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District; Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center; Providence Health & Services; Public Service Marine, Inc.; Pure Fishing, Inc.; Quality Heat Treating; R E Hazard Contracting Company; R F White Company, Inc.; R&G Sloane Maintenance; Rally Chevrolet; Ramser Development Company; Red Lions Inn; Reid Metal Finishing; Richmond Technology; Roadway Express; Rossi Enterprises; S&P Company; Santa Barbara New Press; Santa Clara University; Schurgin Development Company; Sea World; Security Pacific Bank; SESCO; Setzer Forest Products, Inc.; Sierra Pacific Power Co.; Sonoco Products Company; SPS Technologies; State of Arizona; Superior Metal Finishing, Inc.; Telic Corporation; The E.W. Scripps Company, as successor to New Chronicle; The Toro Company; Thoratec Laboratories Corporation; Time Warner, Inc. including its former subsidiaries, Warner Music Group Inc., Westland Graphics Inc., Allied Record Company & Allied Record Company.; True Value Hardware Simi Valley; TW Graphics; U S Divers (USD Corp); United Oil Company; UVP, Inc.; Ventura Townehouse; Ventura Transfer Company; Vulcan Materials Company; Weatherford BMW; Weber Nameplate; Williams Bros Market; Winonics, Inc.; Winters Industrial Cleaning; XIK, LLC a Delaware LLC, as successor by merger to Arwood Corporation; Zep, Inc.

    Dated: June 17, 2016. Enrique Manzanilla, Director, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15131 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1159] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 26, 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, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1159.

    Title: Part 27—Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 158 respondents and 2,406 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-40 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, Third Party Disclosure, and on occasion and quarterly reporting requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 309, 332, 336, and 337 unless otherwise noted.

    Total Annual Burden: 24,714 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $546,450.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The information filed by Wireless Communications Service (WCS) licensees in support of their construction notifications will be used to determine whether licensees have complied with the Commission's performance benchmarks. Further, the information collected by licensees in support of their coordination obligations will help avoid harmful interference to Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS), Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry (AMT) and Deep Space Network (DSN) operations in other spectrum bands.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15080 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10082 Temecula Valley Bank, Temecula, California

    Notice is Hereby Given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Temecula Valley Bank, Temecula, California (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Temecula Valley Bank on July 17, 2009. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15103 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE and TIME:

    Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Draft Advisory Opinion 2016-05: Huckabee for President, Inc. Proposed Statement of Policy Regarding the Public Disclosure of Closed Enforcement Files Revisions to Forms REG 2013-01: Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Technological Modernization Management and Administrative Matters

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15317 Filed 6-23-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-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 23, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Mackinac Financial Corporation, Manistique, Michigan; to acquire 100 percent of Niagara Bancorporation, Inc., Niagara, Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly acquire The First National Bank of Niagara, Niagara, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 22, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15120 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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 13, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. The Duke Trust and Susan K. McMurry, both of Casper, Wyoming; to acquire voting shares of Jonah Bankshares, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Jonah Bank of Wyoming, both of Casper, Wyoming.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 22, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15119 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-16-16RZ] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate 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) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    An Assessment of the State Public Health Actions (“1305”) Program—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    In 2013, the NCCDPHP developed a new program funding opportunity to support states in the design and implementation of strategies to reduce complications from multiple chronic diseases and associated risk factors. The funding opportunity was announced as “State Public Health Actions to Prevent and Control Diabetes, Heart Disease, Obesity and Associated Risk Factors and Promote School Health,” CDC-RFA-DP13-1305, and is hereafter referred to as “State Public Health Actions 1305.” This new five-year cooperative agreement supports state health departments in an important transition from funding and implementing four separate categorical areas (i.e., diabetes; heart disease and stroke; nutrition, physical activity, and obesity; and school health) to working collaboratively across categorical areas to plan and implement cross-cutting initiatives. This cross-cutting approach is essential for supporting activities to prevent chronic disease and risk factors—particularly multiple chronic conditions.

    Through this cooperative agreement, CDC currently provides over $100 million to state health departments in all 50 United States and the District of Columbia. Due to the funding, complexity, coordination, and collaboration needed to implement State Public Health Actions 1305, there are a number of semi-annual and annual reporting requirements related to categorical spending, chronic disease outcomes, efficiencies, and accomplishments. These routine reporting requirements allow CDC to monitor awardee progress towards programmatic goals, but do not collect specific information about the processes that support program implementation plans.

    The overall evaluation of State Public Health Actions 1305 examines the efficiency and effectiveness of the program to provide accountability, improve programs, expand practice-based evidence, and demonstrate health outcomes. An important component of assessing efficiency and effectiveness of the program is examining synergy. Synergy occurs when collaboration, coordination, alignment, and a combination of inputs and activities (i.e., the assets and skills of all the participating partners) produce outputs and outcomes greater than those that would have occurred if they had been used separately.

    CDC proposes to conduct an assessment to better understand synergy within and across State Public Health Actions 1305 funded programs. The assessment is designed to examine changes in processes; organizational structure; capacity; states' ability to implement a coordinated approach across the different chronic disease areas; challenges and benefits; and measurable positive outcomes.

    CDC plans to administer a web-based survey to health departments receiving funding through the State Public Health Actions 1305 cooperative agreement, including 50 states and the District of Columbia. CDC plans to administer the survey in 2016 (program year 4) and 2018 (program year 5) to explore changes in partnerships and synergy throughout the 5-year cooperative agreement. Surveys will be administered to health department staff directly involved in planning and/or implementation of the State Public Health Actions 1305 program, including principal investigators, chronic disease directors, program evaluators, epidemiologists, and program staff with subject matter expertise in one or more of the four categorical areas. CDC will recruit approximately 8 individuals from each funded program for a total of approximately 408 respondents.

    CDC will use survey