Federal Register Vol. 81, No.124,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 124 (June 28, 2016)

Page Range41787-42214
FR Document

81_FR_124
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 42005 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 42022 - In the Matter of Breitling Energy Corporation; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 41902 - Safety Zone, Fall River Grand Prix, Mt Hope Bay and Taunton River, Fall River, MAPDF
81 FR 41810 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard DistrictPDF
81 FR 42018 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Revise the ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and ProceduresPDF
81 FR 41979 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41967 - Pieridae Energy (USA), Ltd.; Pieridae Energy (US) Ltd. Statement Regarding Change in ControlPDF
81 FR 41963 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
81 FR 41964 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Form for Maintenance-of Effort Waiver Requests Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as AmendedPDF
81 FR 41965 - Orders Granting Authority To Import and Export Natural Gas, To Import and Export Liquefied Natural Gas, To Vacate Authorization, To Amend, To Deny Rehearing, and To Grant Rehearing During May 2016PDF
81 FR 41973 - Notice of Federal Review of the Oklahoma Disability Law Center (ODLC)PDF
81 FR 41996 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
81 FR 41975 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; OAA Title III-E EvaluationPDF
81 FR 41973 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) Client Contact Form, Public and Media Activity Report Form, and Resource Report FormPDF
81 FR 41974 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; State Health Insurance Assistance (SHIP) Program National Beneficiary SurveyPDF
81 FR 41925 - Ocean Disposal; Proposed Designation of a Dredged Material Disposal Site in Eastern Region of Long Island Sound; Reopening of Public Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 41982 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Contractor's/Mortgagor's Cost Breakdowns and CertificationsPDF
81 FR 41987 - Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, CO; Availability of Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact StatementPDF
81 FR 41985 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Recovery Permit ApplicationPDF
81 FR 42057 - Extension of a Previously Approved Collection: Public Charters, 14 CFR Part 380PDF
81 FR 41930 - Final Record of Decision for Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land Management PlanPDF
81 FR 41971 - Drift Marketplace, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 41970 - Ringer Hill Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 41991 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site, Ganado, AZ; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 41803 - Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for Military PersonnelPDF
81 FR 41862 - Civil Penalties; Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary PenaltiesPDF
81 FR 41983 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 41971 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 41800 - Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies [RICs] and Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs]; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 42033 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Los Angeles to New York, The Dwan Gallery 1959-1971” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 42003 - Proposed Collection, Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 42001 - Ericsson Inc., Wireless Core Group, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services and Kforce Staffing Solutions, Overland Park, Kansas; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 42002 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 41997 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 42001 - Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 41996 - Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 41989 - Notice of Inventory Completion: History Colorado, formerly Colorado Historical Society, Denver, COPDF
81 FR 41990 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Georgia State University, Department of Anthropology, Atlanta, GAPDF
81 FR 41992 - Notice of Inventory Completion: State Center Community College District, Fresno, CAPDF
81 FR 42060 - Advisory Committee on Women Veterans; Solicitation of Nomination for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Women VeteransPDF
81 FR 41811 - Security Zones; 2016 Republican National Convention, and Associated Voluntary First Amendment Safety Zones, Lake Erie and Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OHPDF
81 FR 41815 - Safety Zone; Allegheny River Mile 0-0.5, Monongahela River Mile 0-0.5, Ohio River Mile 0-0.5, Pittsburgh, PAPDF
81 FR 41925 - Federal Acquisition Regulation: Acquisition Threshold for Special Emergency Procurement Authority; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 41968 - President's Council of Advisors on Science and TechnologyPDF
81 FR 41930 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the South Dakota Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 41966 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, PaducahPDF
81 FR 41964 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, NevadaPDF
81 FR 41986 - Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment on the Joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Planning HandbookPDF
81 FR 41799 - Temporary General License: Extension of ValidityPDF
81 FR 41925 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Eastern Puma (=Cougar) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened WildlifePDF
81 FR 41972 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the UM-JMH Center for Patient Safety PSOPDF
81 FR 41809 - Safety Zone; 4th of July Firework Celebration; Key West, FLPDF
81 FR 42035 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 42052 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
81 FR 42054 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 42044 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 42043 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 41995 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedurePDF
81 FR 41930 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; West Coast Region, Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery: Trawl Rationalization Cost Recovery ProgramPDF
81 FR 41933 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; California-Oregon-Washington Coastal Purse Seine Survey.PDF
81 FR 42058 - Proposed Collection of Information: Accountable Official Application Form for U.S. Department of the Treasury Stored Value Card (SVC) ProgramPDF
81 FR 42059 - Proposed Collection of Information: Application Form for U.S. Department of the Treasury Stored Value Card (SVC) ProgramPDF
81 FR 41975 - Health Center ProgramPDF
81 FR 41976 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
81 FR 41977 - Meeting of the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 42060 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13413PDF
81 FR 41971 - Submission for OMB Review; Prohibition on Contracting With Corporations With Delinquent Taxes or a Felony ConvictionPDF
81 FR 41996 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
81 FR 41866 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Small-Mesh Multispecies SpecificationsPDF
81 FR 41958 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Maui and Kona Reef Manta Ray Populations as Threatened Distinct Population Segments Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
81 FR 41934 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on Petition To List the Smooth Hammerhead Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
81 FR 41928 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41929 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41969 - Competitive Transmission Development Technical Conference; Further Supplemental Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
81 FR 41970 - La Paloma Generating Company, LLC v. California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of ComplaintPDF
81 FR 41787 - Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments for Ethics in Government Act ViolationsPDF
81 FR 42006 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 41899 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tekamah, NEPDF
81 FR 41900 - Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Farmington, MO; and Amendment of Class E Airspace for the following Missouri Towns; Ava, MO; Cameron, MO; Chillicothe, MO; Farmington, MO; and Festus, MOPDF
81 FR 41798 - Establishment of Class E Airspace, Shelton, WAPDF
81 FR 42034 - Noise Compatibility Program Notice; San Antonio International Airport; San Antonio, TexasPDF
81 FR 41994 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 41981 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) ProgramPDF
81 FR 42018 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 42011 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program that Eliminates Position and Exercise Limits for Physically-Settled SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (“SPY”) OptionsPDF
81 FR 42016 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt NASD Rule 2830 as FINRA Rule 2341 (Investment Company Securities) in the Consolidated FINRA RulebookPDF
81 FR 42024 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Risk Monitor MechanismPDF
81 FR 42022 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Institutional Broker Fee Cap and CreditPDF
81 FR 42009 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Elimination of SPY Position LimitsPDF
81 FR 42008 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to SPY Position LimitsPDF
81 FR 42030 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Elimination of SPY Position LimitsPDF
81 FR 42013 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to FeesPDF
81 FR 42027 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to FeesPDF
81 FR 42032 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rules 307 and 309 To Extend the SPY Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 41982 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Pipeline Corporate Security ReviewPDF
81 FR 41858 - Civil Penalties Inflation AdjustmentsPDF
81 FR 42004 - Modernizing Data Collection for Regulatory Oversight of Credit Unions: Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 41979 - Prospective Grant of Start-up Exclusive License: Premarket Approved Diagnostic for Identifying JC VirusPDF
81 FR 41979 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41978 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41980 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 41980 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 41980 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 42005 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 41801 - Civil Penalty Inflation AdjustmentPDF
81 FR 41868 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason AdjustmentsPDF
81 FR 41931 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Exempted Fishing PermitPDF
81 FR 42006 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 41790 - Suspension of Supervision Fee Assessment Under the United States Grain Standards ActPDF
81 FR 41961 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Community Connectivity Initiative Self-Assessment ToolPDF
81 FR 41790 - Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary PenaltiesPDF
81 FR 41914 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution RulePDF
81 FR 41818 - Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Update to Materials Incorporated by ReferencePDF
81 FR 41905 - Air Plan Approval; GA Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
81 FR 41860 - Onshore Oil and Gas Operations-Civil Penalties Inflation AdjustmentsPDF
81 FR 41817 - Civil PenaltiesPDF
81 FR 41877 - Alternatives to References to Credit Ratings With Respect to Permissible Activities for Foreign Branches of Insured State Nonmember Banks and Pledge of Assets by Insured Domestic Branches of Foreign BanksPDF
81 FR 42063 - Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft SystemsPDF
81 FR 41838 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Cross-State Air Pollution RulePDF
81 FR 41924 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Cross-State Air Pollution RulePDF
81 FR 41926 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for the Endangered Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 41814 - Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Held in the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port ZonePDF
81 FR 41963 - Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 41796 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus HelicoptersPDF
81 FR 41897 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 41886 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 41892 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 41894 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 41889 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 41845 - Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source CategoryPDF

Issue

81 124 Tuesday, June 28, 2016 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the UM-JMH Center for Patient Safety PSO, 41972-41973 2016-15226 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41928-41929 2016-15199 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement RULES Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustments, 41801-41803 2016-15157 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: South Dakota Advisory Committee, 41930 2016-15233 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: 4th of July Firework Celebration; Key West, FL, 41809-41810 2016-15224 Allegheny River Mile 0-0.5, Monongahela River Mile 0-0.5, Ohio River Mile 0-0.5, Pittsburgh, PA, 41815-41817 2016-15239 Security Zones: 2016 Republican National Convention, and Associated Voluntary First Amendment Safety Zones, Lake Erie and Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH, 41811-41814 2016-15240 Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones: Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District, 41810-41811 2016-15330 Special Local Regulations: Marine Events held in the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port Zone, 41814-41815 2016-15032 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Fall River Grand Prix, Mt Hope Bay and Taunton River, Fall River, MA, 41902-41905 2016-15331 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Commission Fine Commission of Fine Arts NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, 41963 2016-14992 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: OAA Title III-E Evaluation, 41975 2016-15309 State Health Insurance Assistance Program Client Contact Form, Public and Media Activity Report Form, and Resource Report Form, 41973 2016-15308 State Health Insurance Assistance Program National Beneficiary Survey, 41974-41975 2016-15307 Federal Reviews: Oklahoma Disability Law Center, 41973 2016-15313 Defense Department Defense Department RULES Transition Assistance Program for Military Personnel, 41803-41808 2016-15269 PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Acquisition Threshold for Special Emergency Procurement Authority; Correction, 41925 2016-15237 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prohibition on Contracting With Corporations With Delinquent Taxes or a Felony Conviction, 41971-41972 2016-15204 Charter Renewals: Federal Advisory Committees, 41963-41964 2016-15318 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Form for Maintenance-of-Effort Waiver Requests Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 41964 2016-15315 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Worker Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Amended Certifications: Dresser, Inc., Avon, MA; Kelly Services, NEED, OP Amp, Softek, Aerotek, and APN Software Solutions, Avon, MA, 42001-42002 2016-15251 Ericsson Inc., Overland Park, KS, 42001 2016-15254 Noranda Aluminum, Inc., 41996-41997 2016-15250 Worker Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Determinations, 41997-42001 2016-15252 Worker Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Investigations, 42002-42003 2016-15253 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Inflation Adjustments of Civil Monetary Penalties, 41790-41796 2016-15148 NOTICES Authority to Import and Export Natural Gas: Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC; BTG Pactual Commodities (US), LLC; Cheniere Marketing, LLC and Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC; et al., 41965-41966 2016-15314 Changes in Control: Pieridae Energy (USA), Ltd. and Pieridae Energy (US), Ltd., 41967-41968 2016-15319 Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada, 41964-41965 2016-15231 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah, 41966-41967 2016-15232 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 41968-41969 2016-15235
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Michigan; Air Plan Approval; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference, 41818-41838 2016-15141 Missouri; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 41838-41845 2016-15048 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, 41845-41857 2016-14901 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama; Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 41914-41923 2016-15146 Georgia; Air Plan Approval; GA Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 41905-41914 2016-15136 Missouri; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 41924-41925 2016-15047 Ocean Disposal: Proposed Designation of a Dredged Material Disposal Site in Eastern Region of Long Island Sound; Reopening of Public Comment Period, 41925 2016-15299 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Helicopters, 41796-41798 2016-14972 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Shelton, WA, 41798-41799 2016-15184 Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 42064-42214 2016-15079 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 41886-41889, 41892-41894 2016-14968 2016-14969 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 41889-41892, 41897-41899 2016-14965 2016-14971 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 41894-41897 2016-14966 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Tekamah, NE, 41899-41900 2016-15186 Revocation and Amendment of Class E Airspace: Farmington, Ava, Cameron, Chillicothe, Farmington, and Festus, MO, 41900-41902 2016-15185 NOTICES Noise Compatibility Program: San Antonio International Airport, San Antonio, TX, 42034-42035 2016-15183 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Permissible Activities for Foreign Branches of Insured State Nonmember Banks and Pledge of Assets by Insured Domestic Branches of Foreign Banks: Alternatives to References to Credit Ratings, 41877-41886 2016-15096 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Complaints: La Paloma Generating Co., LLC v. California Independent System Operator Corp., 41970 2016-15195 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Drift Marketplace, Inc., 41971 2016-15281 Ringer Hill Wind, LLC, 41970-41971 2016-15277 Meetings: Competitive Transmission Development; Technical Conference, 41969-41970 2016-15197 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 42035-42054 2016-15219 2016-15220 2016-15222 2016-15223 Vision, 42054-42057 2016-15221 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 41971 2016-15265 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Accountable Official Application Form for U.S. Department of the Treasury Stored Value Card Program, 42058-42059 2016-15212 Application Form for U.S. Department of the Treasury Stored Value Card Program, 42059-42060 2016-15211 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Civil Penalties: Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary Penalties, 41862-41866 2016-15268 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Removing Eastern Puma (=Cougar) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 41925-41926 2016-15227 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook, 41986-41987 2016-15230 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Recovery Permit Application, 41985-41986 2016-15288 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, CO, 41987-41989 2016-15292 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 42060 2016-15205 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 41929 2016-15198 Final Record of Decision: Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land Management Plan, 41930 2016-15284 General Services General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Acquisition Threshold for Special Emergency Procurement Authority; Correction, 41925 2016-15237 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prohibition on Contracting With Corporations With Delinquent Taxes or a Felony Conviction, 41971-41972 2016-15204 Government Ethics Government Ethics Office RULES Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments for Ethics in Government Act Violations, 41787-41790 2016-15193 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration RULES Suspension of Supervision Fee Assessment Under the United States Grain Standards Act, 41790 2016-15152 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Community Living Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 41977-41978 2016-15206
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Health Center Program, 41975-41976 2016-15208 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; Petitions, 41976-41977 2016-15207 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Transportation Security Administration

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Multifamily Contractor's or Mortgagor's Cost Breakdowns and Certifications, 41982-41983 2016-15297 Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless, 41983-41985 2016-15267 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Temporary General License: Extension of Validity, 41799-41800 2016-15228 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

RULES Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments, 41858-41860 2016-15168
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies and Real Estate Investment Trusts; Correction, 41800 2016-15264 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Receipt of Complaint: Certain Composite Intermediate Bulk Containers, 41994-41995 2016-15182 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Hearings: Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 41995-41996 2016-15218 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees Under the Clean Air Act, 41996 2016-15203 Proposed Consent Decrees Under the Clean Water Act, 41996 2016-15311 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Labor Statistics Bureau

Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42003-42004 2016-15260 Land Land Management Bureau RULES Onshore Oil and Gas Operations: Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments, 41860-41862 2016-15129 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Acquisition Threshold for Special Emergency Procurement Authority; Correction, 41925 2016-15237 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prohibition on Contracting With Corporations With Delinquent Taxes or a Felony Conviction, 41971-41972 2016-15204 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42005 2016-15159 Requests for Information: Modernizing Data Collection for Regulatory Oversight of Credit Unions; Extension of Comment Period, 42004 2016-15166 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 41979-41981 2016-15160 2016-15161 2016-15321 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 41979 2016-15164 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 41980 2016-15162 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 41978-41979 2016-15163 Prospective Grant of Start-Up Exclusive License: Premarket Approved Diagnostic for Identifying JC Virus, 41979 2016-15165 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Small-Mesh Multispecies Specifications, 41866-41868 2016-15202 Fisheries Off West Coast States: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments, 41868-41876 2016-15155 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical Habitat for the Endangered Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon; Correction, 41926-41927 2016-15045 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: California-Oregon-Washington Coastal Purse Seine Survey, 41933-41934 2016-15215 Joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook, 41986-41987 2016-15230 West Coast Region, Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery—Trawl Rationalization Cost Recovery Program, 41930-41931 2016-15216 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Smooth Hammerhead Shark; 12-Month Finding on Petition To List as Threatened or Endangered, 41934-41958 2016-15200 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife: 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List The Maui and Kona Reef Manta Ray Populations as Threatened Distinct Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act, 41958-41961 2016-15201 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Exempted Fishing Permit, 41931-41933 2016-15154 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Georgia State University, Department of Anthropology, Atlanta, GA, 41990-41991 2016-15243 History Colorado, formerly Colorado Historical Society, Denver, CO, 41989-41990 2016-15244 Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site, Ganado, AZ; Correction, 41991-41992 2016-15270 State Center Community College District, Fresno, CA, 41992-41994 2016-15242 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Community Connectivity Initiative Self-Assessment Tool, 41961-41963 2016-15149 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 42005-42006 2016-15380 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 42006 2016-15187 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42006-42007 2016-15153 Saint Lawrence Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation RULES Civil Penalties, 41817-41818 2016-15118 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 42013-42016 2016-15172 Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 42027-42030 2016-15171 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 42011-42013, 42018-42022 2016-15179 2016-15180 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 42022-42024 2016-15176 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 42016-42017 2016-15178 ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 42018 2016-15323 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 42032-42033 2016-15170 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 42009-42011 2016-15175 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 42008-42009, 42024-42027 2016-15174 2016-15177 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 42030-42032 2016-15173 Trading Suspension Orders: Breitling Energy Corp., 42022 2016-15377 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Los Angeles to New York, The Dwan Gallery 1959-1971, 42033-42034 2016-15262 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Public Charters, 42057-42058 2016-15286
Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement Program, 41981 2016-15181 Pipeline Corporate Security Review, 41982 2016-15169 Treasury Treasury Department See

Fiscal Service

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, 42060-42061 2016-15241 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Federal Aviation Administration, 42064-42214 2016-15079 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.

81 124 Tuesday, June 28, 2016 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS 5 CFR Parts 2634 and 2636 RINs 3209-AA00 and 3209-AA38 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments for Ethics in Government Act Violations AGENCY:

Office of Government Ethics.

ACTION:

Interim final rule.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is issuing this rule to make inflation adjustments for each of the five civil monetary penalties provided in the Ethics in Government Act, as reflected in the executive branchwide financial disclosure and outside employment/activities regulations promulgated by OGE.

DATES:

This interim final rule is effective August 1, 2016. Written comments are invited and must be received on or before August 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, in writing, to OGE on this interim final rule, identified by RINs 3209-AA00 and 3209-AA38, by any of the following methods:

Email: [email protected]. Include the reference “Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments Interim Final Rule” in the subject line of the message.

Fax: (202) 482-9237.

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005-3917, Attention: “Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments Interim Final Rule.”

Instructions: All submissions must include OGE's agency name and the Regulation Identifier Numbers (RINs), 3209-AA00 and 3209-AA38, for this proposed rulemaking. All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Comments may be posted on OGE's Web site, www.oge.gov. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments generally will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly L. Sikora Panza, Assistant Counsel, General Counsel and Legal Policy Division, Office of Government Ethics, Telephone: 202-482-9300; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is issuing this interim final rule as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (the 2015 Act), which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410) (the Inflation Adjustment Act) to adjust for inflation the civil monetary penalties (CMPs) provided in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as amended, 5 U.S.C. appendix (the Ethics Act). As explained below, all of the Ethics Act CMPs are being raised in accordance with the formula set forth in the 2015 Act. These “catch-up” adjustments will improve the effectiveness of the Ethics Act CMPs and maintain their deterrent effect.

In revising the Inflation Adjustment Act, the 2015 Act requires Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rule. The 2015 Act also requires agencies to make subsequent annual inflationary adjustments of their CMPs. Under the 2015 Act, the interim final rule with the “catch-up” adjusted penalties must take effect by August 1, 2016. In the case of the Ethics Act CMPs, the effective date of this rulemaking regarding the “catch-up” adjustments is August 1, 2016.

OGE emphasizes that the increased civil monetary penalty amounts calculated under the 2015 Act are applicable only to civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016 whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015, the date of enactment of the 2015 Act. Therefore, violations occurring on or before November 2, 2015, and assessments made on or before August 1, 2016 whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015, will continue to be subject to the civil monetary penalty amounts currently in effect. The modified OGE regulatory provisions will reflect the original, previously-adjusted and newly-adjusted Ethics Act CMP amounts. OGE will notify departments and agencies by memorandum of this rulemaking action and its effect.

Ethics Act CMPs

There are five CMPs provided for in the Ethics Act, as amended inter alia by the 1989 Ethics Reform Act and the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA). Specifically, the law provides for civil penalties that can be assessed by an appropriate United States district court, based upon a civil action brought by the Department of Justice, for the following five types of violations: knowing and willful failure to file, report required information on, or falsification of a public financial disclosure report; knowing and willful breach of a qualified trust by trustees and interested parties; negligent breach of a qualified trust by trustees and interested parties; misuse of a public report; and violation of outside employment/activities provisions. See sections 102(f)(6)(C)(i) and (ii), 104(a), 105(c)(2) and 504(a) of the Ethics Act, 5 U.S.C. appendix, 102(f)(6)(C)(i) and (ii), 104(a), 105(c)(2) and 504(a). These penalties are reflected in 5 CFR 2634.701(b), 2634.702(a) and (b), and 2634.703 of OGE's executive branchwide financial disclosure regulation and 5 CFR 2636.104(a) of OGE's executive branchwide covered noncareer employee outside employment/activities regulation.

In a 1999 rulemaking, 64 FR 47095, Aug. 30, 1989, OGE made inflation adjustments to the Ethics Act civil monetary penalties. These adjustments were mandated by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, section 31001 of Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, which revised the Inflation Adjustment Act to require Federal agencies to adjust certain statutory CMPs for inflation. Prior to the 1999 rulemaking, the Ethics Act CMPs were set by statute in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. In the 1999 rulemaking, OGE increased the maximum civil monetary penalties for knowing and willful breach of a qualified trust by trustees and interested parties; misuse of a public report; and violation of outside employment/activities provisions from $10,000 to $11,000. OGE also increased the maximum civil monetary penalty for negligent breach of a qualified trust by trustees and interested parties from $5,000 to $5,500. In that same rulemaking, OGE adjusted the maximum civil monetary penalty for knowing and willful failure to file, report required information on, or falsification of a public financial disclosure report from $10,000 to $11,000; however, in the 2007 HLOGA, Congress statutorily increased that penalty to a maximum of $50,000. No further adjustments have been made to any of the Ethics Act CMPs described in this paragraph.

Late Filing Fee Not a CMP

The Office of Government Ethics notes that it has previously determined, after consultation with the Department of Justice, that the $200 late filing fee for public financial disclosure reports that are more than 30 days overdue (see section 105(d) of the Ethics Act, 5 U.S.C. appendix, 105(d), and 5 CFR 2634.704 of OGE's regulations thereunder) is not a civil monetary penalty as defined under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended. Therefore, that fee is not being adjusted in this rulemaking (nor was it previously adjusted by OGE in the 1999 rulemaking), and will remain at its current amount of $200.

Calculation of Inflation Adjustments

The “catch-up” adjustments to civil monetary penalties mandated by the 2015 Act are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October in the year of the previous adjustment (not made under the Inflation Adjustment Act), and the October 2015 CPI-U. The inflation adjustments are to be rounded to the nearest dollar, and agencies may not increase penalty levels by more than 150 percent of the corresponding levels in effect on November 2, 2015. Subsequent annual adjustments for inflation mandated by the 2015 Act 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.

With the exception of the penalty for knowing and willful failure to file, report required information on, or falsification of a public financial disclosure report, 5 U.S.C. appendix, 104(a), 5 CFR 2634.701(b), all of the Ethics Act CMPs were last adjusted other than pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act by the 1989 Ethics Reform Act. (As discussed above, the adjustments made in the 1999 rulemaking were done pursuant to amendments to the Inflation Adjustment Act; the “catch-up” adjustment calculation established by the 2015 Act requires agencies to make adjustments based on when CMPs were established or last adjusted other than pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act.) For these CMPs, the adjusted penalties established by this rulemaking will be calculated by multiplying the penalty amount established by the 1989 Ethics Reform Act and 1.89361, the CPI-U multiplier for 1989. The penalty for knowing and willful failure to file, report required information on, or falsification of a public financial disclosure report was most recently adjusted by statute in 2007 by HLOGA. For this CMP, the adjusted penalty established by this rulemaking will be calculated by multiplying the penalty amount established by HLOGA and 1.13833, the CPI-U multiplier for 2007. None of these adjusted penalties are more than 150 percent of the corresponding levels in effect on November 2, 2015.

Applying the formula established by the 2015 Act, OGE is amending the Ethics Act CMPs to further increase the three previously-adjusted $11,000 maximum penalties reflected in 5 CFR 2634.702(a) and 2634.703 and 5 CFR 2636.104(a), to a maximum of $18,936; to increase the one previously-adjusted $5,500 maximum penalty reflected in 2634.702(b), to a maximum of $9,468; and to increase the one previously-adjusted $50,000 maximum penalty, reflected in 5 CFR 2634.701(b), to a maximum of $56,916. As noted above, these new amounts apply only to civil monetary penalties that are assessed after August 1, 2016 whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015.

The Office of Government Ethics will also make future adjustments to the Ethics Act CMPs in accordance with the statutory formula set forth in the 2015 Act, which provides for annual adjustments for inflation.

II. Matters of Regulatory Procedure Administrative Procedure Act

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), as General Counsel of the Office of Government Ethics, I find that good cause exists for waiving the general notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures as to these technical amendments. The notice and comment procedures are being waived because these amendments, which concern matters of agency organization, procedure and practice, are being adopted in accordance with statutorily mandated inflation adjustment procedures of the 2015 Act, which specifies adoption through an interim final rulemaking. It is also in the public interest that the adjusted rates for civil monetary penalties under the Ethics in Government Act become effective as soon as possible in order to maintain their deterrent effect. However, OGE notes that, in order to provide an appropriate period for notification to executive branch departments and agencies and their employees, the effective date for this interim final rule is August 1, 2016.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

As the designee of the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this interim final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it primarily affects current Federal executive branch employees.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because this regulation does not contain information collection requirements that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 5, subchapter II), this rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.

Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rulemaking has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, even though it is not deemed “significant” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 since it is limited to the adoption of statutorily mandated inflation adjustments without interpretation.

Executive Order 12988

As General Counsel of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed this rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.

List of Subjects 5 CFR Part 2634

Certificates of divestiture, Conflict of interests, Government employees, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trusts and trustees.

5 CFR Part 2636

Conflict of interests, Government employees, Penalties.

Dated: June 22, 2016. David J. Apol, General Counsel, Office of Government Ethics.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Government Ethics is amending 5 CFR parts 2634 and 2636 as follows:

PART 2634—EXECUTIVE BRANCH FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, QUALIFIED TRUSTS, AND CERTIFICATES OF DIVESTITURE 1. The authority citation for part 2634 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 26 U.S.C. 1043; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990), as amended by Sec. 31001, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996) and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74 (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.

2. Section 2634.101 is revised to read as follows:
§ 2634.101 Authority.

The regulation in this part is issued pursuant to the authority of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended; 26 U.S.C. 1043; the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015; and Executive Order 12674 of April 12, 1989, as modified by Executive Order 12731 of October 17, 1990.

3. Section 2634.701 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 2634.701 Failure to file or falsifying reports.

(b) Civil action. The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information required by filers of public reports under subpart B of this part. The court in which the action is brought may assess against the individual a civil monetary penalty in any amount, not to exceed the amounts set forth below, as provided by section 104(a) of the Act, as amended, and as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended:

Date of violation or assessment Penalty Violation occurring before Sept. 29, 1999 $10,000 Violation occurring between Sept. 29, 1999 and Sept. 13, 2007 11,000 Violation occurring between Sept. 14, 2007 and Nov. 2, 2015 50,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 and penalty assessed on or before Aug. 1, 2016 50,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 and penalty assessed after Aug. 1, 2016 56,916
4. Section 2634.702 is revised to read as follows:
§ 2634.702 Breaches by trust fiduciaries and interested parties.

(a) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully violates the provisions of § 2634.408(d)(1) or (e)(1). The court in which the action is brought may assess against the individual a civil monetary penalty in any amount, not to exceed the amounts set forth below, as provided by section 102(f)(6)(C)(i) of the Act and as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended:

Date of violation or assessment Penalty Violation occurring before Sept. 29, 1999 $10,000 Violation occurring between Sept. 29, 1999 and Nov. 2, 2015 11,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 and penalty assessed on or before Aug. 1, 2016 11,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 and penalty assessed after Aug. 1, 2016 18,936

(b) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who negligently violates the provisions of § 2634.408(d)(1) or (e)(1). The court in which the action is brought may assess against the individual a civil monetary penalty in any amount, not to exceed the amounts set forth below, as provided by section 102(f)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended:

Date of violation or assessment Penalty Violation occurring before Sept. 29, 1999 $5,000 Violation occurring between Sept. 29, 1999 and Nov. 2, 2015 5,500 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 and penalty assessed on or before Aug. 1, 2016 5,500 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 and penalty assessed after Aug. 1, 2016 9,468
5. Section 2634.703 is revised to read as follows:
§ 2634.703 Misuse of public reports.

(a) The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any person who obtains or uses a report filed under this part for any purpose prohibited by section 105(c)(1) of the Act, as incorporated in § 2634.603(f). The court in which the action is brought may assess against the person a civil monetary penalty in any amount, not to exceed the amounts set forth below, as provided by section 105(c)(2) of the Act and as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended.

Date of violation or assessment Penalty Violation occurring before Sept. 29, 1999 $10,000 Violation occurring between Sept. 29, 1999 and Nov. 2, 2015 11,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2016 and penalty assessed on or before Aug. 1, 2016 11,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 and penalty assessed after Aug. 1, 2016 18,936

(b) This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available under statutory or common law.

PART 2636—LIMITATIONS ON OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME, EMPLOYMENT AND AFFILIATIONS FOR CERTAIN NONCAREER EMPLOYEES 6. The authority citation for part 2636 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990), as amended by Sec. 31001, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996) and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74 (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.

7. Section 2636.104 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 2636.104 Civil, disciplinary and other action.

(a) Civil action. Except when the employee engages in conduct in good faith reliance upon an advisory opinion issued under § 2636.103, an employee who engages in any conduct in violation of the prohibitions, limitations and restrictions contained in this part may be subject to civil action under 5 U.S.C. app. 504(a) and a civil monetary penalty of not more than the amounts set forth below, as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, or the amount of the compensation the individual received for the prohibited conduct, whichever is greater.

Date of violation or assessment Penalty Violation occurring before Sept. 29, 1999 $10,000 Violation occurring between Sept. 29, 1999 and Nov. 2, 2015 11,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 and penalty assessed on or before Aug. 1, 2016 11,000 Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 and penalty assessed after Aug. 1, 2016 18,936
[FR Doc. 2016-15193 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6345-03-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 7 CFR Part 800 Suspension of Supervision Fee Assessment Under the United States Grain Standards Act AGENCY:

Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION:

Notification of suspension of supervision fee assessment.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Agriculture (USDA), Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is suspending the assessment of fees for supervision of official inspection and weighing services performed by delegated States and/or designated agencies under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA).

DATES:

This document is effective beginning July 1, 2016, and remains in effect through June 30, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry Gomoll by phone at 202-720-8286 or by email at [email protected] Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015, Public Law 114-54, amended the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71-87k) to require GIPSA to adjust fees for the supervision of official grain inspection and weighing in order to maintain an operating reserve of not less than 3 and not more than 6 months (7 U.S.C. 79(j)(4)).

GIPSA's reorganization efforts over the past 10 years have resulted in the centralization of supervision of delegated states and designated agencies. Due to this and other GIPSA cost reduction measures, the operating reserve of GIPSA's account for supervision of official inspection and weighing currently exceeds 6 months by a significant margin. Accordingly, GIPSA is issuing this document to announce the suspension of the fee for supervision of official inspection and weighing services of domestic grain and land carriers to Canada and Mexico performed by delegated States and/or designated agencies. According to the regulations under the USGSA, GIPSA may suspend any provision of the regulations in emergencies or other circumstances which would not impair the objectives of the USGSA (7 CFR 800.2). GIPSA has determined that suspending supervision fees will not impair the objectives of the USGSA because the operating reserve for supervision services is sufficient to maintain the service without additional funds.

GIPSA will no longer assess the fee of $0.011 per metric ton of domestic shipments officially inspected and/or weighed, including land carrier shipments to Canada and Mexico, performed by delegated States and/or designated agencies on or after July 1, 2016 (7 CFR 800.71 Schedule B). These fees will remain suspended for one year, at which time GIPSA will reassess the operating reserve for supervision of official agency inspection and weighing.

Official inspection agencies may no longer pass the suspended supervision fee on to their customers. Agencies which list GIPSA supervision fees as a line item on their fee schedules must eliminate the fee. Agencies which include supervision fees as a part of fees that they charge to their customers must either reduce fees by the amount of the suspended fee or provide justification and detailed cost information for retaining current fees. All agencies must submit revised fee schedules for GIPSA approval (7 CFR 800.70).

Larry Mitchell, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-15152 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 207, 218, 429, 431, 490, 501, 601, 820, 824, 851, 1013, 1017, and 1050 RIN 1990-AA46 Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties AGENCY:

Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Interim final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Energy (“DOE”) publishes this interim final rule to adjust DOE's civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) for inflation as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (collectively referred to herein as “the Act”). This rule adjusts CMPs within the jurisdiction of DOE to the maximum amount required by the Act.

DATES:

This rule is effective July 28, 2016. Written comments must be received by July 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1990-AA46, by any of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

2. Email to [email protected] Include RIN 1990-AA46 in the subject line of the email. Please include the full body of your comments in the text of the message or as an attachment.

3. Mail: Address written comments to U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Room 6A-179, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Preeti Chaudhari, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-8078.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Method of Calculation III. Summary of Interim Final Rule IV. Interim Final Rulemaking V. Regulatory Review I. Background

In order to improve the effectiveness of CMPs and to maintain their deterrent effect, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (“the Inflation Adjustment Act”), as further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-74) (“the 2015 Act”), requires Federal agencies to adjust each CMP provided by law within the jurisdiction of the agency. The 2015 Act requires agencies to adjust the level of CMPs with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking and to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553. The 2015 Act also provides that any increase in a CMP shall apply only to CMPs, including those whose associated violation predated such increase, which are assessed after the date the increase takes effect.

Pursuant to the 2015 Act, OMB issued a guidance memorandum on the implementation of the 2015 Act.1 This interim final rule is issued in accordance with applicable law and the OMB guidance memorandum.

1 The guidance memorandum was issued on February 24, 2016, and references the adjustment multipliers and how to apply them.

II. Method of Calculation

The method of calculating CMP adjustments applied in this interim final rule is required by the 2015 Act. Under the 2015 Act, catch-up adjustments are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October in the year of the previous adjustment, and the October 2015 CPI-U. Subsequent annual inflation adjustments are to 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. Under the 2015 Act, any increase in CMP shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1.

III. Summary of the Interim Final Rule

The following list summarizes DOE authorities containing CMPs, and the penalties before and after adjustment. The list also identifies the year the original maximum and/or minimum penalty level was established or last adjusted, excluding any previous adjustments made under the Inflation Adjustment Act. Finally, the list provides the CPI-U adjustment multiplier.

2 Implemented by 10 CFR 820.81, 10 CFR 851.5, and appendix B to 10 CFR part 851.

DOE Authority
  • containing civil monetary penalty
  • Before
  • adjustment
  • After
  • adjustment
  • Year
  • original
  • maximum
  • and/or minimum
  • penalty
  • level was
  • established
  • or last
  • adjusted
  • CPI-U
  • Adjustment
  • multiplier
  • 10 CFR 207.7 $4,000 $10,000 1974 4.65436 10 CFR 218.42 9,000 21,661 1975 4.33220 10 CFR 429.120 200 433 1975 4.33220 10 CFR 431.382 200 433 1975 4.33220 10 CFR 490.604 9,000 8,386 1992 1.67728 10 CFR 501.181 —40,000
  • —3.30/mcf
  • —20/bbl
  • —88,613
  • —8/mcf
  • —35/bbl
  • 1978 3.54453
    10 CFR 601.400 and App A —minimum $15,000
  • —maximum $160,000
  • —minimum $18,936
  • —maximum $189,361
  • 1989 1.89361
    10 CFR 820.81 160,000 197,869 1988 1.97869 10 CFR 824.1 and App A 120,000 141,402 1999 1.41402 10 CFR 824.4 and App A 120,000 141,402 1999 1.41402 10 CFR 851.5 and App B 80,000 91,830 2002 1.31185 10 CFR 1013.3 9,000 10,781 1986 2.15628 10 CFR 1017.29 160,000 254,645 1981 2.54645 10 CFR 1050.303 9,000 19,305 1977 3.86101 50 U.S.C. 2731 2 6,000 8,655 1991 1.73099

    In addition to the above, 10 CFR 820.80 was updated to indicate that subpart G of part 820 implements the Inflation Adjustment Act as further amended by the 2015 Act. In Appendix A to part 820, Appendix A to part 824, and Appendix B to part 851, references to the statutory CMP limit were clarified to refer to the statutory CMP limit, as periodically adjusted for inflation. The authority citations for some CFR parts included in this CMP adjustment were also updated to include the statutory citation for the Act, as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    IV. Interim Final Rulemaking

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act states that, for the for the first adjustment made under the Act after the date of enactment of the 2015 Act [Nov. 2, 2015] the head of an agency shall adjust CMPs through an interim final rulemaking and the adjustment shall take effect not later than August 1, 2016. As this rulemaking is the first adjustment made under the 2015 Act after its enactment, DOE must issue it as an interim final rule with a specified effective date without regard to the procedural requirements applicable to rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.

    In addition, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Administrative Procedure Act, DOE generally publishes a rule in a proposed form and solicits public comment on it before issuing the rule in final. However, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) provides an exception to the public comment requirement if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. Good cause is shown when public comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

    DOE finds that providing an opportunity for public comment prior to publication of this rule is not necessary because DOE is carrying out a ministerial, non-discretionary duty specified in an Act of Congress. This interim final rule incorporates requirements specifically set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2461 note requiring DOE to issue a regulation implementing catch-up inflation adjustments for all its civil penalty provisions. The formula for the amount of the penalty adjustment is prescribed by Congress. Prior notice and opportunity to comment are therefore unnecessary in this case because these changes are not subject to the exercise of discretion by DOE. These technical changes, required by law, do not substantively alter the existing regulatory framework nor in any way affect the terms under which DOE assesses civil penalties.

    V. Regulatory Review A. Executive Order 12866

    This rule has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.

    B. National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE has determined that this interim final rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph A5 of Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to a rulemaking that amends an existing rule or regulation and that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment. As discussed above, the 2015 Act requires that the catch-up adjustment be done through an interim final rule, and DOE has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required for this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared for today's interim final rule.

    D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This interim final rule imposes no new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments. Section 201 excepts agencies from assessing effects on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector of rules that incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law. Because this rule incorporates requirements specifically set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, DOE is not required to assess its regulatory effects under Section 201. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act sections 202 and 205 do not apply to today's action because they apply only to rules for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is published. Nevertheless, DOE has determined that today's regulatory action does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or on the public sector.

    F. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule that may affect family well being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    G. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it would not preempt State law and would 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    H. Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

    I. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    J. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

    K. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of today's interim final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this notice. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

    L. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this interim final rule.

    List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 207

    Administrative practice and procedure, Energy, Penalties.

    10 CFR Part 218

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Petroleum allocation.

    10 CFR Part 429

    Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practices and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    10 CFR Part 490

    Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, Penalties.

    10 CFR Part 501

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power plants, Energy conservation, Natural gas, Petroleum.

    10 CFR Part 601

    Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Penalties.

    10 CFR Part 820

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Penalties, Radiation protection.

    10 CFR Part 824

    Government contracts, Nuclear materials, Penalties, Security measures.

    10 CFR Part 851

    Civil penalty, Hazardous substances, Occupational safety and health, Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    10 CFR Part 1013

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.

    10 CFR Part 1017

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, National Defense, Nuclear Energy, Penalties, Security measures.

    10 CFR Part 1050

    Decorations, medals, awards, Foreign relations, Government employees, Government property, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2016. Steven Croley, General Counsel.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends chapters II, III, and X of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

    PART 207—COLLECTION OF INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 207 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 787 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 791 et seq.; E.O. 11790, 39 FR 23185; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Section 207.7 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 207.7 Sanctions.

    (c) * * * (1) Any person who violates any provision of this subpart or any order issued pursuant thereto shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation. * * *

    PART 218—STANDBY MANDATORY INTERNATIONAL OIL ALLOCATION 3. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 751 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 787 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; E.O. 11790, 39 FR 23185; E.O. 12009, 42 FR 46267; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    4. Section 218.42 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 218.42 Sanctions.

    (b) * * * (1) Any person who violates any provision of this part 218 or any order issued pursuant thereto shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $21,661 for each violation.

    PART 429—CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 5. The authority citation for part 429 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    6. Section 429.120 is amended by revising the first sentence to read as follows:
    § 429.120 Maximum civil penalty.

    Any person who knowingly violates any provision of § 429.102(a) may be subject to assessment of a civil penalty of no more than $433 for each violation. * * *

    PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 7. The authority citation for part 431 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    8. Section 431.382 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 431.382 Prohibited acts.

    (b) In accordance with sections 333 and 345 of the Act, any person who knowingly violates any provision of paragraph (a) of this section may be subject to assessment of a civil penalty of no more than $433 for each violation.

    PART 490—ALTERNATIVE FUEL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM 9. The authority citation for part 490 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7191 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 13201, 13211, 13220, 13251 et seq; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    10. Section 490.604 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 490.604 Penalties and Fines.

    (a) Civil Penalties. Whoever violates § 490.603 of this part shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $8,386 for each violation.

    PART 501—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SANCTIONS 11. The authority citation for part 501 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.; E.O. 12009, 42 FR 46267; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    12. Section 501.181 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 501.181 Sanctions.

    (c) * * * (1) Any person who violates any provisions of the Act (other than section 402) or any rule or order thereunder will be subject to the following civil penalty, which may not exceed $88,613 for each violation: Any person who operates a powerplant or major fuel burning installation under an exemption, during any 12-calendar-month period, in excess of that authorized in such exemption will be assessed a civil penalty of up to $8 for each MCF of natural gas or up to $35 for each barrel of oil used in excess of that authorized in the exemption.

    PART 601—NEW RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING 13. The authority citation for part 601 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 1352; 42 U.S.C. 7254 and 7256; 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    14. Section 601.400 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) to read as follows:
    § 601.400 Penalties.

    (a) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited herein shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $18,936 and not more than $189,361 for each such expenditure.

    (b) Any person who fails to file or amend the disclosure form (see appendix B to this part) to be filed or amended if required herein, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $18,936 and not more than $189,361 for each such failure.

    (e) First offenders under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $18,936, absent aggravating circumstances. Second and subsequent offenses by persons shall be subject to an appropriate civil penalty between $18,936 and $189,361, as determined by the agency head or his or her designee.

    15. Appendix A to part 601 is amended by: a. Revising the last sentence of the second undesignated paragraph, in paragraph (3) of the section entitled, “Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements”; and b. Revising the last sentence of the third undesignated paragraph, in the section entitled, “Statement for Loan Guarantees and Loan Insurance”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix A to Part 601—Certification Regarding Lobbying Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements

    (3) * * *

    * * * Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $18,936 and not more than $189,361 for each such failure.

    Statement for Loan Guarantees and Loan Insurance

    * * * Any person who fails to file the required statement shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $18,936 and not more than $189,361 for each such failure.

    PART 820—PROCEDURAL RULES FOR DOE NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES 16. The authority citation for part 820 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282(a); 7191; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 50 U.S.C. 2410.

    17. Section 820.80 is amended by revising the first sentence to read as follows:
    § 820.80 Basis and purpose.

    This subpart implements the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Act) (Pub. L. 101-410), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, section 31001) and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74, section 701). 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. * * *

    18. Section 820.81 is amended by revising the first sentence to read as follows:
    § 820.81 Amount of penalty.

    Any person subject to a penalty under 42 U.S.C. 2282a shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $197,869 for each such violation. * * *

    19. Appendix A to part 820 is amended by: a. Revising the fourth sentence of paragraph 2.e., “Civil Penalty,” in section IX entitled “Enforcement Actions”; and b. Revising paragraph a. in section XII entitled “Secretarial Notification and Consultation”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix A to Part 820—General Statement of Enforcement Policy IX. Enforcement Actions 2. Civil Penalty

    e. * * * In no instance will a civil penalty for any one violation exceed the statutory limit, as periodically adjusted for inflation as required by law. * * *

    XII. Secretarial Notification and Consultation

    a. Proposals to impose civil penalties in an amount equal to or greater than the statutory limit, as periodically adjusted for inflation as required by law;

    PART 824—PROCEDURAL RULES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES FOR CLASSIFIED INFORMATION SECURITY VIOLATIONS 20. The authority citation for part 824 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2201, 2282b, 7101 et seq., 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    21. Section 824.1 is amended by revising the second sentence to read as follows:
    § 824.1 Purpose and scope.

    * * * Subsection a. provides that any person who has entered into a contract or agreement with the Department of Energy, or a subcontract or subagreement thereto, and who violates (or whose employee violates) any applicable rule, regulation or order under the Act relating to the security or safeguarding of Restricted Data or other classified information, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $141,402 for each violation. * * *

    22. Section 824.4 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 824.4 Civil penalties.

    (c) The Director may propose imposition of a civil penalty for violation of a requirement of a regulation or rule under paragraph (a) of this section or a compliance order issued under paragraph (b) of this section, not to exceed $141,402 for each violation.

    23. Appendix A to part 824 is amended by: a. Revising the fourth and sixth sentences of paragraph 2.e., in section VIII entitled “Enforcement Actions”; and b. Revising the last sentence of paragraph 3.d., “Adjustment Factors,” in section VIII entitled “Enforcement Actions”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix A to Part 824—General Statement of Enforcement Policy VIII. Enforcement Actions 2. Civil Penalty

    e. * * * In no instance will a civil penalty for any one violation exceed the statutory limit, as periodically adjusted for inflation as required by law, per violation. * * * Thus, the per violation cap will not shield a DOE contractor that is or should have been aware of an ongoing violation and has not reported it to DOE and taken corrective action despite an opportunity to do so from liability significantly exceeding the limit. * * *

    3. Adjustment Factors

    d. * * * Based on the degree of such factors, DOE may escalate the amount of civil penalties up to the statutory maximum, as periodically adjusted for inflation as required by law, per violation per day for continuing violations.

    PART 851—WORKER SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM 24. The authority citation for part 851 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2201(i)(3), (p); 42 U.S.C. 2282c; 42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    25. Section 851.5 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 851.5 Enforcement.

    (a) A contractor that is indemnified under section 170d. of the AEA (or any subcontractor or supplier thereto) and that violates (or whose employee violates) any requirement of this part shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $91,830 for each such violation. * * *

    26. Appendix B to part 851 is amended by: a. Revising the last sentences of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) in section VI; b. Revising paragraph 1.(e)(1) in section IX ; and c. Revising the fourth sentence in paragraph 2.(f) in section IX.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix B to Part 851—General Statement of Enforcement Policy VI. Severity of Violations

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * * A Severity Level I violation would be subject to a base civil penalty of up to 100% of the maximum base civil penalty of $91,830.

    (2) * * * A Severity Level II violation would be subject to a base civil penalty up to 50% of the maximum base civil penalty ($45,915).

    IX. Enforcement Actions 1. Notice of Violation

    (e) * * *

    (1) DOE may assess civil penalties of up to $91,830 per violation per day on contractors (and their subcontractors and suppliers) that are indemnified by the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. 2210(d). See 10 CFR 851.5(a).

    2. Civil Penalty

    (f) * * * In no instance will a civil penalty for any one violation exceed the statutory limit, as periodically adjusted for inflation as required by law, per day. * * *

    PART 1013—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES 27. The authority citation for part 1013 continues to reads as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 3801-3812; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    28. Section 1013.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 1013.3 Basis for civil penalties and assessments.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iv) Is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $10,781 for each such claim.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) Contains or is accompanied by an express certification or affirmation of the truthfulness and accuracy of the contents of the statement, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $10,781 for each such statement.

    PART 1017—IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF UNCLASSIFIED CONTROLLED NUCLEAR INFORMATION 29. The authority citation for part 1017 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2168; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    30. Section 1017.29 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 1017.29 Civil penalty.

    (c) Amount of penalty. The Director may propose imposition of a civil penalty for violation of a requirement of a regulation under paragraph (a) of this section or a compliance order issued under paragraph (b) of this section, not to exceed $254,645 for each violation.

    PART 1050—FOREIGN GIFTS AND DECORATIONS 31. The authority citation for part 1050 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9; 5 U.S.C. 7342; 22 U.S.C. 2694; 42 U.S.C. 7254 and 7262; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    32. Section 1050.303 is amended by revising the last sentence in paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 1050.303 Enforcement.

    (d) * * * The court in which such action is brought may assess a civil penalty against such employee in any amount not to exceed the retail value of the gift improperly solicited or received plus $19,305.

    [FR Doc. 2016-15148 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-6033; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-019-AD; Amendment 39-18571; AD 2016-13-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 N3 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the cabin and cockpit for labels, placards, or markings that provide jettison procedure instructions for cabin doors, removing any labels, placards, or markings that are in an incorrect location, and installing placards where they are missing. This AD is prompted by the determination that placards had not been installed according to specifications on newly manufactured helicopters. The actions are intended to provide exit procedures during an emergency.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective August 2, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of August 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-6033.

    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-2015-6033; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    On March 11, 2016, at 81 FR 12836, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 N3 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the cabin and cockpit for labels, placards, or markings that provide jettison procedure instructions for cabin doors, removing any labels, placards, or markings that are in an incorrect location, and installing placards in the correct locations. The proposed requirements were intended to provide exit procedures during an emergency.

    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2015-0068-E, dated April 29, 2015, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for the Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 N3 helicopters without external life rafts installed, except those helicopters modified in accordance with Airbus Helicopters modification (MOD) 0711B68, and Model AS 365 N3 helicopters with external life rafts installed, except those helicopters modified in accordance Airbus Helicopters MOD 0711B67 and MOD 0711B68. EASA advises that during helicopter delivery after manufacturing, Airbus Helicopters identified that placards providing jettison procedure instructions for the cabin doors were not systematically installed or not installed in a proper location. This condition, if not corrected, could prevent the timely evacuation of the helicopter during an emergency. The EASA AD consequently requires determining whether any placards are missing or incorrectly located, installing any missing placards, and replacing any incorrectly located placards.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 12836, March 11, 2016).

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of this same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

    Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires compliance within 14 days after the effective date of the EASA AD. This AD requires compliance within 50 hours time-in-service.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS365-11.00.02, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2015 (ASB). The service information describes procedures for replacing and installing cabin internal evacuation markings. The ASB reports that deviations in the locations of the cabin internal evacuation markings and missing markings were noted during the delivery of new helicopters. The ASB provides instructions about the locations of, characteristics of, and information contained in the markings.

    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 15 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that inspecting the helicopter to determine the proper location and presence of cabin door jettison procedure placards and replacing and installing them requires 4 work-hours and that parts cost $70. We estimate a total cost of $410 per helicopter, and $6,150 for the U.S. fleet.

    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 helicopters 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    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): 2016-13-07 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-18571; Docket No. FAA-2015-6033; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-019-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 N3 helicopters, certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as missing or incorrectly located information for exiting a helicopter. This condition could result in failure to jettison cabin doors during an emergency, resulting in death or injury of helicopter occupants.

    (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 2, 2016.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    Within 50 hours time-in-service:

    (1) Inspect the cabin and cockpit for labels, placards, and markings that provide jettison procedure instructions for cabin doors.

    (2) For the left and right side, remove any existing label, placard, and marking and install placards in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2 and Figures 1 through 6, of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS365-11.00.02, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2015.

    (f) Credit for Previously Completed Actions

    Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Helicopters Modification (MOD) 0711B68 for helicopters without external life rafts or MOD 0711B68 and MOD 0711B67 for helicopters with external life rafts are considered acceptable for compliance with this AD.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0068-E, dated April 29, 2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-6033.

    (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 1100, Placards and Markings.

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference 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) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS365-11.00.02, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

    (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 Fort Worth, Texas, on June 17, 2016. Scott A. Horn, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14972 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3994; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-23] Establishment of Class E Airspace, Shelton, WA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sanderson Field Airport, Shelton, WA, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed for the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or 202-366-9826. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On January 28, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sanderson Field Airport, Shelton, WA (81 FR 4903) Docket FAA-2015-3994. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from Joseph Murphy, supporting the proposal.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius of the Sanderson Field Airport, Shelton WA, and that airspace within 1.5 miles either side of the airport 068° bearing extending from the 4-mile radius to 5 miles northeast of the airport, and that airspace within 2.3 miles either side of the airport 248° bearing extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.5 miles southwest of the airport. This airspace is established to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM WA E5 Shelton, WA [New] Sanderson Field Airport, WA (Lat. 47°14′01″ N., long. 123°08′51″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius of Sanderson Field Airport, and that airspace 1.5 miles either side of the 068° bearing from airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 5 miles northeast of the airport, and that airspace 2.3 miles either side of the 248° bearing from airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.5 miles southwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 17, 2016. Brian J. Johnson, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15184 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 160106014-6530-03] RIN 0694-AG82 Temporary General License: Extension of Validity AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 24, 2016, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule, Temporary General License. The March 24 final rule created a temporary general license that restored, for a specified time period, the licensing requirements and policies under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) as of March 7, 2016, to two entities (ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun) that were added to the Entity List on March 8, 2016. At this time, the U.S. Government has decided to extend the temporary general license until August 30, 2016. In order to implement this decision, this final rule revises the temporary general license to remove the expiration date of June 30, 2016, and to substitute the date of August 30, 2016. This final rule makes no other changes to the EAR.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 28, 2016 through August 30, 2016. The expiration date of the final rule published on March 24, 2016 (81 FR 15633) is extended until August 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Fax: (202) 482-3911, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 24, 2016, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule, Temporary General License (81 FR 15633). The March 24 final rule amended the EAR by adding Supplement No. 7 to part 744 to create a Temporary General License that returned, until June 30, 2016, the licensing and other policies of the EAR regarding exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corporation and ZTE Kangxun to that which were in effect prior to their addition to the Entity List on March 8, 2016. Details regarding the scope of the listing are at 81 FR 12004 (Mar. 8, 2016), (“Additions to the Entity List”). Details regarding the Temporary General License can be found in the March 24 final rule and in Supplement No. 7 to Part 744—Temporary General License.

    BIS issued the March 24 final rule in connection with a request to remove or modify the listing. The March 24 final rule specified that the temporary general license was renewable if the U.S. Government determined, in its sole discretion, that ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun were timely performing their undertakings to the U.S. Government and otherwise cooperating with the U.S. Government in resolving the matter which led to the two entities' listing.

    At this time, the U.S. Government has decided to extend the temporary general license until August 30, 2016. In order to implement this U.S. Government decision, this final rule revises the temporary general license to remove the date June 30, 2016, and substitute the date of August 30, 2016. This final rule makes no other changes to the EAR.

    Export Administration Act

    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

    Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment, and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, then the national security and foreign policy objectives of this rule would be harmed. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subject in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

    PART 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015); Notice of September 18, 2015, 80 FR 57281 (September 22, 2015); Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015); Notice of January 20, 2016, 81 FR 3937 (January 22, 2016).

    Supplement No. 7 to Part 744—[AMENDED] 2. In Supplement No. 7 to part 744, remove “June 30, 2016” and add in its place “August 30, 2016”. Dated: June 23, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15228 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9770] RIN 1545-BN39 Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies [RICs] and Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs]; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final and temporary regulations; correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains a correction to final and temporary regulations (TD 9770) that were published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36793). The final and temporary regulations effect the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and prevent abuse of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. The temporary regulations impose corporate level tax on certain transactions in which property of a C corporation becomes the property of a REIT.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective on June 28, 2016 and applicable on June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Austin M. Diamond-Jones at (202) 317-5085 (not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The final and temporary regulations (TD 9770) that are the subject of this correction are under section 337(d) of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9770) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.337(d)-7T is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 1.337(d)-7T Tax on property owned by a C corporation that becomes property of a RIC or REIT.

    (f) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iii) The related section 355 distribution occurred before December 7, 2015 or is described in a ruling request referred to in section 311(c) of Division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, 129 Stat. 2422.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2016-15264 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 30 CFR Part 250 [Docket ID: BSEE-2016-0010; 16XE1700DX EX1SF0000.DAQ000 EEEE50000] RIN 1014-AA30 Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustment AGENCY:

    Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule adjusts the level of the civil monetary penalty contained in the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) regulations pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 28, 2016. Comments will be accepted until August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. [BSEE-2016-0010] and follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: David Fish, Acting Chief Safety and Enforcement Division, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Fish, Acting Chief Safety and Enforcement Division, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, (202) 208-3955 or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Calculation of Adjustment III. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Takings (E.O. 12630) F. Federalism (E.O. 13132) G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Departmental policy) I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. National Environmental Policy Act K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) L. Clarity of This Regulation M. Administrative Procedure Act I. Background

    The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount at least once every three years to reflect any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to account for inflation. (43 U.S.C. § 1350(b)(1). The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 104-410) (FCPIA of 1990) required that all civil monetary penalties, including the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount, be adjusted at least once every 4 years. Pursuant to OCSLA and the FCPIA of 1990, the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount was last adjusted in 2011. (76 FR 38294, June 30, 2011). In 2014 and 2015, BSEE performed computations to determine if it should increase the current OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount to account for inflation. After running the computations, BSEE determined that adjustments of the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount were not warranted in 2014 and 2015.

    On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Public Law 114-74) (FCPIA of 2015). The FCPIA of 2015 requires Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment, if warranted, through rulemaking, and then to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes.

    Pursuant to OCSLA and the FCPIA of 2015, this rule adjusts the following maximum civil monetary penalty per day per violation:

    CFR citation Description of the penalty Current
  • maximum
  • penalty
  • Multiplier Adjusted
  • maximum
  • penalty
  • 30 CFR 250.1403 Failure to comply per day $40,000 1.05042 $42,017
    II. Calculation of Adjustment

    The OMB issued guidance on calculating the civil monetary penalty adjustments pursuant to the FCPIA of 2015. (February 24, 2016, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, from Shaun Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget, re: Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.) Under this guidance, the Department of the Interior has identified applicable civil monetary penalties and calculated the necessary adjustments. A civil monetary penalty is any assessment with a dollar amount that is levied for a violation of a Federal civil statute or regulation, and is assessed or enforceable through a civil action in Federal court or an administrative proceeding. A civil monetary penalty does not include a penalty levied for violation of a criminal statute, or fees for services, licenses, permits, or other regulatory review activities. The calculated adjustment is based on the percent change between the CPI for all Urban Consumers for the month of October in the year of the previous adjustment (or in the year of establishment, if no adjustment has been made) and the October 2015 CPI.

    For 2016, OCSLA and the FCPIA of 2015 required that BSEE adjust the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount and provide for timing of the adjustment. In computing the new OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount, since BSEE last adjusted that amount in 2011, BSEE divided the October 2015 CPI by the October 2011 CPI (237.8/226.4). This resulted in a multiplying factor of 1.05042. The existing maximum civil penalty amount ($40,000) was then multiplied by the multiplying factor (40,000 × 1.05042 = 42,016.8). The FCPIA of 2015 requires that the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount be rounded to the nearest $1.00 at the end of the calculation process. Accordingly, the adjusted OCSLA maximum civil penalty is $42,017. This new OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount does not exceed 150 percent of the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount as of November 2, 2015, as stipulated by the FCPIA of 2015. Also, pursuant to the FCPIA of 2015, the increase in the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount applies to civil penalties assessed after the date the increase takes effect, even when the associated violation(s) predate such increase.

    III. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order (E.O) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the OMB will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

    E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. (See 5 U.S.C 603 (a) and 604 (a).) The Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act of 2015 requires agencies to adjust civil penalties with an initial catch-up adjustment through an interim final rule. An interim final rule does not include first publishing a proposed rule. Thus the RFA does not apply to this rulemaking.

    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

    (1) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    (2) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    (3) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule will not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    E. Takings (E.O. 12630)

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

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

    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    (1) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (2) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Departmental Policy)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department of the Interior's consultation policy, under Departmental Manual Part 512 Chapters 4 and 5, and under the criteria in E.O. 13175, and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that, consultation under the Department of the Interior's tribal consultation policy is not required.

    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    J. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (see 43 CFR 46.210(i).) This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of an administrative nature. We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

    K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    L. Clarity of This Regulation

    We are required by E.O.s 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (1) Be logically organized;

    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (3) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    M. Administrative Procedure Act

    The FCPIA of 2015 requires agencies to publish interim final rules by July 1, 2016, with an effective date for the adjusted penalties of no later than August 1, 2016. To comply with the FCPIA of 2015, we are issuing these regulations as an interim final rule and are requesting comments post-promulgation. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure . . . are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for prior public comment (5 U.S.C. 553(b).) BSEE finds that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without first providing the public comment. It would not be possible to meet the deadlines imposed by the FCPIA of 2015 if we were to first publish a proposed rule, allow the public sufficient time to submit comments, analyze the comments, and publish a final rule. Also, BSEE is promulgating this interim final rule to implement the statutory directive in the FCPIA of 2015, which requires agencies to publish an interim final rule and to update the civil penalty amounts by applying a specified formula. BSEE has no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters, so notice and comment is unnecessary. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for pre-promulgation public comment on this rule.

    Thus, BSEE finds pre-promulgation notice and public comment to be impracticable and unnecessary.

    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

    Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Investigations, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, Pipelines, Public lands—mineral resources, Public lands—rights-of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur.

    For the reasons given in the preamble, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement amends Title 30, Chapter II, Subchapter B, Part 250 Code of Federal Regulations as follows.

    PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 1. The authority citation for 30 CFR part 250 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334 and Sec. 107, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Revise § 250.1403 to read as follows:
    § 250.1403 What is the maximum civil penalty?

    The maximum civil penalty is $42,017 per day per violation.

    Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15157 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 88 [Docket ID: DOD-2013-OS-0236] RIN 0790-AJ17 Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for Military Personnel AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for administration of the DoD Transition Assistance Program (TAP). The goal of TAP is to prepare all eligible members of the Military Services for a transition to civilian life, including preparing them to meet Career Readiness Standards (CRS). The TAP provides information and training to ensure Service members leaving Active Duty and eligible Reserve Component Service members being released from active duty are prepared for their next step in life whether pursuing additional education, finding a job in the public or private sector, starting their own business or other form of self-employment, or returning to school or an existing job. Service members receive training to meet CRS through the Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) curricula, including a core curricula and individual tracks focused on Accessing Higher Education, Career Technical Training, and Entrepreneurship.

    All Service members who are separating, retiring, or being released from a period of 180 days or more of continuous Active Duty must complete all mandatory requirements of the Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act, which includes pre-separation counseling to develop an Individual Transition Plan (ITP) and identify their career planning needs; attend the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Benefits Briefings I and II to understand what VA benefits the Service member earned, how to apply for them, and leverage them for a positive economic outcome; and attend the Department of Labor Employment Workshop (DOLEW), which focuses on the mechanics of resume writing, networking, job search skills, interview skills, and labor market research.

    DATES:

    Effective date: This rule is effective September 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Horne, 703-614-8631.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The TAP prepares all eligible members of the Military Services for a transition to civilian life; enables eligible Service members to meet the CRS as required by this rule; and is the overarching program that provides transition assistance, information, training, and services to eligible transitioning Service members to prepare them to be career ready when they transition back to civilian life.

    Spouses of eligible Service members are entitled to the DOLEW, job placement counseling, DoD/VA-administered survivor information, financial planning assistance, transition plan assistance, VA-administered home loan services, housing assistance benefits information, and counseling on responsible borrowing practices. Dependents of eligible Service members are entitled to career change counseling and information on suicide prevention.

    These revisions will:

    • Institutionalize the implementation of the VOW Act of 2011,

    • require mandatory participation in the Department of Labor (DOL) Employment Workshop (EW),

    • implement the Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) curriculum,

    • require development of an Individual Transition Plan (ITP),

    • enhance tracking of attendance at TAP events,

    • implement of mandatory Career Readiness Standards (CRS) for separating Service members, and

    • incorporate a CAPSTONE event to document transition readiness and reinforce Commanding Officer accountability and support for the needs of individual Service members.

    This rule improves the process of conducting transition services for eligible separating Service members across the Military Services and establishes the data collection foundation to build short-, medium-, and long-term program outcomes.

    In August 2011, President Obama announced his comprehensive plan to ensure that all of America's Post 9/11 Veterans have the support they need and deserve when they leave the military, look for a job, and enter the civilian workforce. A key part of the President's plan was his call for a “career-ready military.” Specifically, he directed DoD and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to work closely with other federal agencies and the President's economic and domestic policy teams to lead a Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force to develop a new training and services delivery model to help strengthen the transition readiness of Service members from military to civilian life. Shortly thereafter, Congress passed and the President signed the “VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011,” Public Law 112-56, 201-265, 125 Stat. 715 (“VOW Act”), which included steps to improve the existing TAP for Service members. Among other things, the “VOW Act” made participation in several components of TAP mandatory for all Service members (except in certain limited circumstances).

    The task force delivered its initial recommendations to the President in December 2011, which required implementation of procedures to document Service member participation, and to demonstrate Military Service compliance with 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58 requirements. The Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act of 2011 mandated transitioning Service members participation in receiving counseling and training on VA Benefits. VA developed VA Benefits I and II Briefings to meet this mandate. The VOW Act also mandated transitioning Service members to received counseling and informed of services regarding employment assistance. The Department of Labor revised its' curriculum to meet this mandate with the Department of Labor Employment Workshop. The VOW requirements have been codified in 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58 and attendance at all Transition GPS curricula is now documented.

    The redesigned TAP was developed around four core recommendations:

    Adopt standards of career readiness for transitioning Service members. Service members should leave the military having met clearly defined standards of career readiness.

    Implement a revamped TAP curriculum. Service members should be provided with a set of value-added, individually tailored training programs and services to equip them with the set of tools they need to pursue their post-military goals successfully.

    Implement a “CAPSTONE”. Service members should be afforded the opportunity, shortly before they depart the military, to review and verify that they have met the CRS and received the services they desire and to be steered to the resources and benefits available to them as Veterans.

    Implement a “Military Life Cycle” (MLC) transition model. Transition preparation for Service members should occur over the entire span of their military careers—not just in the last few months of their military service.

    Implementation of these recommendations transforms a Service member' experience during separating, retiring, demobilizing, or deactivating to make the most informed career decisions by equipping them with the tools they need to make a successful transition.

    The rule discusses a redesigned program which implements, the transition-related provisions of the “VOW Act” and recommendations of the Task Force to offer a tailored curriculum providing Service members with useful and quality instruction with connections to the benefits and resources available to them as Veterans. At the heart of the redesign is the new set of CRS. Just as Service members must meet military mission readiness standards while on Active Duty, Service members will meet CRS before their transition to civilian life.

    Regulatory Impact Analysis

    As part of the regulatory process, DOD is required to develop a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for rules with costs or benefits exceeding $100M annually. DOD estimates implementation of this final rule for the Department will have a cost of approximately $100M annually starting in 2016. DoD assumes that the annual outlays will continue.

    I. Alternatives Analysis

    In President Obama's speech in August of 2011 at the Washington Navy Yard, he used the term `Reverse Boot Camp' to demonstrate his vision for a redesigned TAP to increase the preparedness of Service members to successfully transition from military service to civilian communities. The President's speech initiated an interagency discussion on an approach to mirror the Military Services' “basic or initial entry training” programs. This approach would require the Military Services to devote approximately 9 to 13 weeks, depending on curriculum development, outcome measures, assessments and individual military readiness and cultural differences, to afford Service members the opportunity to use all aspects of a rigorous transition preparation program.

    While no cost estimates were conducted, this approach was deemed to be both expensive and potentially jeopardize DoD's ability to maintain mission readiness. Approximately 200,000-250,000 Service members leave DoD each year. To concentrate on transition preparation during the last 9 to 13 weeks of an individual's military career would not be workable since mission readiness could not absorb the impact of the void. Additionally, there would be an increased expense required to activate or mobilize Reserve Component or National Guard personnel for the nine to 13 weeks prior to transition. Finally, logistical challenges could result from Service members dealing with TAP requirements while deployed. For example, units scheduled to mobilize would be delayed because a returning unit could occupy facilities (such as billeting, classrooms, and training areas) that the deploying units needed to train and prepare for mobilization.

    A second alternative considered was establishment of regional residential transition centers staffed by personnel from all Military Services, the Departments of VA, Labor (DOL), and Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), and the OPM. Transitioning Service members would be sent on temporary duty for a period of four to six weeks, 12 months prior to their separation or retirement date to receive transition services. Eligible Reserve Component Service members would be assigned to the centers as a continuation of their demobilization out-processing. The potential costs to build or modify existing facilities, or rent facilities that would meet regional residential transition center requirements, as well as costs for Service member travel to and from the regional centers, reduced the viability of this approach.

    A third, less expensive option would have left the existing TAP program intact without increasing counselor and curriculum facilitation resources. This option would not have accountability systems and procedures to demonstrate compliance with the “VOW Act” that mandates preseparation counseling, attendance at the DOL's three day Employment Workshop (DOLEW), and attendance at two VA briefings. Due to increasing Veteran unemployment and homeless percentages at the time of the decision, and the rebalancing of the military force, this cost neutral approach would not have the outcome-based capability intended to develop career ready skills in transitioning Service members. This option, which would not have met the requirements of the law, would cost the Military Services approximately $70M versus the fiscal year 2013 (FY13) $122M for the implementation of the re-designed TAP.

    II. Anticipated Costs and Benefits

    The “VOW Act” mandated preseparation counseling, VA Benefits Briefings I and II, and the DOLEW, and these components were implemented on November 21, 2012. On the same day, the “VOW Act” requirements became mandatory; DoD published a policy to make CRS and Commanding Officer verification that Service members are meeting CRS, mandatory. “Vow Act” compliance and CRS must be met by all Service members after they have served 180 days in active duty status. Service members must attend Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) curriculum modules that build career readiness if they cannot meet the CRS on their own. In cases where Service members receive a punitive or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge, Commanding Officers have the discretion of determining participation in the other than mandatory Transition GPS curricula. By policy, all Service members who do not meet the CRS will receive a warm handover to DOL, VA, or other resources targeted at improving career readiness in the area where the standard was not met.

    The entire Transition GPS curriculum is now available online through Joint Knowledge Online (JKO); however, Service members must attend preseparation counseling, VA briefings, and the DOLEW in person. All other curricula can be accessed through the JKO virtual platform. The virtual curriculum (VC) was launched at the beginning of FY14. DoD expected a cost savings in FY14 due to use of the VC but the cost avoidance cannot be calculated, as VC utilization is appropriate on a Service member-by-Service member basis.

    Further, resource requirements for DoD become more predictable when transition assistance is provided at pre-determined points throughout the MLC TAP model, mitigating the impacts of “surge” periods when large numbers of Service members separate, demobilize or deactivate.

    The FY13 cost to DoD to implement the TAP redesign was $122M and in FY14 DoD costs were $85M. The difference is attributed to both implementation costs of the updated program in FY13 and to efficiencies discovered as implementation was completed throughout FY14. These costs represent only the portion of the interagency program that is paid by the DoD. The cost covers Defense civilian and contracted staff (FTEs) salaries and benefits at 206 worldwide locations. Civilian and contract labor account for approximately 88% of total program costs in both fiscal years. The remaining costs include equipment, computers (purchase, maintenance and operations), Information Technology (IT) and architecture, data collection and sharing, Web site development, performance evaluation and assessments, curriculum development and modifications, materials (audio-visual, CDs, eNotebooks, handouts, interactive brick and mortar classroom sessions, virtual curriculum, etc.), facilitation training, research, studies, and surveys. Within DoD, the re-designed TAP capitalized upon existing resources, e.g., use of certified financial planners housed in the Military Services' family centers to conduct financial planning or military education counselors used to conduct the Accessing Higher Education (AHE) track. Other efficiencies include reuse or upgrades to current facilities and classrooms used to deliver legacy TAP. Implementation costs in FY13 included equipping classrooms to allow individual internet access and train-the-trainer workshops to deliver the DoD portions of the Transition GPS curriculum. Examples of efficiencies discovered in FY14 include providing train-the-trainer courses through webinars and savings associated with Service members using the VC.

    The DoD provides military spouses the statutory requirements of TAP as prescribed in Title 10, United States Code. Other elements of TAP, prescribed by DoD policy, are available to spouses if resources and space permits. Military spouses can attend the “brick and mortar” Transition GPS curriculum at no cost on a nearby military installation. They can also take the entire Transition GPS curriculum online, virtually, at any time, from anywhere with a computer or laptop for free.

    Many Veteran and Military Service Organizations, employers, and local communities provide transition support services to local installations. Installation commanders are strongly encouraged to permit access to Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) and Military Service Organizations (MSOs) to provide transition assistance-related events and activities in the United States and abroad at no cost to the government. Two memos signed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel reinforce such access. The memos are effective within 60 days of the December 23 signing, and will remain in effect until the changes are codified within DoD.1 Access to installations is for the purpose of assisting Service members with their post-military disability process and transition resources and services. The costs to VSOs and MSOs would be any costs associated with salaries for paid VSO and MSO personnel. These organizations will pay for any costs associated with travel to and from military installations, as well as any materials they provide to separating Service members and their spouses. Costs to employers and community organizations supporting transition-related events and activities would be similar to those for VSOs and MSOs.

    1 DoD Memos signed 12/23/2014. “Installation Access and Support Services to VA-Recognized Veteran Service Organizations/Military Service Organizations” and “Installation Access and Support Services for Nonprofit Non-Federal Entities”.

    The DoD is dependent upon other federal agencies to deliver the redesigned TAP to transitioning Service members. The VA, DOL, SBA, Department of Education (ED), and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have proven to be invaluable partners in supporting the Transition GPS curriculum development and delivery, and in providing follow-on services required by a warm handover due to unmet CRS. These interagency partners strongly support TAP governance and performance measurement.

    Although DoD cannot estimate the costs for its interagency partners, TAP provides the Service members with resources through the contributions of its interagency partners that should be identified as factors of total program cost. Transition assistance is a comprehensive interagency effort with contributions from every partner leveraged to provide support to the All-Volunteer Force as the Service members prepare to become Veterans. The interagency partners deliver the Transition GPS curriculum and one-on-one services across 206 military installations across the globe. DoD can only speak to TAP costs within the Defense fence line, but can discuss the value provided by interagency partners.

    The DOL provides skilled facilitators that deliver the DOLEW, a mandatory element of the Transition GPS standardized curriculum. DOL's American Jobs Centers (AJCs) provide integral employment support to transitioning Service members and transitioned Veterans. The AJCs are identified as resources for the Service members during TAP, which may increase visits from the informed Service members. The AJCs also support warm handovers of Service members who have identified employment as a transition goal on their ITP but do not meet the CRS for employment. DOL also provides input to the TAP interagency working groups and governance boards, and is involved in the data collection, performance measurement, and standardization efforts, all of which represent costs to the organization.

    The SBA provides the Transition GPS entrepreneurship track, Boots to Business, to educate transitioning Service members interested in starting their own business about the challenges small businesses face. Upon completing the Boots to Business track, the SBA allows Service members to access the SBA on-line entrepreneurship course, free of charge. The SBA then provides Service members the opportunity to be matched to a successful businessperson as a mentor. This is a tremendous commitment that must create additional costs for the SBA. The SBA offices continue to provide support to Veterans as they pursue business plan development or start up loans; provision of this support is in the SBA's statutory charter, but the increased awareness provided through the Transition GPS curriculum is likely to increase the patronage and represent a cost to SBA. The SBA also provides input to the TAP interagency working groups and governance boards. The SBA is engaged with data collection and sharing efforts to determine program outcomes.

    VA provides facilitators who deliver the mandatory VA Benefits Briefings I and II as part of the Transition GPS standardized curriculum required to meet “VOW Act” requirements. The VA facilitators also deliver the two-day track for Career Technical Training that provides instruction to Service members to discern the best choices of career technical training institutions, financial aid, best use of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Benefits counselors deliver one-on-one benefits counseling on installations, as space permits. As a primary resource for Veterans, VA ensures benefits counselors are able to accept warm handovers of transitioning Service members who do not meet CRS and require VA assistance post-separation. The VA hosts a web portal for connectivity between employers and transitioning Service members, Veterans and their families. VA provides input to the TAP interagency working groups and governance boards, and is involved in the data collection and sharing efforts to determine program outcomes, all of which represent costs to the organization.

    ED serves a unique and highly valued role in the interagency partnership by ensuring the entire curriculum, both in classroom and virtual platform delivery, is based on adult learning principles. Their consultative role, tapped daily by the interagency partners, is critical to a quality TAP. ED also provides input to the TAP interagency working groups and governance boards and keeps a keen eye toward meaningful TAP outcomes, all of which represent costs to the organization.

    The OPM contributes federal employment information and resources to the DOLEW, and enables the connectivity between the VA's web portal and USA Jobs Web sites. The OPM also provides input to the TAP interagency working groups and governance boards and contributes to performance measures.

    The costs to DoD's interagency partners were not calculated; implementation of this rule was mandated by the “Vow Act” and costs for all parties are already incurred. The calculated costs to DoD and unmeasured costs to DoD's interagency partners provide significant resources to Service members, resulting in benefits to the Nation.

    The benefit of the redesigned TAP to the Service member is increased career readiness to obtain employment, start their own business, or enter career technical training or an institution of higher learning at the point of separation from military service. The legacy, end-of-career TAP is replaced by pre-determined opportunities across the MLC for many transition-related activities to be completed during the normal course of business. Since a direct economic estimate of the value of TAP is difficult for DoD to demonstrate as it would require collection of information from military personnel after they become private citizens, the value of the TAP can be derived by demonstrating qualitatively how Service members value the program and then displaying some changes in economic variables that can be differentiated between Veterans who have access to TAP and non-Veterans who do not have access to the program.

    —According to one independent evaluation of the TAP, Service members who had participated in the TAP had, on average, found their first post-military job three weeks sooner than those who did not participate in the TAP.2

    2 Source: Veterans Employment and Training Service (DOL VETS) VETS Fact Sheet 1: Transition Assistance Program.

    —An independent survey asked Soldiers who had used the TAP their opinions about the curriculum. The Soldiers reported positive opinions about the usefulness of the TAP. 90% of the Soldiers felt that it was a useful resource in searching for employment and 88% of them would recommend the TAP to a colleague.3

    3 Source: Faurer, J., Rogers-Brodersen, A. and Bailie, P. (2014). Managing the Re-employment of Military Veterans through the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). Journal of Business and Economics. 12 (1), 55-60.

    According to a curriculum assessment completed at the end of each TAP module, transitioning Service members gave the TAP positive reviews on its usefulness for their job search:

    —92% of reported that they found the learning resources useful, including notes, handouts, and audio-visuals. —83% reported that the modules enhanced their confidence in their own transition planning. —81% reported that they now know how to access the necessary resources to find answers to transition questions that may arise in the next several months. —79% said that the TAP was beneficial in helping them gain the information and skills they needed better to plan their transition. —79% said that they would use what they learned from the TAP in their own transition planning.4

    4 Source: Statement of Dr. Susan Kelly Before the House Veterans Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity (September 17, 2014).

    —A comparison of unemployment insurance usage suggests that recently separated members of the military (2013 & 2014) were more likely to apply what they learned in the re-designed TAP and were more involved earlier in job training programs than unemployed claimants who did not have military experience (8.5% of UCX claimants versus 5.1% of Military service claimants).5

    5 Source: Paul Heaton, RAND Corporation, Why is Veteran Unemployment So High?

    —According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for Veterans of the current conflict declined by nearly half from August 2013 to 5.7 percent in January 2016 coinciding with the time period when all Service members were required to take the re-designed TAP.6

    6 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey (February 2016).

    The TAP also helps mitigate the adjustment costs associated with labor market transition. Military members must prepare for the adjustments associated with losing military benefits (e.g., housing, health care, childcare) to the benefits afforded in private sector or nonmilitary public sector jobs. The TAP addresses this very important aspect based on a regulatory mandate that they attend both the DOLEW and the VA's Veterans Benefits Briefings, and complete a 12-month post-separation financial plan to meet CRS.

    The early alignment of military skills with civilian workforce demands and deliberate planning for transition throughout a Service member's career sets the stage for a well-timed flow of Service members to our Nation's labor force. Employers state that transitioning Service members have critical job-related skills, competencies, and qualities including the ability to learn new skills, strong leadership qualities, flexibility to work well in teams or independently, ability to set and achieve goals, recognition of problems and implementation of solutions, and ability to persevere in the face of obstacles. However, application of these skills and attributes must be translated into employer friendly language. The TAP addresses these issues. The VA web portal supports providing private and public sector employers with a direct link to profiles and resumes of separating Service members where employers can recruit from this talent pipeline.

    The rule benefits communities across the country. Civilian communities receive more educated, better-trained and more prepared citizens when separating Service members return to communities as Veterans. Service members learn to align their military skills with civilian employment opportunities, which enables the pool of highly trained, adaptable, transitioning Service members a more timely integration into the civilian workforce and local economies. Service members also learn through TAP about the rich suite of resources available to them from the interagency partners and have, for the asking, one-on-one appointments with interagency partner staff, who can provide assistance to Service members and their families both before and after the Service members leave active duty. More specifically, the components of the mandatory CRS target deliberate planning for financial preparedness as well as employment, education, housing and transportation plans and, for those Service members with families, childcare, schools, and spouse employment. The DoD and interagency partners incorporated the warm handover requirement for any transitioning Service member who does not meet the CRS. The warm handover is meant to serve as an immediate bridge from DoD to the federal partners' staffs, which are committed to providing needed support, resources and services to Service members post separation in the communities to which the Service members are returning. The intention is to provide early intervention before Veterans encounter the challenges currently identified by some communities, e.g., financial struggles, unemployment, lack of social supports that can spiral down into homelessness, risk taking behaviors. Families and communities benefit.

    The Task Force established expectations for program performance measures and outcomes. The redesigned TAP Interagency Executive Council and Senior Steering Group laid the preliminary groundwork to measure long-term program outcomes. While DoD is statutorily limited to measure outcomes while Service members are active duty, DoD performance measures are intended to demonstrate outcomes of the TAP redesign within DoD. These include the verified number of Service members separated from active duty who meet “VOW Act” mandates and who meet CRS prior to separation. At the end of fiscal year 2015, based on the DD Form 2958 data received by the Defense Manpower Data Center, 93.9% of Service members separating from Active Duty met “VOW Act” requirements and 89% met CRS or received a warm handover to an appropriate partner agency.

    These measures set the stage for future long-term measures when transitioning Service members become Veterans. The DoD's TAP Information Technology (IT) architecture and data collection processes enable future data sharing with our Federal partners to show program effectiveness. The DoD requires the interagency support of its partners to further develop and collect data to define a relationship between TAP attendance, “VOW Act” compliance and CRS and long-term outcome measures, e.g. optimal use of Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits and long-term earnings of Post 9/11 Veterans.

    Public Comments

    The Department of Defense published an interim final rule in the Federal Register titled “Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for Military Personnel” on November 30, 2015 (80 FR 74678-74694) for a 45-day public comment period. The Department of Defense received one public comment, which is addressed in this preamble.

    Comment: The comment from the Students Veterans of America (SVA) addressed two specific areas: (1) SVA wants to gain access to military installations for current student veterans and SVA chapter leaders, and potentially chapter advisors, to act as liaisons to institutes of higher learning and trusted information intermediaries for current Service members considering whether higher education is their preferred path, and if so, what opportunities they should pursue; and (2) SVA believes they are strong subject matter experts to provide feedback on the current Accessing Higher Education (AHE) curriculum and to help develop in-person or online training for base education advisors (EAs). Additionally, SVA wants to provide information about SVA chapters and peer support. SVA also requests to have the program implementation data updated for a more comprehensive picture of implementation of the AHE curriculum and they want to know the results of feedback mechanisms on the effectiveness of AHE's implementation. Finally, the SVA identifies several outstanding issues they want addressed concluding with its desire to have a SVA representative to the interagency curriculum working group.

    SBA would like to have significant data to report and they want to make the data public, in order to better analyze what is working. They want to have top-line reporting on attendance and completion rate figures related to TAP and AHE. In addition, they want to know what barriers exist, and how those barriers may be addressed. SVA thinks there should be consideration of an assessment of the veterans' education readiness. Finally, SVA wants to know how decisions are being made by the interagency working group regarding TAP, as well as how policy disagreements are resolved between agencies, specifically on issues involving curriculum.

    Response: The DoD is committed to providing military personnel from across the Services access to the TAP. The Secretary of Defense issued policy guidance and procedures in his memorandum, “Installation Access and Support Services to VA-Recognized Veteran Service Organizations/Military Service Organizations” dated December 23, 2014. The decision to provide access to military installations rests with local commanders. The SVA is encouraged to follow those procedures. The responsibility for acting as liaisons to institutes of higher learning falls under the purview of the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training. It does not fall under the purview of the TAP. SVA is encouraged to work with that office to pursue discussion regarding this issue.

    The Department appreciates feedback from non-governmental external stakeholders. However, it must abide by law and policy when receiving any comments and conducting any interaction with any non-federal entity.

    Retrospective Review

    This rule is part of DoD's retrospective plan, completed in August 2011, under Executive Order 13563, ”Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” DoD's full plan and updates can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.

    As required by Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, DoD intends to conduct periodic reviews along with its partner agencies to modify, or repeal, aspects, as appropriate, and after public notice and comment. DoD expects to conduct a review no later than five years from the publication of this final rule. With regard to a number of aspects of this rule, possible modifications will be considered based on public comments and related internal studies. DoD intends to synthesize and review available data to include publically available information on transition assistances related matters. For example, how many veterans use their Post-9/11 GI Bill, how many complete a degree, how long does it take a veteran to find employment following separation from the military? Following this, DoD may propose modifications to the current provisions of the existing rule.

    Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been designated an “economically significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the requirements of these Executive Orders.

    Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801)

    Under the Congressional Review Act, a major rule may not take effect until at least 60 days after submission to Congress of a report regarding the rule. A major rule is one that would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or have certain other impacts. This final rule is a major rule under the Congressional Review Act.

    Sec. 202, Public Law 104-4, “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act”

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

    Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. 601)

    The DoD certifies that this final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    It has been determined that this rule does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”

    Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This final rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 88

    Employment, Military personnel.

    Accordingly, the interim final rule published at 80 FR 74678-74694 on November 30, 2015, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:

    PART 88—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 88 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    10 U.S.C. Chapter 58.

    2. Amend § 88.3 by revising the definition of “Involuntary separation” to read as follows:
    § 88.3 Definitions.

    Involuntary separation. A Service member is considered to be involuntarily separated if the member was involuntarily discharged or denied reenlistment under other-than-adverse conditions (e.g., force shaping) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1141.

    3. Amend § 88.5 by revising the introductory text for paragraphs (a), (c), (e), (f), and (j), and paragraph (j)(5) to read as follows:
    § 88.5 Responsibilities.

    (a) Under the authority, direction, and control of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (USD(P&R)), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness (ASD(R)):

    (c) Under the authority, direction, and control of the USD (P&R), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASD (M&RA)):

    (e) Under the authority, direction, and control of the (ASD(M&RA), the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy (DASD(MPP) provides:

    (f) Under the authority, direction, and control of the (ASD(R)), the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training (DASD(FE&T)):

    (j) Under the authority, direction, and control of the (ASD(R)), the Director, TVPO:

    (5) In conjunction with ASD(R), supports and coordinates meetings and activities for TAP governance bodies, as defined in § 88.3;

    Dated: June 23, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15269 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0529] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; 4th of July Firework Celebration; Key West, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the 4th of July Firework Celebration on Saturday, July 4, 2016. The safety zone will encompass a 300 yard radius around the White Street Pier in Key West Harbor. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and the general public during the event. Persons and vessels, except those participating in the event, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 4, 2016. This rule will be enforced from 6 p.m. until 10:30 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-2016-0529 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 on this rule, call or email Chief Petty Officer Jason D. Herbert, Sector Key West Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (305)292-8772, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations DHS Department of Homeland Security NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final 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 for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because we did not receive notice of this event until May 20, 2016. It is therefore, impracticable to publish a NPRM because this rule must be implemented by July 4, 2016, to ensure the safety of spectators and the general public during this event.

    For the same reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 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.

    The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States during the 4th of July Firework Celebration.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    On July 4, 2016, the Key West Rotary Club is hosting the 4th of July Firework celebration. The event will consist of approximately 45 Minutes of fireworks in Key West Harbor with an estimated 150 spectator vessels.

    This rule establishes a safety zone that will encompass certain navigable waters of the Key West Harbor. The safety zone will be enforced from 6 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter the special local regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Key West by telephone at (305) 433-0954 or (305) 292-8727 or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the special local regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

    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. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for four and a half hours; (2) the safety zone will be short in duration with no prolonged waterway impact; (3) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Marine Safety Information Bulletin, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the regulated area during the respective enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 the creation of a safety zone that will be enforced from 6 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. 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 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0529 to read as follows:
    § 165.T07-0529 Safety Zone; 4th of July Firework Celebration, Key West, FL.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following regulated area is a safety zone. A 300 yard radius from the end of White Street Pier.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Key West in the enforcement of the regulated area.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering the race area. Non-participant persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Key West by telephone at (305) 433-0954 or (305) 292-8727 or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.

    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Marine Safety Information Bulletin, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be effective on July 4, 2016, and will be enforced from 6 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. July 4, 2016.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. J.A. Janszen, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Key West.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15224 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0854] Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the fireworks display taking place on the Chesapeake Bay near Chesapeake Beach, MD on July 1, 2016. This is a change from the annually scheduled event on July 3, 2016, as indicated in 33 CFR 165.506. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters during this event. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this fireworks display event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.506, listed as event (b)10, Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Beach, MD; Safety Zone, in the Table to 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 1, 2016; and in the case of inclement weather enforcement will be from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (WWM Division); telephone 410-576-2674, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 4, 2016, the Coast Guard was notified by the event sponsor that the date of this annual fireworks display was rescheduled to accommodate the weekend dates of the Independence Day Holiday for 2016. The time of the annual fireworks display remains unchanged. The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.506 from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 1, 2016, for the Town of Chesapeake Beach, MD fireworks display. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 165.506, specifies the location of the regulated area for this safety zone as two circular shaped areas that include all waters of the Chesapeake Bay, within a 150 yard radius of the fireworks barge at latitude 38°41′36″ N., longitude 076°31′30″ W. and a 150 yard radius of the fireworks barge at latitude 38°41′28″ N., longitude 076°31′29″ W., located near Chesapeake Beach, Maryland. As specified in § 165.506(d), during the enforcement period, no vessel may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone without approval from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a COTP designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. If the COTP or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander determines the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.506 (d) and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

    Dated: June 15, 2016. Michael W. Batchelder, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15330 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0557] RIN 1625-AA87; 1625-AA00 Security Zones; 2016 Republican National Convention, and Associated Voluntary First Amendment Safety Zones, Lake Erie and Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing temporary security zones and safety zones for navigable waters within the Cleveland Harbor during the 2016 Republican National Convention. The Republican National Convention and related activities will be held at Quicken Loans Arena and other venues from July 17, 2016 through July 22, 2016. The Department of Homeland Security has designated the 2016 Republican National Convention as a National Special Security Event (NSSE). The security zones are necessary to protect convention delegates, official parties, dignitaries, the public and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8 a.m. July 15, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. July 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0557 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 on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, Sector Buffalo, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register Pub. L. Public Law NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § 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 for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule due to it being impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Due to the sensitive security issues related to the Republican National Convention, providing a public notice and comment period would be contrary to the security zone's intended objective of protecting VIPs and the public, because we cannot share the sensitive security information details prior to the rule being published.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay encountered in this temporary rule's effective date would be contrary to the public interest given the need to ensure the safety and security of the event and participating members during the Republican National Convention from July 15, 2016 through July 22, 2016.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that potential hazards associated with this event are a security concern surrounding the area. These hazards include potential security threats, violent or disruptive public disorder, delivery of a weapon of mass destruction, launch of a stand-off attack weapon, or delivery of an armed assault force. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the security zone through various times throughout the event.

    Additionally, the Coast Guard believes that, given the nature of the First Amendment activity expected and the likely type of vessels used by individuals desiring to express their First Amendment rights—namely kayaks and other small vessels—safety zones designating a voluntary First Amendment Area is necessary to ensure the safety of those vessels and persons who choose to express their views safely and without interference from, or interfering with, other maritime traffic.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    From July 17, 2016 through July 22, 2016 the Republican National Convention will be held in Cleveland, Ohio. The Primary venue for the 2016 Republican National Convention is Quicken Loans Arena, which is adjacent or proximate to the Cuyahoga River. Secondary venues and venues hosting convention-related activities include the Great Lakes Science Center, Burke Lakefront Airport, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, and other locations near downtown Cleveland on or in close proximity to navigable waters located on the Cuyahoga River and the portion of Lake Erie adjacent to the downtown Cleveland area. The security zones and safety zones will cover all navigable waters within the Cleveland Harbor surrounding the Burke Lakefront Airport and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum to the entrance of the Cuyahoga River and from the entrance of the Cuyahoga River to waters extending past the George V. Voinovich Bridge. The duration of the security zones and safety zone are intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the convention and related activities are taking place. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zones without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a designated representative.

    The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has designated the 2016 Republican National Convention as a National Special Security Event (NSSE). NSSE's are significant events, which, due to their political, economic, social, or religious significance, may render them particularly attractive targets of terrorism or other criminal activity. The Federal government provides support, assistance, and resources to state and local governments to ensure public safety and security during NSSE's.

    The Coast Guard has conducted threat, vulnerability, and risk analyses relating to the maritime transportation system and 2016 Republican National Convention activities. Threats confronting the 2016 Republican National Convention assume two primary forms: homeland security threats and violent or disruptive public disorder. Each of the locations described above are directly adjacent to Lake Erie or the Cuyahoga River and therefore make them vulnerable to waterborne threats. Considerable law enforcement presence on land may render maritime approaches a viable alternative. The City of Cleveland has critical infrastructure in its port area, which is proximate to the downtown area and the Convention's main venues. The Port of Cleveland is an industrial-based port, with significant storage and shipment of hazardous materials. Therefore, with regard to homeland security threats, the 2016 Republican National Convention presents an attractive target for terrorist and extremist organizations.

    The Department of Homeland Security Small Vessel Security Strategy sets forth several threat scenarios that must be mitigated in the maritime security planning for the 2016 Republican Convention. These threats include the potential use of a small vessel to: (1) Deliver a weapon of mass destruction; (2) launch a stand-off attack weapon; or (3) deliver an armed assault force. The 2016 Republican National Convention maritime security planning anticipates these threats, while minimizing the public impact of security operations.

    The security zones, safety zones, and accompanying security measures have been specifically developed to mitigate the risk of threats and vulnerabilities identified in the analysis discussed above. These measures have been limited to the minimum necessary to mitigate risks associated with the identified threats.

    While the Coast Guard is concerned about any security threats to the areas described above, the Coast Guard is likewise committed to ensuring that individuals who wish to express their opinions on any issue during the 2016 Republican National Convention have the means to do so in a manner that protects them and other vessels operating on Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga River. Therefore, the Coast Guard is also establishing two safety zones located northwest of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum and on the Western side of the entrance to the Cuyahoga River, wherein the Coast Guard will allow demonstrators or any individual who wishes to express their views. These areas are being established to allow individuals expressing their views the means to do so in a safe manner to their intended audience without posing an undue risk to maritime safety. After analyzing maritime traffic patterns and other environmental factors, the Coast Guard is requiring that any persons or vessels permitted to operate within the safety zones shall travel at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course. The navigation rules shall apply at all times within the safety zones.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time of year of the security zone and safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the security zones and safety zone; the zones will impact a small designated area and will be enforced only during the event and event-related activities. The security zones and safety zone will be in a location where commercial vessel traffic is expected to be minimal during enforcement; commercial vessel traffic will be authorized to transit the security zones to the extent compatible with public safety and security. Persons and vessels will be able to operate in the surrounding area adjacent to the security zones and safety zone during the enforcement period, and will be able to enter within the security zones if authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones.

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

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 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 security zones and a safety zone enforced intermittently between July 15, 2016 through July 22, 2016 that will prohibit entry within the waters surrounding the Burke Lakefront Airport, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and portions of the Cuyahoga River. 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. First Amendment Activities

    The Coast Guard respects individuals' First Amendment rights. Individuals wishing to exercise First Amendment Rights are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate First Amendment 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 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR 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.T09-0557 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0557 Security Zones; 2016 Republican National Convention, and Associated Voluntary First Amendment Safety Zones, Lake Erie and Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Locations (Broken down into 6 zones that will be enforced intermittently).

    (1) Zone 1: Encompasses all waters of Cleveland Harbor (near the Burke Lakefront Airport) starting shoreline at position 41°31′45″ N., 081°39′20″ W. (just East of Forest City Yacht Club and West of Quay 55); then extending approximately 4,000 feet northwest to position 41°32′23″ N., 081°39′46″ W. (about 900 feet past the east break wall); then extending approximately 1.6 nm southwest to position 41°31′26″ N., 081°41′28″ W.; then extending southwester to the shoreline at position 41°31′07″ N., 081°41′17″ W. (toward the Southwest corner of the Burke Lakefront Airport); then following the shoreline back to the point of origin.

    (2) Zone 2: Encompasses all waters of Cleveland Harbor (near the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum) starting shoreline at position 41°31′07″ N., 081°41′17″ W. (near the Southwest corner of the Burke Lakefront Airport); then extending approximately 2,100 feet northwest to position 41°31′26″ N., 081°41′28″ W.; then extending approximately 1 nm southwest to position 41°30′47″ N., 081°42′35″ W. (about 900 feet past the west break wall); then extending to the shoreline at position 41°30′24″ N., 081°42′19″ W. (Southwest of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum); then following the shoreline back to the point of origin.

    (3) Zone 3: Encompasses all waters of Cleveland Harbor (from about 2,000 feet southwest of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame throughout the Cuyahoga river) starting at 41°30′24″ N., 081°42′19″ W. (Southwest of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame); then extending approximately 2,600 feet northwest to position 41°30′47″ N., 081°42′35″ W.; then extending approximately 4,000 feet southwest to position 41°30′26″ N., 081°43′17″ W. (about 1,200 feet southwest of Cleveland Harbor West Pierhead Lighthouse); then extending shoreline to position 41°29′59″ N. and 081°43′01″ W. (just east of the eastern entrance to the Whiskey Island Marina), then following the west bank up the Cuyahoga River, not including the Old River, to position 41°29′40″ N., 081°41′55″ W. and extending in a straight line across the river to 41°29′38″ N. and 081°41′53″ W. (the West side of Carter Road Bridge); then following the east bank of the Cuyahoga River and shoreline back to the point of origin.

    (4) Zone 4: Encompasses all waters of the Cuyahoga River (near collision bend) starting near the Carter Road Bridge at position 41°29′40″ N., 081°41′55″ W. then extending in a straight line across the river to position 41°29′38″ N., 081°41′53″ W.; then continuing along the shoreline of the river to a point just east of the George V. Voinovich Bridge at position 41°29′11″ N., 081°41′23″ W.; then extending in a straight line across the river to 41°29′09″ N., 081°41′23″ W.; then following the shoreline back to the point of origin.

    (5) Zone 5: Voluntary First Amendment Safety Zone: Encompasses all waters of Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor; Cleveland, OH (in the west basin) starting at position 41°30′30″ N., 081°42′27″ W.; then extending approximately 650 feet northwest to position 41°30′36″ N., 081°42′31″ W.; then extending approximately 1,200 feet southwest to position 41°30′29″ N., 081°42′44″ W.; then extending to approximately 650 feet to position 41°30′23″ N. and 081°42′40″ W.; then following a straight line back to the point of origin.

    (6) Zone 6: Voluntary First Amendment Safety Zone: Encompasses all waters of Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor; Cleveland, OH (near Whiskey Island Marina) starting at position 41°30′06″ N., 081°43′14″ W.; then extending approximately 600 feet northwest to position 41°30′11″ N., 081°43′17″ W.; then extending approximately 1,200 feet southwest to position 41°30′04″ N., 081°43′30″ W.; then extending to position 41°29′59″ N. and 081°43′26″ W.; then following back to the point of origin.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) Buffalo.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in § 165.33 of this part, you may not enter the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (2) To seek permission to enter the security zones, contact the COTP Buffalo or the COTP's representative. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Entrance into the safety zones, zones 5-6, do not require notification to the COTP or the COTP's designated representative; however persons or vessels operating within the safety zones shall travel at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course. Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23(d) of this part, each person in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Vessels wishing to enter the safety zones will not be allowed to cross an active security zone and should make alternative arrangements if necessary.

    (d) Enforcement Period. Zones 1-4 will be enforced intermittently from 8 a.m. July 15, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. July 22, 2016. Zone 5 will be enforced from 2 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. on July 17, 2016. Zone 6 will be enforced from 9 a.m. on July 17, 2016 through 8 p.m. on July 21, 2016. Public notice of enforcement periods will be made via Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF channel 16.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. B.W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15240 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0518] Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Held in the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in the Delaware River, near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for annual fireworks displays in the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay zone at specified times from June 15, 2016 through July 4, 2016. Enforcement of this zone is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after these fireworks events. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulation in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the safety zone listed in Section (a), Line (16) of the Table in § 165.506 from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 1, 2016, through July 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Brennan Dougherty, Sector Delaware Bay Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 215-271-4851, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for fireworks in the Delaware River in Philadelphia, PA listed in 33 CFR 165.506, in Section (a), Line (16) of the Table from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on June 15, 2016, and July 1, 2016, through July 4, 2016. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Delaware Bay Zone, § 165.506, specifies the location of the regulated area for this safety zone as all waters of Delaware River, adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, bounded from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running east to west from points along the shoreline at latitude 39°56′31.2″ N, longitude 075°08′28.1″ W; thence to latitude 39°56′29″.1 N, longitude 075°07′56.5″ W, and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge.

    As specified in §  165.506, during the enforcement period no vessel may transit this safety zone without approval from the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP). If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.506 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advanced notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM). If the COTP, Delaware Bay, determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration, a BNM to grant general permission to enter the safety zone will be used.

    Dated: June 14, 2016. Benjamin A. Cooper, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15032 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0538] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Allegheny River Mile 0-0.5, Monongahela River Mile 0-0.5, Ohio River Mile 0-0.5, Pittsburgh, PA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Allegheny River, Monongahela River, and Ohio River from mile 0.0-0.5 on each of the three rivers. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created from a barge-based fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 9, 2016 from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0538 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 on this rule, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background 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 for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard received notice on June 8, 2016 that this fireworks display would take place. After receiving and fully reviewing the event information, circumstances, and exact location, the Coast Guard determined that a safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created from a barge-based fireworks display on the navigable waterway. It would be impracticable to complete the full NPRM process for this safety zone because it needs to be established by July 9, 2016. The fireworks display has been advertised and the local community has prepared for the event.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be contrary to public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during the event. Immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life and property during the hazards created by a barge-based fireworks display.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that a safety zone is needed on July 9, 2016. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created from a barge-based fireworks display.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on July 9, 2016 from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the Allegheny River, Monongahela River, and Ohio River from mile 0.0-0.5 on each of the three rivers. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created from a barge-based firework 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 related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts a small portion of the waterway on each of the three rivers and for a limited duration of two hours. Vessel traffic will be informed about the safety zone through local notices to mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue broadcast botices to mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to transit the zone.

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

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 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 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 two hours that will prohibit entry to the Allegheny River, Monongahela River, and Ohio River from mile 0.0-0.5 on each of the three rivers, during the barge-based firework event. 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

    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.T08-0538 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0538 Safety Zone, Allegheny River, Monongahela River, and Ohio River, Pittsburgh, PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: Allegheny River, Monongahela River, and Ohio River from mile 0.0-0.5 on each of the three rivers.

    (b) Enforcement. This rule will be enforced, from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 9, 2016.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative. The Captain of the Pittsburgh representative may be contacted at 412-221-0807.

    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or their designated representative. Designated Captain of the Port representatives include United States Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, and petty officers.

    (d) Information Broadcasts. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

    L. Mcclain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15239 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 33 CFR Part 401 RIN 2135-40 Civil Penalties AGENCY:

    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This interim final rule updates the maximum civil penalty amounts for violations of statutes and regulations administered by SLSDC pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Improvement Act of 2015. This final rule amends our regulations to reflect the new civil penalty amounts for violations of the Seaway Regulations and Rules under the authority of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended (PWSA).

    DATES:

    Effective date: This rule is effective July 28, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Lavigne, Chief Counsel, SLSDC, telephone (315) 764-3231, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY 13362.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On November 2, 2015, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Improvement Act (the 2015 Act), Public Law 114-74, Section 701, was signed into law. The purpose of the 2015 Act is to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Act requires agencies to make an initial catch up adjustment to the civil monetary penalties they administer through an interim final rule and then to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The amount of increase of any adjustment to a civil penalty pursuant to the 2015 Act is limited to 150 percent of the current penalty. Agencies are required to issue the interim final rule with the initial catch up adjustment by July 1, 2016.

    The method of calculating inflationary adjustments in the 2015 Act differs substantially from the methods used in past inflationary adjustment rulemakings conducted pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act), Public Law 101-410. Previously, adjustments to civil penalties were conducted under rules that required significant rounding of figures. For example, a penalty increase that was greater than $1,000, but less than or equal to $10,000, 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 factor was not large enough. Furthermore, increases to penalties were capped at 10 percent. Over time, this formula caused penalties to lose 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 Inflation Adjustment Act, which contributed to a decline in the real value of penalty levels. To do this, 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 by statute or regulation other than pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act.

    The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided guidance to agencies in a February 24, 2016 memorandum on how to calculate the initial adjustment required by the 2015 Act.1 The initial catch up adjustment is based on the change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October in the year the penalty amount was established or last adjusted by Congress and the October 2015 CPI-U. The February 24, 2016 memorandum contains a table with a multiplier for the change in CPI-U from the year the penalty was established or last adjusted to 2015. To arrive at the adjusted penalty the agency must multiply the penalty amount when it was established or last adjusted by Congress, excluding adjustments under the Inflation Adjustment Act, by the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U from the year the penalty was established or adjusted provided in the February 24, 2016 memorandum. The 2015 Act limits the initial inflationary adjustment to 150 percent of the current penalty. To determine whether the increase in the adjusted penalty is less than 150 percent, the agency must multiply the current penalty by 250 percent. The adjusted penalty is the lesser of either the adjusted penalty based on the multiplier for CPI-U in Table A of the February 24, 2016 memorandum or an amount equal to 250 percent of the current penalty. This interim final rule adjusts the civil penalties for violations of statutes and regulations that SLSDC administers consistent with the February 24, 2016 memorandum.

    1 Memorandum from the Director of OMB to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Feb. 24, 2016), available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-06.pdf.

    II. Inflationary Adjustments to Penalty Amounts in 33 CFR Part 401

    The Ports and Waterways Act of 1972, as amended by the Ports and Tanker Safety Act, Public Law 95-474, sec. 2, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1471 (1978), established a maximum civil penalty of $25,000 for each violation of the Seaway Rules and Regulations at 33 CFR part 401. This civil penalty has not been updated since it was established, except for inflationary adjustments pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990. Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 1978 in Table A of the February 24, 2016 memorandum (3.54453) results in an adjusted civil penalty of $88,613, which is below the 150 percent cap Accordingly, paragraph (a) of § 401.102 is being amended to change the amount of the penalty to $88,613.

    Public Comment

    SLSDC is promulgating this interim final rule to ensure that the civil penalties amount contained in 33 CFR 401.102 reflects the statutorily mandated ranges as adjusted for inflation. Pursuant to the 2015 Act, SLSDC is required to promulgate a “catch-up adjustment” through an interim final rule. Pursuant to the 2015 Act and 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), SLSDC finds that good cause exists for immediate implementation of this interim final rule without prior notice and comment because it would be impracticable to delay publication of this rule for notice and comment and because public comment is unnecessary. By operation of the Act, SLSDC must publish the catch-up adjustment by interim final rule by July 1, 2016. Additionally, the 2015 Act provides a clear formula for adjustment of the civil penalties, leaving the agency little room for discretion. For these reasons, SLSDC finds that notice and comment would be impracticable and is unnecessary in this situation.

    III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    SLSDC has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. This action is limited to the adoption of adjustments of civil penalties under statutes that the agency enforces, and has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management and Budget. Because this rulemaking does not change the number of entities that are subject to civil penalties, the impacts are limited.

    We also do not expect the increase in the civil penalty amount in 33 CFR 401.102 to be economically significant. Since January 1, 2010 to the present, the SLSDC assessed a total of approximately $27,000 in civil fines and penalties. Thus, increasing the current civil penalty amount would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have also considered the impacts of this rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following provides the factual basis for this certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to the activities of commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires SLSDC to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

    This 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

    The reason is that this rule will generally apply to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Because this rule will not have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.

    Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect. Judicial review of a rule may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, we state that there are no requirements for information collection associated with this rulemaking action.

    Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 401

    Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.

    Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is amending 33 CFR part 401 as follows:

    PART 401—SEAWAY REGULATIONS AND RULES Subpart A—Regulations 1. The authority citation for subpart A of part 401 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 981-990, 1231 and 1232, 49 CFR 1.52, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 401.102, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 401.102 Civil penalty.

    (a) A person, as described in § 401.101(b) who violates a regulation is liable to a civil penalty of not more than $88,613.

    Issued on June 22, 2016 Carrie Lavigne, Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15118 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-61-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0230; FRL-9946-98-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; notice of administrative change.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations, statutes, source-specific provisions and quasi-regulatory materials affected by this update have been previously submitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the EPA Regional Office.

    DATES:

    This action is effective June 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, and 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. To view the material at the Region 5 Office, EPA requests that you email the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen D'Agostino, 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]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background A. What is a SIP?

    Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing elements covering a variety of subjects, such as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

    Each state must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them. They are then submitted to EPA as SIP revisions on which EPA must formally act.

    Once these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA, after notice and comment rulemaking, they are incorporated into the federally approved SIP and are identified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 52 “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans” (40 CFR part 52). The actual state regulations approved by EPA are not reproduced in their entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that EPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. This format allows both EPA and the public to know which measures are contained in a given SIP and ensures that the state is enforcing the regulations. It also allows EPA and the public to take enforcement action, should a state not enforce its SIP-approved regulations.

    B. How do the State and EPA update the SIP?

    The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA must, from time to time, take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures, and “Identification of Plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997, Federal Register document. On September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52467), EPA published a document in the Federal Register revising the format of the IBR material for Michigan.

    II. What action is EPA taking?

    In this action, EPA is publishing updated tables listing the regulatory and quasi-regulatory materials in the Michigan SIP as of May 1, 2016. This update includes SIP materials that have been submitted by Michigan and approved by EPA since this revised format was first applied to the Michigan SIP in 2006. EPA is removing the EPA Headquarters Library from paragraph (b)(3), as IBR materials are no longer available at this location. Finally, EPA is correcting typographical errors, including omission and other minor errors, and making formatting changes to the tables in subsection 52.2170 (c), (d), and (e).

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, 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 Michigan 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 ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Good Cause Exemption

    EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (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” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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).

    EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Michigan SIP compilation previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” reorganization update action for the State of Michigan.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Section 52.1170 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:
    § 52.1170 Identification of plan.

    (b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to May 1, 2016, was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register. Entries in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section with the EPA approval dates after May 1, 2016, will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

    (2) EPA Region 5 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by the EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the SIP as of May 1, 2016.

    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air Programs Branch, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, and the National Archives and Records Administration. 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.

    (c) EPA approved regulations.

    EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations Michigan citation Title State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Comments
    Hazardous Waste Management R 299.9109(p) Used oil 9/11/2000 4/17/2015, 80 FR 21183 Annual Reporting R 336.202 Annual reports 11/11/1986 3/8/1994, 59 FR 10752 Part 1. General Provisions R 336.1101 Definitions; A 4/28/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 Only: actual emissions, air-dried coating, air quality standard, allowable emissions, and alternate opacity. R 336.1101 Definitions; A 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1102 Definitions; B 3/28/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.1103 Definitions; C 4/28/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 Only: creditable. R 336.1103 Definitions; C 3/28/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.1104 Definitions; D 3/28/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.1105 Definitions; E 3/28/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.1106 Definitions; F 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1107 Definitions; G 5/28/2002 2/24/2003, 68 FR 8550 R 336.1108 Definitions; H 5/28/2002 2/24/2003, 68 FR 8550 R 336.1109 Definitions: I 3/28/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.1112 Definitions; L 3/28/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.1113 Definitions: M 3/28/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.1114 Definitions; N 3/28/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.1115 Definitions; O 8/22/1981 7/26/1982, 47 FR 32116 R 336.1116 Definitions; P 11/30/2012 4/4/2014, 79 FR 18802 R 336.1118 Definitions; R 5/28/2002 2/24/2003, 68 FR 8550 R 336.1119 Definitions; S 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1120 Definitions; T 5/28/2002 2/24/2003, 68 FR 8550 R 336.1121 Definitions; U 4/19/1989 9/15/1994, 59 FR 47254 R 336.1122 Definitions; V 11/30/2012 4/4/2014, 79 FR 18802 R 336.1123 Definitions; W 8/22/1981 7/26/1982, 47 FR 32116 R 336.1127 Terms defined in the act 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 Part 2. Air Use Approval R 336.1201 Permits to install 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1202 Waivers of approval 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1203 Information required 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1204 Authority of agents 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1206 Processing of applications for other facilities 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1207 Denial of permits to install 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1208 Permits to operate 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1221 Construction of sources of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, or carbon monoxide in or near nonattainment areas; conditions for approval 7/17/1980 1/12/1982, 47 FR 1292 R 336.1240 Required air quality models 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1241 Air quality modeling demonstration requirements 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1280 Permit system exemptions; cooling and ventilation equipment 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1281 Permit system exemptions; cleaning, washing and drying equipment 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1282 Permit system exemptions; cooling and ventilation equipment 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1283 Permit system exemptions; testing and inspection equipment 7/17/1980 8/28/1981, 46 FR 43422 R 336.1284 Permit system exemptions; containers 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 336.1285 Permit system exemptions; miscellaneous 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 Part 3. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Particulate Matter R 336.1301 Standards for density of emissions 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1303 Grading visible emissions 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1310 Open burning 4/1/2013 6/2/2015, 80 FR 31305 R 336.1331 Emissions of particulate matter 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 All except Table 31, section C.8. R 336.1331, Table 31 Particulate matter emission schedule 1/19/1980 5/22/1981, 46 FR 27923 Only Section C.7, preheater equipment. R 336.1350 Emissions from larry-car charging of coke ovens 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1351 Charging hole emissions from coke ovens 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1352 Pushing operation fugitive emissions from coke ovens 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1353 Standpipe assembly emissions during coke cycle from coke ovens 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1354 Standpipe assembly emissions during decarbonization from coke ovens 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1355 Coke oven gas collector main emissions from slot-type coke ovens 1/19/1980 5/22/1981, 46 FR 27923 R 336.1356 Coke oven door emissions from coke ovens; doors that are 5 meters or shorter 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1357 Coke oven door emissions from coke oven doors; doors that are taller than 5 meters 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1358 Roof monitor visible emissions at steel manufacturing facilities from electric arc furnaces and blast furnaces 4/30/1998 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1359 Visible emissions from scarfer operation stacks at steel manufacturing facilities 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1360 Visible emissions from coke oven push stacks 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1361 Visible emissions from blast furnace casthouse operations at steel manufacturing facilities 4/30/1998 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1362 Visible emissions from electric arc furnace operations at steel manufacturing facilities 4/30/1998 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1363 Visible emissions from argon-oxygen decarburization operations at steel manufacturing facilities 4/30/1998 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1364 Visible emissions from basic oxygen furnace operations 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1365 Visible emissions from hot metal transfer operations at steel manufacturing facilities 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1366 Visible emissions from hot metal desulphurization operations at steel manufacturing facilities 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1367 Visible emissions from sintering operations 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.1370 Collected air contaminants 2/18/1981 11/15/1982, 47 FR 51398 R 336.1371 Fugitive dust control programs other than areas listed in Table 36 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1372 Fugitive dust control program; required activities; typical control methods 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1374 Particulate matter contingency measures: Areas listed in Table 37 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 Part 4. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Sulfur-Bearing Compounds R 336.1401 Emissions of sulfur dioxide from power plants 3/11/2013 4/17/2015, 80 FR 21183 R 336.1401a Definitions 3/11/2013 4/17/2015, 80 FR 21183 R 336.1402 Emission of SO2 from fuel-burning sources other than power plants 3/11/2013 4/17/2015, 80 FR 21183 R 336.1403 Oil- and natural gas-producing or transporting facilities and natural gas-processing facilities; emissions; operation 3/19/2002 4/17/2015, 80 FR 21183 R 336.1404 Emissions of SO2 and sulfuric acid mist from sulfuric acid plants 3/11/2013 4/17/2015, 80 FR 21183 R 336.1405 Emissions from sulfur recovery plants located within Wayne county 1/31/2008 4/17/2015, 80 FR 21183 R 336.1406 Hydrogen sulfide emissions from facilities located within Wayne county 1/31/2008 4/17/2015, 80 FR 21183 R 336.1407 Sulfur compound emissions from sources located within Wayne county and not previously specified 3/11/2013 4/17/2015, 80 FR 21183 Part 6. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Existing Sources of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions R 336.1601 Definitions 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1602 General provisions for existing sources of volatile organic compound emissions 4/10/2000 6/28/2002, 67 FR 43548 R 336.1604 Storage of organic compounds having a true vapor pressure of more than 1.5 psia, but less than 11 psia, in existing fixed roof stationary vessels of more than 40,000 gallon capacity 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1605 Storage of organic compounds having a true vapor pressure of 11 or more psia in existing stationary vessels of more than 40,000 gallon capacity 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1606 Loading gasoline into existing stationary vessels of more than 2,000 gallon capacity at dispensing facilities handling 250,000 gallons per year 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1607 Loading gasoline into existing stationary vessels of more than 2,000 capacity at loading facilities 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1608 Loading gasoline into existing delivery vessels at loading facilities handling less than 5,000,000 gallons per year 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1609 Loading existing delivery vessels with organic compounds having a true vapor pressure of more than 1.5 psia at existing loading facilities handling 5,000,000 or more gallons of such compounds per year 4/20/1989 9/15/1994, 59 FR 47254 R 336.1610 Existing coating lines; emission of volatile organic compounds from existing automobile, light-duty truck, and other product and material coating lines 4/28/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 R 336.1611 Existing cold cleaners 6/15/1997 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034 R 336.1612 Existing open top vapor degreasers 6/15/1997 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034 R 336.1613 Existing conveyorized cold cleaners 6/15/1997 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034 R 336.1614 Existing conveyorized vapor degreasers 6/15/1997 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034 R 336.1615 Existing vacuum-producing system at petroleum refineries 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1616 Process unit turnarounds at petroleum refineries 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1617 Existing organic compound-water separators at petroleum refineries 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1618 Use of cutback paving asphalt 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1619 Perchloroethylene; emission from existing dry cleaning equipment; disposal 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1620 Emission of volatile organic compounds from the coating of flat wood paneling from existing coating lines 4/28/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 R 336.1621 Emission of volatile organic compounds from the coating of metallic surfaces from existing coating lines 4/28/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 R 336.1622 Emission of volatile organic compound from existing component of a petroleum refinery; refinery monitoring program 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1623 Storage of petroleum liquids having a true vapor pressure of more than 1.0 psia but less than 11.0 psia, in existing external floating roof stationary vessels of more than 40,000 gallon capacity 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1624 Emission of volatile organic compound from an existing graphic arts line 11/18/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 R 336.1625 Emission of volatile organic compound from existing equipment utilized in the manufacturing of synthesized pharmaceutical products 11/30/2000 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1627 Delivery Vessels; Vapor Collection Systems 2/22/2006 8/3/2007, 72 FR 43169 R 336.1628 Emission of volatile organic compounds from components of existing process equipment used in manufacturing synthetic organic chemicals and polymers 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1629 Emission of volatile organic compounds from components of existing process equipment used in processing natural gas; monitoring program 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1630 Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing paint manufacturing processes 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1631 Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing process equipment utilized in manufacture of polystyrene of other organic resins 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1632 Emission of volatile organic compounds form existing automobile, truck, and business machine plastic part coating lines 4/28/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 R 336.1651 Standards for degreasers 6/15/1997 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034 R 336.1660 Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Consumer Products 10/3/2007 5/22/2009, 74 FR 23952 R 336.1661 Definitions for Consumer Products 10/3/2007 5/22/2009, 74 FR 23952 Part 7. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—New Sources of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions R 336.1702 General provisions for new sources of volatile organic compound emissions 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1705 Loading gasoline into delivery vessels at new loading facilities handling less than 5,000,000 gallons per year 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1706 Loading delivery vessels with organic compounds having a true vapor pressure of more than 1.5 psia at new loading facilities handling 5,000,000 or more gallons of such compounds per year 6/15/1997 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034 R 336.1707 New cold cleaners 6/15/1997 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034 R 336.1708 New open top vapor degreasers 6/15/1997 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034 R 336.1709 New conveyorized cold cleaners 6/15/1997 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034 R 336.1710 New conveyorized vapor degreasers 6/15/1997 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034 Part 8. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Oxides of Nitrogen R 336.1801 Emission of oxides of nitrogen from non-SIP call stationary sources 5/28/2009 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1802 Applicability under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 5/20/2004 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1802a Adoption by reference 5/28/2009 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1803 Definitions 5/28/2009 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1804 Retired unit exemption from oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 5/20/2004 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1805 Standard requirements of oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1806 Computation of time under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1807 Authorized account representative under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1808 Permit requirements under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1809 Compliance certification under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1810 Allowance allocations under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1811 New source set-aside under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 5/20/2004 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1812 Allowance tracking system and transfers under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1813 Monitoring and reporting requirements under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1814 Individual opt-ins under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1815 Allowance banking under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1816 Compliance supplement pool under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1817 Emission limitations and restrictions for Portland cement kilns 12/4/2002 5/4/2005, 70 FR 23029 R 336.1818 Emission limitations for stationary internal combustion engines 11/20/2006 1/29/2008, 73 FR 5101 R 336.1821 CAIR NOX ozone and annual trading programs; applicability determinations 5/28/2009 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1822 CAIR NOX ozone season trading program; allowance allocations 5/28/2009 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1823 New EGUs, new non-EGUs, and newly affected EGUs under CAIR NOX ozone season trading program; allowance allocations 5/28/2009 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1824 CAIR NOX ozone season trading program; hardship set-aside 6/25/2007 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1825 CAIR NOX ozone season trading program; renewable set-aside 6/25/2007 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1826 CAIR NOX ozone season trading program; opt-in provisions 6/25/2007 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1830 CAIR NOX annual trading program; allowance allocations 5/28/2009 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1831 New EGUs under CAIR NOX annual trading program; allowance allocations 5/28/2009 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1832 CAIR NOX annual trading program; hardship set-aside 5/28/2009 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1833 CAIR NOX annual trading program; compliance supplement pool 5/28/2009 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 R 336.1834 Opt-in provisions under the CAIR NOX annual trading program 6/25/2007 8/18/2009, 74 FR 41637 Part 9. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Miscellaneous R 339.1906 Diluting and concealing emissions 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 339.1910 Air-cleaning devices 1/19/1980 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 R 339.1911 Malfunction abatement plans 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.1912 Abnormal conditions, start-up, shutdown, and malfunction of a source, process, or process equipment, operating, notification, and reporting requirements 7/26/1995, as corrected 6/1/2007 10/26/2007, 72 FR 60783 R 339.1915 Enforcement discretion in instances of excess emission resulting from malfunction, start-up, or shutdown 5/28/2002 2/24/2003, 68 FR 8550 R 339.1916 Affirmative defense for excess emissions during start-up or shutdown 5/28/2002 2/24/2003, 68 FR 8550 R 339.1930 Emission of carbon monoxide from ferrous cupola operations 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 Part 10. Intermittent Testing and Sampling R 336.2001 Performance tests by owner 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2002 Performance tests by commission 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2003 Performance test criteria 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2004 Appendix A; reference test methods; adoption of federal reference test methods 2/22/2006 8/3/2007, 72 FR 43169 R 336.2005 Reference test methods for state-requested tests of delivery vessels 2/22/2006 8/3/2007, 72 FR 43169 R 336.2006 Reference test method serving as alternate version of federal reference test method 25 by incorporating Byron analysis 4/28/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 R 336.2007 Alternate version of procedure L, referenced in R 336.2040(10) 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2011 Reference test method 5B 4/29/2005 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2012 Reference test method 5C 10/15/2004 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2013 Reference test method 5D 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2014 Reference test method 5E 10/15/2004 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2021 Figures 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2030 Reference test method 9A 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.2031 Reference test method 9B 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.2032 Reference test method 9C 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.2033 Test methods for coke oven quench towers 2/22/1985 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 R 336.2040 Method for determination of volatile organic compound emissions from coating lines and graphic arts lines 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 All except sections (9) and (10). R 336.2041 Recording requirements for coating lines and graphic arts lines 4/28/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 Part 11. Continuous Emission Monitoring R 336.2101 Continuous emission monitoring, fossil fuel-fired steam generators 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2102 Continuous emission monitoring, sulfuric acid-producing facilities 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 R 336.2103 Continuous emission monitoring, fluid bed catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators at petroleum refineries 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 R 336.2150 Performance specifications for continuous emission monitoring systems 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2151 Calibration gases for continuous emission monitoring systems 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 R 336.2152 Cycling time for continuous emission monitoring systems 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 R 336.2153 Zero and drift for continuous emission monitoring systems 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 R 336.2154 Instrument span for continuous emission monitoring systems 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 R 336.2155 Monitor location for continuous emission monitoring systems 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2159 Alternative continuous emission monitoring systems 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2170 Monitoring data reporting and recordkeeping 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2175 Data reduction procedures for fossil fuel-fired steam generators 11/15/2004 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2176 Data reduction procedures for sulfuric acid plants 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 R 336.2189 Alternative data reporting or reduction procedures 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2190 Monitoring System Malfunctions 3/19/2002 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31093 R 336.2199 Exemptions from continuous emission monitoring requirements 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 All except section (c), which was removed 7/21/1999, 64 FR 39034. Part 16. Organization, Operation and Procedures R 336.2606 Declaratory rulings requests 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 R 336.2607 Consideration and disposition of declaratory rulings requests 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 Part 17. Hearings R 336.2701 Procedures from Administrative Procedures Act 4/10/2000 6/28/2002, 67 FR 43548 R 336.2702 Service of notices and orders; appearances 4/10/2000 6/28/2002, 67 FR 43548 R 336.2704 Hearing commissioner's hearings 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 R 336.2705 Agency files and records, use in connection with hearings 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 R 336.2706 Commission hearings after hearing commissioner hearings 1/19/1980 11/2/1988, 53 FR 44189 Part 18. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality R 336.2801 Definitions 11/30/2012 4/4/2014, 79 FR 18802 R 336.2802 Applicability 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2803 Ambient Air Increments 11/30/2012 4/4/2014, 79 FR 18802 R 336.2804 Ambient Air Ceilings 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2805 Restrictions on Area Classifications 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2806 Exclusions from Increment Consumption 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2807 Redesignation 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2808 Stack Heights 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2809 Exemptions 11/30/2012 4/4/2014, 79 FR 18802 All except for section (5)(a)(iii). R 336.2810 Control Technology Review 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2811 Source Impact Analysis 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2812 Air Quality Models 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2813 Air Quality Analysis 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2814 Source Information 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2815 Additional Impact Analyses 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2816 Sources impacting federal class I areas; additional requirements 11/30/2012 4/4/2014, 79 FR 18802 R 336.2817 Public Participation 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2818 Source Obligation 9/11/2008 9/27/2010, 75 FR 59081 R 336.2819 Innovative Control Technology 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 R 336.2823 Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) 12/4/2006 3/25/2010, 75 FR 14352 Only sections (1) through (14). Part 19. New Source Review for Major Sources Impacting Nonattainment Areas R 336.2901 Definitions 6/20/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.2901a Adoption by reference 6/20/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.2902 Applicability 6/20/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.2903 Additional permit requirements for sources impacting nonattainment areas 6/20/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.2907 Plantwide applicability limits or PALs 6/20/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 R 336.2908 Conditions for approval of a major new source review permit in a nonattainment area 6/20/2008 12/16/2013, 78 FR 76064 Executive Orders 1991-31 Commission of Natural Resources, Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Executive Reorganization 1/7/1992 11/6/1997, 62 FR 59995 Introductory and concluding words of issuance; Title I: General, Part A Sections 1, 2, 4 & 5 and Part B; Title III: Environmental Protection, Part A Sections 1 & 2 and Part D; Title IV: Miscellaneous, Parts A & B, Part C Sections 1, 2 & 4 and Part D. 1995-18 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Executive Reorganization 9/30/1995 11/6/1997, 62 FR 59995 Introductory and concluding words of issuance; Paragraphs 1, 2, 3(a) & (g), 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18. State Statutes Act 12 of 1993 Small Business Clean Air Assistance Act 4/1/1993 6/3/1994, 59 FR 28785 Act 44 of 1984, as amended Michigan Motor Fuels Quality Act 11/13/1993 5/5/1997, 62 FR 24341 Only 290.642, 643, 645, 646, 647, and 649. Act 127 of 1970 Michigan Environmental Protection Act 7/27/1970 5/31/1972, 37 FR 10841 Act 250 of 1965, as amended Tax Exemption Act 1972 5/31/1972, 37 FR 10841 Act 283 of 1964, as amended Weights and Measures Act 8/28/1964 5/5/1997, 62 FR 24341 Only 290.613 and 290.615. Act 348 of 1965, as amended Air Pollution Act 1972 5/31/1972, 37 FR 10841 Act 348 of 1965, as amended Air Pollution Act 1986 2/17/1988, 53 FR 4622 Only section 7a. Act 348 of 1965, as amended Air Pollution Act 1990 3/8/1994, 59 FR 10752 Only sections 5 and 14a. Act 451 of 1994, as amended Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 3/30/1995 2/10/1998, 63 FR 6650 Only sections 324.5524 and 324.5525. House Bill 4165 Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program Act 11/13/1993 6/21/1996, 61 FR 31831 House Bill 4898 An Act to amend section 3 of Act 44 of 1984 11/13/1993 10/11/1994, 59 FR 51379 House Bill 5016 Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing Program Act 11/13/1993 3/7/1995, 60 FR 12459 House Bill 5508 Amendment to Motor Fuels Quality Act, Act 44 of 1984 4/6/2006 3/2/2007, 72 FR 4432 Michigan Civil Service Commission Rule 2-8.3(a)(1) Disclosure 10/1/2013 8/31/2015, 80 FR 52399 Senate Bill 726 An Act to amend sections 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Act 44 of 1984 11/13/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 Local Regulations City of Grand Rapids Ordinance 72-34 City of Grand Rapids Air Pollution Control Regulations 1972 5/31/1972, 57 FR 10841 Ordinance amends sections 9.35 and 9.36 of article 4, Chapter 151 Title IX of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids. Muskegon County Air Pollution Control Rules Muskegon County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, as amended 3/27/1973 5/16/1984, 49 FR 20650 Only article 14, section J. Wayne County Air Pollution Control Ordinance Wayne County Air Pollution Control Ordinance 11/18/1985 5/13/1993, 58 FR 28359 Only: chapters 1, 2, 3, 5 (except for the portions of section 501 which incorporate by reference the following parts of the state rules: the quench tower limit in R 336.1331, Table 31, section C.8; the deletion of the limit in R 336.1331 for coke oven coal preheater equipment; and R 336.1355), 8 (except section 802), 9, 11, 12, 13, and appendices A and D. Wayne County Air Pollution Control Regulations Wayne County Air Pollution Control Regulations 3/20/1969 and amended 7/22/1971 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 All except for Section 6.3 (A-H), which was removed 4/17/2015, 80 FR 21186.

    (d) EPA approved state source-specific requirements.

    EPA-Approved Michigan Source-Specific Provisions Name of source Order number State effective date EPA Approval date Comments Allied Signal, Inc., Detroit Tar Plant, Wayne County 4-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 American Colloid Plant Permit
  • 341-79
  • 12/18/1979 9/15/1983, 48 FR 41403
    American Colloid Plant Permit
  • 375-79
  • 11/23/1979 9/15/1983, 48 FR 41403
    Asphalt Products Company, Plant 5A, Wayne County 5-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Clark Oil and Refining Corporation, Calhoun County 6-1981 6/24/1982 12/13/1982, 47 FR 55678 Clawson Concrete Company, Plant #1, Wayne County 6-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Conoco, Inc., Berrien County 17-1981 9/28/1981 2/17/1982, 47 FR 6828 Consumers Power Company, B. C. Cobb Plant, Muskegon County 6-1979 12/10/1979 5/1/1981, 46 FR 24560 Consumers Power Company, J.H. Campbell Plant, Units 1 and 2, Ottawa County 12-1984 10/1/1984 1/12/1987, 52 FR 1183 Continental Fibre Drum, Inc., Midland County 14-1987 12/9/1987 6/11/1992, 57 FR 24752 Cummings-Moore Graphite Company, Wayne County 7-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 CWC Castings Division of Textron, Muskegon County 12-1979 2/15/1980 5/16/1984, 49 FR 20650 Delray Connecting Railroad Company, Wayne County 8-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Detroit Edison Company, Boulevard Heating Plant, Wayne County 7-1981 4/28/1981 5/4/1982, 47 FR 19133 Detroit Edison Company, City of St. Clair, St. Clair County 4-1978 11/14/1978 8/25/1980, 45 FR 56344 Detroit Edison Company, Monroe County 9-1977 7/7/1977 12/21/1979, 44 FR 75635
  • (correction: 3/20/1980, 45 FR 17997)
  • Detroit Edison Company, River Rouge Power Plant, Wayne County 9-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Detroit Edison Company, Sibley Quarry, Wayne County 10-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, Wastewater Treatment Plant, Wayne County 11-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Diamond Crystal Salt Company, St. Clair County 13-1982 9/8/1982 3/14/1983, 48 FR 9256 Dow Chemical Company, Midland County 12-1981 6/15/1981 3/24/1982, 47 FR 12625 Dow Chemical Company, West Side and South Side Power Plants, Midland County 19-1981 7/21/1981 3/24/1982, 47 FR 12625 Only sections A(3), B, C, D, and E. Dundee Cement Company, Monroe County 8-1979 10/17/1979 8/11/1980, 45 FR 53137 Dundee Cement Company, Monroe County 16-1980 11/19/1980 12/3/1981, 46 FR 58673 Eagle Ottawa Leather Company, Ottawa County 7-1994 7/13/1994 10/23/1995, 60 FR 54308 Edward C. Levy Company, Detroit Lime Company, Wayne County 15-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Edward C. Levy Company, Plant #1, Wayne County 16-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Edward C. Levy Company, Plant #3, Wayne County 17-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Edward C. Levy Company, Plant #4 and 5, Wayne County 19-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Edward C. Levy Company, Plant #6, Wayne County 18-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Edward C. Levy Company, Scrap Up-Grade Facility, Wayne County 20-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Enamalum Corporation, Oakland County 6-1994 6/27/1994 2/21/9196, 61 FR 6545 Ferrous Processing and Trading Company, Wayne County 12-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Ford Motor Company, Rouge Industrial Complex, Wayne County 13-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Ford Motor Company, Utica Trim Plant, Macomb County 39-1993 11/12/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 Ford Motor Company, Vulcan Forge, Wayne County 14-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 General Motors Corporation, Buick Motor Division Complex, Flint, Genesee County 10-1979 5/5/1980 2/10/1982, 47 FR 6013 General Motors Corporation, Buick Motor Division, Genesee County 8-1982 4/2/1984 8/22/1988, 53 FR 31861 Original order effective 7/12/1982, as altered effective 4/2/1982. General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division, Wayne County 12-1982 7/22/1982 7/5/1983, 48 FR 31022 General Motors Corporation, Central Foundry Division, Saginaw Malleable Iron Plant, Saginaw County 8-1983 6/9/1983 12/13/1985, 50 FR 50907 Supersedes paragraph 7.F of order 6-1980. General Motors Corporation, Central Foundry Division, Saginaw Malleable Iron Plant, Saginaw County 6-1980 7/30/1982 8/15/1983, 48 FR 36818 Paragraph 7.F superseded by order 8-1983. Original order effective 6/3/1980, as altered effective 7/30/1982. General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Flint Truck Assembly, Genesee County 10-1982 7/12/1982 7/5/1983, 48 FR 31022 General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division, Saginaw Grey Iron Casting Plant and Nodular Iron Casting Plant, Saginaw County 1-1980 4/16/1980 2/10/1982, 47 FR 6013 General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body Division, Fleetwood, Wayne County 11-1982 7/22/1982 7/5/1983, 48 FR 31022 General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body Division, Flint No. 1, Genesee County 9-1982 7/12/1982 7/5/1983, 48 FR 31022 General Motors Corporation, GM Assembly Division, Washtenaw County 5-1983 5/5/1983 12/13/1984, 49 FR 5345 General Motors Corporation, Hydra-Matic Division, Washtenaw County 3-1982 6/24/1982 3/4/1983, 48 FR 9256 General Motors Corporation, Oldsmobile Division, Ingham County 4-1983 5/5/1983 12/13/1984, 49 FR 5345 General Motors Corporation, Warehousing and Distribution Division, Genesee County 18-1981 7/28/1983 5/16/1984, 49 FR 20649 Original order effective 12/1/1981, as altered effective 7/28/1983. Hayes-Albion Corporation Foundry, Calhoun County 2-1980 2/2/1982 9/15/1983, 48 FR 41403 Original order effective 2/15/1980, as altered effective 2/2/1982. J. H. Campbell Plant, Ottawa County 5-1979 2/6/1980 12/24/1980, 45 FR 85004
  • (correction: 3/16/1981 46 FR 16895)
  • Original order effective 6/25/1979, as altered effective 2/6/1980.
    Keywell Corporation, Wayne County 31-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Lansing Board of Water and Light 4-1979 5/23/1979 12/17/1980, 45 FR 82926 All except sections 7 A, B, C1, D, E, F, and section 8. Marathon Oil Company, Muskegon County 16-1981 7/31/1981 2/22/1982, 47 FR 7661 Marblehead Lime Company, Brennan Avenue Plant, Wayne County 21-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Marblehead Lime Company, River Rouge Plant, Wayne County 22-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 McLouth Steel Company, Trenton Plant, Wayne County 23-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Michigan Foundation Company, Cement Plant, Wayne County 24-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Michigan Foundation Company, Sibley Quarry, Wayne County 25-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Monitor Sugar Company, Bay County 21-1981 10/29/1981 5/19/1982, 47 FR 21534 Morton International, Inc., Morton Salt Division, Wayne County 26-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 National Steel Corporation, Great Lakes Division, Wayne County 27-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 National Steel Corporation, Transportation and Materials Handling Division, Wayne County 28-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 New Haven Foundry, Inc., Macomb County 12-1980 8/14/1980 2/10/1982, 47 FR 6013 Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative Advance Steam Plant, Charlevoix County 16-1979 1/10/1980 7/2/1981, 46 FR 34584 Packaging Corporation of America, Manistee County 23-1984 7/8/1985 5/4/1987, 52 FR 16246 Peerless Metal Powders, Incorporated, Wayne County 29-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Rouge Steel Company, Wayne County 30-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 S. D. Warren Company, Muskegon 9-1979 10/31/1999 1/27/1981, 46 FR 8476 St. Marys Cement Company, Wayne County 32-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Traverse City Board of Light and Power, Grand Traverse County 23-1981 1/4/1982 5/19/1982, 47 FR 21534 Union Camp Corporation, Monroe County 14-1979 1/3/1980 5/14/1981, 46 FR 26641 United States Gypsum Company, Wayne County 33-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 VCF Films, Inc., Livingston County 3-1993 6/21/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 Woodbridge Corporation, Washtenaw County 40-1993 11/12/1993 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 Wyandotte Municipal Power Plant, Wayne County 34-1993 10/12/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346

    (e) EPA approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions.

    EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA Approval date Comments Implementation plan for the control of suspended particulates, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and photochemical oxidants in the state of Michigan Statewide 2/3/1972 5/31/1972, 37 FR 10841 Sections include: Air quality control regions, legal authority, air quality data, emission data, control strategy, control regulations, compliance plans and schedules, prevention of air pollution emergency episodes, air quality surveillance program, control of emission sources, organization and resources, and intergovernmental cooperation. Reevaluation of control strategies Berrien and Ingham Counties 3/3/1972 10/28/1972, 37 FR 23085 Reasons and justifications Statewide 7/12/1972 10/28/1972, 37 FR 23085 Concerning general requirements of control strategy for nitrogen dioxide, compliance schedules, and review of new sources and modifications. Compliance schedules Alpena, Baraga, Charlevoix, Huron, Ionia, Marquette, Midland, Muskegon, Oakland, Otsego, and St. Clair Counties 5/4/1973, 9/19/1973, 10/23/1973, and 12/13/1973 8/5/1974, 39 FR 28155 Compliance schedules Allegan, Eaton, Emmet, Genesee, Huron, Ingham, Macomb, Monroe, Ottawa, Saginaw, and St. Clair Counties 2/16/1973 and 5/4/1973 9/10/1974, 39 FR 32606 Carbon monoxide control strategy Saginaw area 4/25/1979 5/6/1980, 45 FR 29790 Transportation control plans Detroit urban area 4/25/1979, 7/25/1979, 10/12/1979, 10/26/1979, 11/8/1979, 12/26/1979 6/2/1980, 45 FR 37188 Ozone control strategy for rural ozone nonattainment areas Marquette, Muskegon, Gratiot, Midland, Saginaw, Bay, Tuscola, Huron, Sanilac, Ottawa, Ionia, Shiawassee, Lapeer, Allegan, Barry, Van Buren, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Jackson, Berrien, Cass, Branch, Hillsdale, and Lenawee Counties 4/25/1979, 7/25/1979, 10/12/1979, 10/26/1979, 11/8/1979, 12/26/1979 6/2/1980, 45 FR 37188 Transportation control plan Niles 4/25/1979, 10/26/1979, 11/8/1979, 12/26/1979, 8/4/1980, and 8/8/1980 4/17/1981, 46 FR 22373 Total suspended particulate studies Detroit area 3/7/1980 and 4/21/1981 2/18/1982, 47 FR 7227 Lead plan Statewide 12/27/1979 and 2/9/1981 4/13/1982, 47 FR 15792 Reduction in size of Detroit ozone area Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Livingston, Monroe, St. Clair, and Washtenaw Counties 9/1/1982 7/7/1983, 48 FR 31199 Information relating to order 8-1982: letter dated 9/6/84 from Michigan Department of Natural Resources to EPA Genesee County 9/6/1984 8/22/1988, 53 FR 31861 Information relating to order 14-1987: letter dated 12/17/87 from Michigan Department of Natural Resources to EPA Midland County 12/17/1987 10/3/1989, 54 FR 40657 Appendices A and D of Wayne County Air Pollution Control Ordinance Wayne County 10/10/1986 5/13/1993, 58 FR 28359 Effective 11/18/1985. Information supporting emissions statement program Statewide 11/16/1992, 10/25/1993, and 2/7/1994 3/8/1994, 59 FR 10752 1991 Michigan air pollution reporting forms, reference tables, and general instructions. I/M program Grand Rapids and Muskegon areas 11/12/1993 and 7/19/1994 10/11/1994, 59 FR 51379 Includes: document entitled “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program for Southeast Michigan, Grand Rapids MSA, and Muskegon MSA Moderate Nonattainment Areas,” RFP, and supplemental materials. PM-10 implementation plan Wayne County 6/11/1993, 4/7/1994, and 10/14/1994 1/17/1995, 60 FR 3346 Reasonable further progress, RACM, contingency measures, 1985 base year emission inventory. General conformity Statewide 11/29/1994 12/18/1996, 61 FR 66607 Transportation conformity Statewide 11/24/1994 12/18/1996, 61 FR 66609 7.8 psi Reid vapor pressure gasoline-supplemental materials Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe Counties 5/16/1996, 1/5/1996, and 5/14/1996 5/5/1997, 62 FR 24341 Includes: letter from Michigan Governor John Engler to Regional Administrator Valdas Adamkus, dated 1/5/1996, letter from Michigan Director of Environmental Quality Russell Harding to Regional Administrator Valdas Adamkus, dated 5/14/1996, and state report entitled “Evaluation of Air Quality Contingency Measures for Implementation in Southeast Michigan”. Regional Haze Plan Statewide 11/5/2010 12/3/2012, 77 FR 71533 Addresses all regional haze plan elements except BART emission limitations for EGUs, St. Marys Cement, Escanaba Paper, and Tilden Mining. Attainment Demonstrations 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations and transportation control plans Flint, Lansing and Grand Rapids urban areas 4/25/1979, 7/25/1979, 10/12/1979, 10/26/1979, 11/8/1979, 12/26/1979 6/2/1980, 45 FR 37188 Carbon monoxide and 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations and I/M program Detroit urban area 4/25/1979, 7/25/1979, 10/12/1979, 10/26/1979, 11/8/1979, 12/26/1979, 3/20/1980, 5/12/1980, and 5/21/1980 6/2/1980, 45 FR 37192 Emissions Inventories 1-hour ozone 1990 base year Grand Rapids (Kent and Ottawa Counties) and Muskegon areas 1/5/1993 7/26/1994, 59 FR 37944 1-hour ozone 1990 base year Detroit-Ann Arbor area (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) 1/5/1993 and 11/29/1993 3/7/1995, 60 FR 12459 1-hour ozone 1990 base year Flint (Genesee County) and Saginaw-Midland-Bay City (Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties) 5/9/2000 11/13/2000, 65 FR 67629 1-hour ozone 1991 base year Allegan County 9/1/2000 and 10/13/2000 11/24/2000, 65 FR 70490 1997 8-hour ozone 2005 base year Detroit-Ann Arbor (Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) 3/6/2009 6/29/2009, 74 FR 30950 1997 annual PM2.5 2005 base year Detroit-Ann Arbor area (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) 6/13/2008 11/6/2012, 77 FR 66547 Infrastructure Public availability of emissions data Statewide 7/24/1972 10/28/1972, 37 FR 23085 Ambient air quality monitoring, data reporting, and surveillance provisions Statewide 12/19/1979 3/4/1981, 46 FR 15138 Provisions addressing sections 110(a)(2)(K), 126(a)(2), 127, and 128 of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977 Statewide 4/25/1979 and 10/12/1979 6/5/1981, 46 FR 30082 Concerns permit fees, interstate pollution, public notification, and state boards. Section 121, intergovernmental consultation Statewide 5/25/1979 11/27/1981, 46 FR 57893 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Statewide 12/6/2007, 7/19/2008, and 4/6/2011 7/13/2011, 76 FR 41075 Approved CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 12/6/2007, 7/19/2008, and 4/6/2011 7/13/2011, 76 FR 41075 Approved CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 8/15/2011, 7/9/2012, 7/10/2014 10/20/2015, 80 FR 63451 Approved CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS Statewide 4/3/2012, 8/9/2013, 7/10/2014 10/20/2015, 80 FR 63451 Approved CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS Statewide 7/10/2014 10/13/2015, 80 FR 61311 Approved CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on (D)(i)(I) and the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS Statewide 7/10/2014 10/13/2015, 80 FR 61311 Approved CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Statewide 7/10/2014 10/13/2015, 80 FR 61311 Approved CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on (D)(i)(I) and the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS Statewide 7/10/2014 10/13/2015, 80 FR 61311 Approved CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on (D)(i)(I) and the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II). Maintenance Plans Carbon monoxide Detroit area (portions of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties) 3/18/1999 6/30/1999, 64 FR 35017 Carbon monoxide Detroit area (portions of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties) 12/19/2003 1/28/2005, 64 FR 35017 Revision to motor vehicle emission budgets. 1-hour ozone Detroit-Ann Arbor area (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) 11/12/1994 3/7/1995, 60 FR 12459 1-hour ozone Grand Rapids area 3/9/1995 6/21/1996, 61 FR 31831 1-hour ozone Muskegon County 3/9/1995 8/30/2000, 65 FR 52651 1-hour ozone Allegan County 9/1/2000 and 10/13/2000 11/24/2000, 65 FR 70490 1-hour ozone Flint (Genesee County) and Saginaw-Midland-Bay City (Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties) 5/9/2000 11/13/2000, 65 FR 67629 1-hour ozone Muskegon County 3/22/2001 8/6/2001, 66 FR 40895 Revision to motor vehicle emission budgets. 1-hour ozone update Detroit-Ann Arbor area (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) 12/19/2003 5/20/2005, 70 FR 29202 1997 8-hour ozone Grand Rapids (Kent and Ottawa Counties), Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and Van Buren Counties), Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties), Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County 5/9/2006, 5/26/2006, and 8/25/2006 5/16/2007, 72 FR 27425 1997 8-hour ozone Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties), Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County), and Cass County 6/13/2006, 8/25/2006, and 11/30/2006 5/16/2007, 72 FR 27425 1997 8-hour ozone Detroit-Ann Arbor (Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) 3/6/2009 6/29/2009, 74 FR 30950 Particulate matter Macomb, Oakland, Wayne and Monroe Counties 6/27/1974 and 10/18/1974 6/2/1975, 40 FR 23746 PM-10 Wayne County 7/24/1995 8/5/1996, 61 FR 40516 1997 Annual PM2.5 Detroit-Ann Arbor area (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) 7/05/2011 8/29/2013, 78 FR 53274 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Detroit-Ann Arbor area (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) 7/05/2011 8/29/2013, 78 FR 53274 Negative Declarations Negative declarations Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties 10/10/1983, 5/17/1985, and 6/12/1985 11/24/1986, 51 FR 42221 Includes large petroleum dry cleaners, high-density polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene resin manufacturers, and synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry—oxidation. Negative declarations Detroit-Ann Arbor Area (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne Counties) Grand Rapids Area (Kent and Ottawa Counties), and Muskegon County 3/30/1994 9/7/1994, 59 FR 46182 Includes: Large petroleum dry cleaners, SOCMI air oxidation processes, high-density polyethylene and polypropylene resin manufacturing and pneumatic rubber tire manufacturing. Section 182(f) NO X Exemptions 1-hour ozone Detroit-Ann Arbor area (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) 11/12/1993 8/10/1994, 59 FR 40826 1-hour ozone Clinton, Ingham, Eaton, and Genesee Counties 7/1/1994 and 7/8/1994 4/27/1995, 60 FR 20644 1-hour ozone Kent, Ottawa, Muskegon, Allegan, Barry, Bay, Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Clinton, Eaton, Gratiot, Genesee, Hillsdale, Ingham, Ionia, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lenawee, Midland, Montcalm, St. Joseph, Saginaw, Shiawassee, and Van Buren Counties 7/13/1994 1/26/1996, 61 FR 2428 1-hour ozone Muskegon County 11/22/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50512 1997 8-hour ozone Grand Rapids (Kent and Ottawa Counties), Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and Van Buren Counties), Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties), Benzie County, Huron County and Mason County 1/17/2015 6/6/2006, 71 FR 32448
    [FR Doc. 2016-15141 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0302; FRL-9948-15-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve portions of a November 20, 2015, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from Missouri concerning allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emission allowances. Under CSAPR, large electricity generating units in Missouri are subject to Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring the units to participate in CSAPR's Federal trading program for annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and one of CSAPR's two Federal trading programs for annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2). This action approves Missouri's adoption into its SIP of state regulations establishing state-determined allocations to replace EPA's default allocations to Missouri units of CSAPR allowances for annual NOX emissions and annual SO2 emissions for 2017 and later years. EPA is approving the SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's regulations for approval of an abbreviated SIP revision replacing EPA's default allocations of CSAPR emission allowances with state-determined allocations. Approval of this SIP revision does not alter any provision of CSAPR's Federal trading programs for annual NOX emissions and annual SO2 emissions as applied to Missouri units other than the allowance allocation provisions, and the FIPs requiring the units to participate in those trading programs (as modified by the SIP revision) remain in place. The approval is being issued as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because EPA views it as uncontroversial and does not anticipate adverse comment. EPA is not acting at this time on the portion of Missouri's SIP submittal concerning allocations of CSAPR allowances for ozone-season NOX emissions.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective August 12, 2016, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 28, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, we 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-R07-OAR-2016-0302, to 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:

    Mr. Larry Gonzalez, Air Planning and Development Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7041; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions IV. Missouri's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis A. Missouri's SIP Submittal B. EPA's Analysis of Missouri's Submittal 1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal 2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring Allocation 3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State Budget 4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA 5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or Recorded 6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program Provisions V. EPA's Action on Missouri's Submittal VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the portions of a November 20, 2015, SIP submittal from Missouri concerning allocations of allowances used in the CSAPR 1 Federal trading programs for annual emissions of NOX and SO2. Large electricity generating units in Missouri are subject to CSAPR FIPs that require the units to participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program.2 Each of CSAPR's Federal trading programs includes default provisions governing the allocation among participating units of emission allowances used for compliance under that program. CSAPR also provides a process for the submission and approval of SIP revisions to replace EPA's default allocations with state-determined allocations.

    1 Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011), (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39 and subparts AAAAA through DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97).

    2 EPA has proposed to replace the terms “Transport Rule” and “TR” in the text of the Code of Federal Regulations with the updated terms “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” and “CSAPR.” 80 FR 75706, 75759 (December 3, 2015). Except where otherwise noted, EPA uses the updated terms here.

    The SIP revision approved in this action incorporates into Missouri's SIP state regulations establishing state-determined allowance allocations to replace EPA's default allocations to Missouri units of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR SO2

    Group 1 allowances issued for the control periods in 2017 and later years. EPA is approving the SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for approval of an abbreviated SIP revision replacing EPA's default allocations of CSAPR emission allowances with state-determined allocations. Approval of this SIP revision does not alter any provisions of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program or the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program as applied to Missouri units other than the allowance allocation provisions, and the FIPs requiring the units to participate in those programs (as modified by this SIP revision) remain in place.

    Large electricity generating units in Missouri are also subject to an additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. While Missouri's SIP submittal also seeks to replace the default allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances to Missouri units, EPA is not acting on that portion of the SIP submittal at this time. Approval of this SIP revision concerning other CSAPR trading programs has no effect on the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program as applied to Missouri units, and the FIP requiring the units to participate in that program remains in place.

    Section II of this document summarizes relevant aspects of the CSAPR Federal trading programs and FIPs as well as the range of opportunities states have to submit SIP revisions to modify or replace the FIP requirements while continuing to rely on CSAPR's trading programs to address the states' obligations to mitigate interstate air pollution. Section III describes the specific conditions for approval of such SIP revisions. Section IV contains EPA's analysis of Missouri's SIP submittal, and Section V sets forth EPA's action on the submittal.

    We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

    II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate transport of air pollution. As amended, CSAPR requires twenty-eight Eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain three National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide “budgets” for emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered state's large electricity generating units. The budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years. As a mechanism for achieving compliance with the emissions limitations, CSAPR established four Federal emissions trading programs: A program for annual NOX emissions, a program for ozone-season NOX emissions, and two geographically separate programs for annual SO2 emissions. CSAPR also established up to three FIPs applicable to the large electricity generating units in each covered state. Each CSAPR FIP requires a state's units to participate in one of the four CSAPR trading programs.

    CSAPR includes provisions under which states may submit and EPA will approve SIP revisions to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport-related obligations using either CSAPR's Federal emissions trading programs or state emissions trading programs integrated with the Federal programs.3 Through such a SIP revision, a state may replace EPA's default provisions for allocating emission allowances among the state's units, employing any state-selected methodology to allocate or auction the allowances, subject to timing conditions and limits on overall allowance quantities. In the case of CSAPR's Federal trading program for ozone-season NOX emissions (or an integrated state trading program), a state may also expand trading program applicability to include certain smaller electricity generating units. However, no emissions budget increases or other substantive changes to the trading program provisions are allowed. If a state wants to replace CSAPR FIP requirements with SIP requirements under which the state's units participate in a state trading program that is integrated with and identical to the Federal trading program even as to the allocation and applicability provisions, the state may submit a SIP revision for that purpose as well. A state whose units are subject to multiple CSAPR FIPs and Federal trading programs may submit SIP revisions to modify or replace the requirements under either some or all of those FIPs.

    3See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the ability to submit SIP revisions to meet their transport-related obligations using mechanisms other than the CSAPR Federal trading programs or integrated state trading programs.

    States can submit two basic forms of CSAPR-related SIP revisions effective for emissions control periods in 2017 or later years.4 Specific conditions for approval of each form of SIP revision are set forth in the CSAPR regulations, as described in Section III below. Under the first alternative—an “abbreviated” SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces the default allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions of a CSAPR Federal trading program for the state.5 Approval of an abbreviated SIP revision leaves the corresponding CSAPR FIP and all other provisions of the relevant Federal trading program in place for the state's units.

    4 CSAPR also provides for a third, more streamlined form of SIP revision that is effective only for control periods in 2016 and is not relevant here. See § 52.38(a)(3), (b)(3); § 52.39(d), (g).

    5 § 52.38(a)(4), (b)(4); § 52.39(e), (h).

    Under the second alternative—a “full” SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces a CSAPR Federal trading program for the state with a state trading program integrated with the Federal trading program, so long as the state trading program is substantively identical to the Federal trading program or does not substantively differ from the Federal trading program except as discussed above with regard to the allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.6 For purposes of a full SIP revision, a state may either adopt state rules with complete trading program language, incorporate the Federal trading program language into its state rules by reference (with appropriate conforming changes), or employ a combination of these approaches.

    6 § 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5); § 52.39(f), (i).

    The CSAPR regulations identify several important consequences and limitations associated with approval of a full SIP revision. First, upon EPA's approval of a full SIP revision as correcting the deficiency in the state's SIP that was the basis for a particular CSAPR FIP, the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR Federal trading program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's jurisdiction without the need for a separate EPA withdrawal action, so long as EPA's approval of the SIP is full and unconditional.7 Second, approval of a full SIP revision does not terminate the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR Federal trading program for any units located in any Indian country within the borders of the state, and if and when a unit is located in Indian country within a state's borders, EPA may modify the SIP approval to exclude from the SIP, and include in the surviving CSAPR FIP instead, certain trading program provisions that apply jointly to units in the state and to units in Indian country within the state's borders.8 Finally, if at the time a full SIP revision is approved EPA has already started recording allocations of allowances for a given control period to a state's units, the Federal trading program provisions authorizing EPA to complete the process of allocating and recording allowances for that control period to those units will continue to apply, unless EPA's approval of the SIP revision provides otherwise.9

    7 § 52.38(a)(6), (b)(6); § 52.39(j).

    8 § 52.38(a)(5)(iv) and (v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v) and (vi), (b)(6); § 52.39(f)(4) and (5), (i)(4) and (5), (j).

    9 § 52.38(a)(7), (b)(7); § 52.39(k).

    Certain CSAPR Phase 2 emissions budgets have been remanded to EPA for reconsideration.10 However, the CSAPR trading programs remain in effect and all CSAPR emissions budgets likewise remain in effect pending EPA final action to address the remands. None of the CSAPR emissions budgets applicable to Missouri units has been remanded.11

    10EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

    11 Litigation concerning EPA's supplemental rule establishing the requirement for Missouri units to participate in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program is currently being held in abeyance. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 12-1023 (D.C. Cir. filed January 13, 2012).

    In 2015, EPA proposed to update CSAPR to address Eastern states' interstate air pollution mitigation obligations with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Among other things, the proposed rule would amend the Phase 2 emissions budget applicable to Missouri units under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program and would make technical corrections and nomenclature changes throughout the CSAPR regulations, including the CSAPR FIPs at 40 CFR part 52 and the CSAPR Federal trading program regulations for annual NOX, ozone-season NOX, and SO2 emissions at 40 CFR part 97.12

    12 80 FR 75706, 75710, 75757 (December 3, 2015).

    III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    Each CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP revision must meet the following general submittal conditions:

    Timeliness and completeness of SIP submittal. If a state wants to replace the default allowance allocation or applicability provisions of a CSAPR Federal trading program, the complete SIP revision must be submitted to EPA by December 1 of the year before the deadlines described below for submitting allocation or auction amounts to EPA for the first control period for which the state wants to replace the default allocation and/or applicability provisions.13 (The SIP submission deadline is inoperative in the case of a SIP revision that seeks only to replace a CSAPR FIP and Federal trading program with a SIP and a substantively identical state trading program integrated with the Federal trading program.) The SIP submittal completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 also apply.

    13 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(vi), (b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(vii); § 52.39(e)(2), (f)(6), (h)(2), (i)(6).

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP seeking to address the allocation or auction of emission allowances must meet the following further conditions:

    Methodology covering all allowances potentially requiring allocation. For each Federal trading program addressed by a SIP revision, the SIP revision's allowance allocation or auction methodology must replace both the Federal program's default allocations to existing units 14 at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.511(a), 97.611(a), or 97.711(a), as applicable, and the Federal trading program's provisions for allocating allowances from the new unit set-aside (NUSA) for the state at 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a), 97.511(b)(1) and 97.512(a), 97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), or 97.711(b)(1) and 97.712(a), as applicable.15 In the case of a state with Indian country within its borders, while the SIP revision may neither alter nor assume the Federal program's provisions for administering the Indian country NUSA for the state, the SIP revision must include procedures addressing any the disposition of otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country NUSA that may be made available for allocation by the state after EPA has carried out the Indian country NUSA allocation procedures.16

    14 In the context of the approval conditions for CSAPR-related SIP revisions, an “existing unit” is a unit for which EPA has determined default allowance allocations (which could be allocations of zero allowances) in the rulemakings establishing and amending CSAPR. A spreadsheet showing EPA's default allocations to existing units is posted at www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/techinfo.html.

    15 § 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii); § 52.39(e)(1), (f)(1), (h)(1), (i)(1).

    16See §§ 97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii), 97.612(b)(10)(ii), 97.712(b)(10)(ii).

    Assurance that total allocations will not exceed the state budget. For each Federal trading program addressed by a SIP revision, the total amount of allowances auctioned or allocated for each control period under the SIP revision (prior to the addition by EPA of any unallocated allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state) may not exceed the state's emissions budget for the control period less the sum of the amount of any Indian country NUSA for the state for the control period and any allowances already allocated to the state's units for the control period and recorded by EPA.17 Under its SIP revision, a state is free to not allocate allowances to some or all potentially affected units, to allocate or auction allowances to entities other than potentially affected units, or to allocate or auction fewer than the maximum permissible quantity of allowances and retire the remainder.

    17 § 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(5)(i)(A), (b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(5)(ii)(A); § 52.39(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), (i)(1)(i).

    Timely submission of state-determined allocations to EPA. The SIP revision must require the state to submit to EPA the amounts of any allowances allocated or auctioned to each unit for each control period (other than allowances initially set aside in the state's allocation or auction process and later allocated or auctioned to such units from the set-aside amount) by the following deadlines.18 Note that the submission deadlines differ for amounts allocated or auctioned to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes and amounts allocated or auctioned to other units.

    18 § 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and (C), (a)(5)(i)(B) and (C), (b)(4)(ii)(B) and (C), (b)(5)(ii)(B) and (C); § 52.39(e)(1)(ii) and (iii), (f)(1)(ii) and (iii), (h)(1)(ii) and (iii), (i)(1)(ii) and (iii).

    Units Year of the control period Deadline for submission to EPA of allocations or auction results Existing 2017 and 2018 June 1, 2016. 2019 and 2020 June 1, 2017. 2021 and 2022 June 1, 2018. 2023 and later years June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period. Other All years July 1 of the year of the control period.

    No changes to allocations already submitted to EPA or recorded. The SIP revision must not provide for any change to the amounts of allowances allocated or auctioned to any unit after those amounts are submitted to EPA or any change to any allowance allocation determined and recorded by EPA under the Federal trading program regulations.19

    19 § 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(5)(i)(D), (b)(4)(ii)(D), (b)(5)(ii)(D); § 52.39(e)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(iv), (i)(1)(iv).

    No other substantive changes to Federal trading program provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that also expands program applicability as described below.20 Any new definitions adopted in the SIP revision (in addition to the Federal trading program's definitions) may apply only for purposes of the SIP revision's allocation or auction provisions.21

    20 § 52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5); § 52.39(e), (f), (h), (i).

    21 § 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(iii); § 52.39(e)(1), (f)(2), (h)(1), (i)(2).

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP revision seeking to expand applicability under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program (or an integrated state trading program) must meet the following further conditions:

    Only electricity generating units with nameplate capacity of at least 15 MWe. The SIP revision may expand applicability only to additional fossil fuel-fired boilers or combustion turbines serving generators producing electricity for sale, and only by lowering the generator nameplate capacity threshold used to determine whether a particular boiler or combustion turbine serving a particular generator is a potentially affected unit. The nameplate capacity threshold adopted in the SIP revision may not be less than 15 MWe.22

    22 § 52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i).

    No other substantive changes to Federal trading program provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that also addresses the allocation or auction of emission allowances as described above.23

    23 § 52.38(b)(4), (b)(5).

    In addition to the general submittal conditions and the other applicable conditions described above, a CSAPR-related full SIP revision must meet the following further conditions:

    Complete, substantively identical trading program provisions. The SIP revision must adopt complete state trading program regulations substantively identical to the Federal trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 through 97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, or 97.702 through 97.735, as applicable, except as described above in the case of a SIP revision that seeks to replace the default allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.

    Only non-substantive substitutions for the term “State.” The SIP revision may substitute the name of the state for the term “State” as used in the Federal trading program regulations, but only to the extent that EPA determines that the substitutions do not substantively change the trading program regulations.24

    24 § 52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv); § 52.39(f)(3), (i)(3).

    Exclusion of provisions addressing units in Indian country. The SIP revision may not include references to or impose requirements on any unit in any Indian country within the state's borders and must not include the Federal trading program provisions governing allocation of allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state.25

    25 § 52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v); § 52.39(f)(4), (i)(4).

    IV. Missouri's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis A. Missouri's SIP Submittal

    In the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA determined that air pollution transported from Missouri unlawfully affected other states' ability to attain or maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.26 In a supplemental rulemaking, EPA determined that air pollution transported from Missouri also unlawfully affected other states' ability to attain and maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.27 Missouri units meeting the CSAPR applicability criteria are consequently subject to CSAPR FIPs that require participation in the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program, the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program, and the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program.28

    26 76 FR 48208, 48213 (August 8, 2011).

    27 76 FR 80760, 80763 (December 27, 2011).

    28 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2), (b)(2); § 52.39(b); § 52.1326; § 52.1327.

    On November 20, 2015, Missouri submitted to EPA an abbreviated SIP revision that, if all portions were approved, would replace the default allowance allocation provisions of all three CSAPR trading programs for the state's EGUs for the control periods in 2017 and later years with provisions establishing state-determined allocations for those control periods but that would leave the corresponding CSAPR FIPs and all other provisions of the trading programs in place. The SIP submittal generally consists of three duly adopted state rules, 10 CSR 10-6.372 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual NOX Trading Allowance Allocations), 10 CSR 10-6.374 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Ozone Season NOX Trading Allowance Allocations), and 10 CSR 10-6.376 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual SO2 Trading Allowances Allocations). The three state rules are substantively identical except that each addresses a different CSAPR Federal trading program and allocates a different total quantity of allowances. Each rule contains a table establishing specific amounts of allowances to be allocated for each control period in 2017 and later years to specified Missouri electricity generating units under the applicable CSAPR trading program. Each rule also establishes a NUSA for the applicable program for each control period and sets forth a procedure for allocating allowances from the NUSA to qualifying Missouri units.

    The SIP revision was submitted to EPA by a letter from the Director of the Missouri Air Pollution Control Program. The letter and its enclosures describe steps taken by Missouri to provide public notice prior to adoption of the state rules.

    In this rule, EPA is taking action on the portions of Missouri's SIP submittal relating to the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program. EPA is not taking action at this time on the portion of the SIP submittal relating to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. As noted in section II above, EPA has proposed to update CSAPR to address Eastern states' interstate air pollution mitigation obligations with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The proposal would reduce the ozone-season NOX emissions budgets for control periods in 2017 and later years for a number of states, including Missouri. Action on the portion of Missouri's SIP submittal addressing allocations of ozone-season NOX allowances would be premature while the proposed update is pending because there is a foreseeable potential conflict between the total amount of allowances that would be allocated to Missouri units under Missouri's state-determined allocation provisions, which are based on Missouri's current budget, and the total amount of allowances that could permissibly be allocated to the units under a final updated budget.

    EPA has previously approved a separate Missouri SIP revision replacing the default allowance allocation provisions of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program for Missouri existing units for the control period in 2016.29

    29 80 FR 51131 (August 24, 2015).

    B. EPA's Analysis of Missouri's Submittal

    As described in section IV.A above, at this time EPA is taking action on the portions of Missouri's SIP submittal relating to the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program but not the portion of the SIP submittal relating to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. The analysis discussed in this section addresses only the portions of Missouri's SIP submittal on which EPA is taking action at this time. For simplicity, throughout this section EPA refers to the portions of the submittal on which EPA is taking action as “the submittal” or “the SIP revision” without repeating the qualification that at this time EPA is analyzing and acting on only portions of the SIP submittal.

    1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal

    Missouri's SIP revision seeks to establish state-determined allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 1 allowances for the control periods in 2017 and later years. Under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and 52.39(e)(1)(ii), the deadline for submission of state-determined allocations for the 2017 and 2018 control periods is June 1, 2016, which under §§ 52.38(a)(4)(ii) and 52.39(e)(2) makes December 1, 2015, the deadline for submission to EPA of a complete SIP revision establishing state-determined allocations for those control periods. Missouri submitted its SIP revision to EPA by a letter dated and delivered electronically on November 20, 2015, and EPA has determined that the submittal complies with the applicable minimum completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. Because Missouri's SIP revision was timely submitted and meets the applicable completeness criteria, it meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii) and 52.39(e)(2) for timely submission of a complete SIP revision.

    2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring Allocation

    Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(3) and 10 CSR 10-6.376(3) of the Missouri rules provide that the allowance allocation methodology adopted by Missouri in the SIP revision replaces the provisions of 40 CFR 97.411(a) and 97.611(a), respectively, thereby addressing all allowances that under the default allocation provisions for the Federal trading programs would be allocated to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes (prior to allocation of any allowances set aside during the initial allocation process). The same Missouri rule paragraphs also provide that the state's allocation methodology replaces the provisions of 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a) and the provisions of 40 CFR 97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), respectively, thereby addressing allocation of allowances in the NUSAs established for Missouri under the Federal trading programs. The CSAPR Federal trading program regulations do not establish any Indian country NUSAs for Missouri. The allocations provisions in the Missouri rules therefore enable Missouri's SIP revision to meet the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i) and 52.39(e)(1) that the state's allocation or auction methodology must cover all allowances potentially requiring allocation by the state.

    3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State Budget

    Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(3)(A)1. and 10 CSR 10-6.376(3)(A)1. of the Missouri rules provide for allowance allocations under each trading program to be made to specified units (including all Missouri units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes) in fixed amounts as set forth in tables referred to as “Table 1” in the state rules. The totals of the allowances allocated for each control period according to the two tables (45,818 CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and 160,959 CSAPR SO2 Group 1 allowances) are less than Missouri's state budgets for the control periods in 2017 and later years under the respective trading programs (48,743 CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and 165,941 CSAPR SO2 Group 1 allowances).30 Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(3)(B)3.B. and 10 CSR 10-6.376(3)(B)3.B. of the Missouri rules establish NUSAs for each trading program, allocating to each NUSA for each control period an amount of allowances equal to the state budget for the trading program minus the total amount of allowances allocated according to the table for that trading program. As noted above, the CSAPR Federal trading program regulations do not establish Indian country NUSAs for Missouri. The only allowances available for allocation to Missouri units are therefore allowances allocated under the Missouri rules, and the only such allowances, which necessarily sum to the state budgets, are the allowances allocated according to the tables and the allowances allocated from the NUSAs. EPA has not yet allocated or recorded CSAPR allowances for the control periods in 2017 or later years. The allocation methodology in Missouri's SIP revision therefore meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A) and 52.39(e)(1)(i) that, for each trading program, the total amount of allowances allocated under the SIP revision (before the addition of any otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country NUSA) may not exceed the state's budget for the control period less the amount of the Indian country NUSA for the state and any allowances already allocated and recorded by EPA.

    30 40 CFR 97.410(a)(11)(iv), 97.610(a)(7)(iv).

    4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA

    The allocation tables in the Missouri rules establish the primary allowance allocations for all Missouri units that are considered existing units for CSAPR purposes. Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(3)(A)1.A. through D. and 10 CSR 10-6.376(3)(A)1.A. through D. of the Missouri rules provide for the state-determined allocations established according to the tables to be submitted to EPA by the following deadlines: Allocations for the control periods in 2017 and 2018, by June 1, 2016; allocations for the control periods in 2019 and 2020, by June 1, 2017; allocations for the control periods in 2021 and 2022, by June 1, 2018; and allocations for later control periods, by June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period. These submission deadlines match the deadlines under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and 52.39(e)(1)(ii) described in Section III above for allocations to existing units. Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(3)(B)1. and 10-6.376(3)(B)1. of the Missouri rules provide for the state-determined allowance allocations to other units from the NUSAs for each control period to be submitted to EPA by July 1 of the year of the control period. These submission deadlines match the submission deadlines under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(C) and 52.39(e)(1)(iii) described in section III above for allocations to other units. Missouri's SIP revision therefore meets the conditions under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and (C) and 52.39(e)(1)(ii) and (iii) requiring that the SIP revision provide for submission of state-determined allowance allocations to EPA by the deadlines specified in those provisions.

    5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or Recorded

    The Missouri rules include no provisions allowing alteration of allocations after the allocation amounts have been provided to EPA and no provisions allowing alteration of any allocations made and recorded by EPA under the Federal trading program regulations, thereby meeting the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D) and 52.39(e)(1)(iv).

    6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program Provisions

    Besides the provisions addressing allowance allocations discussed above, the Missouri rules contain certain definitions. Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(2)(A) and 10 CSR 10-6.376(2)(A) incorporate by reference the Federal trading program definitions in 40 CFR 97.402 and 97.403 and the definitions in 40 CFR 97.602 and 97.603, respectively. Paragraphs 10 CSR 6.372(2)(B) and 10 CSR 10-6.376(2)(B) define a single term which is not defined in the Federal trading program regulations (“notification”), and paragraphs 10 CSR 6.372(2)(C) and 10 CSR 10-6.376(2)(C) refer to another Missouri rule for definitions of otherwise undefined terms. These definition provisions do not make substantive changes to the Federal trading program provisions.31 EPA therefore determines that Missouri's SIP revision meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4) and 52.39(e) of making no substantive changes to the Federal trading program regulations beyond the provisions addressing allowance allocations.

    31 EPA has proposed to make certain technical corrections to the CSAPR FIP and Federal trading program regulations in order to more accurately reflect EPA's intent as described in the CSAPR rulemaking and has also proposed to replace “TR” with “CSAPR” throughout the regulations (for example, “TR NOX Annual unit” would become “CSAPR NOX Annual unit”). See 80 FR 75706, 75758. Because the proposed technical corrections merely clarify and do not change EPA's interpretations, where the proposed corrections would apply to a provision incorporated by reference in the Missouri rules, EPA would interpret the Missouri rules as reflecting the corrections. Further, EPA anticipates that if the proposed nomenclature updates are finalized, the final CSAPR Federal regulations would explicitly provide that terms that include “CSAPR” encompass otherwise identical terms in approved SIP revisions that include “TR”.

    V. EPA's Action on Missouri's Submittal

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the portions of Missouri's November 20, 2015, SIP submittal concerning allocations to Missouri units of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 1 allowances for the control periods in 2017 and later years. The approved revision adopts into the SIP the rules codified in Missouri's regulations at 10 CSR 10-6.372 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual NOX Trading Allowance Allocations) and 10 CSR 10-6.376 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual SO2 Trading Allowances Allocations). Following this approval, allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances to Missouri units for the control periods in 2017 and later years will be made according to the provisions of Missouri's SIP instead of CSAPR's default allocation provisions at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.411(b)(1), and 97.412(a), and allocations of CSAPR SO2 Group 1 allowances to Missouri units for the control periods in 2017 and later years will be made according to the provisions of Missouri's SIP instead of CSAPR's default allocation provisions at 40 CFR 97.611(a), 97.611(b)(1), and 97.612(a). Approval of this SIP revision does not alter any provision of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program or the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program as applied to Missouri units other than the allowance allocation provisions, and the FIPs requiring the units to participate in those programs (as modified by this SIP revision) remain in place. EPA is approving the indicated portions of the SIP submittal because they meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for approval of an abbreviated SIP revision replacing EPA's default allocations of CSAPR emission allowances with state-determined allocations, as discussed in section IV above.

    Large electricity generating units in Missouri are also subject to an additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. While Missouri's SIP submittal also seeks to replace the default allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances to Missouri units, EPA is not acting on that portion of the SIP submittal at this time. Approval of this SIP revision concerning other CSAPR trading programs has no effect on the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program as applied to Missouri units, and the FIP requiring the units to participate in that program remains in place.

    VI. 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 Missouri Regulations described in the direct final 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 at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VII. 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. 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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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 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 29, 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. 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 16, 2016. Mark Hague, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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

    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.

    Subpart AA-Missouri 2. In § 52.1320: a. Revise the section heading. b. In the table in paragraph (c), under Chapter 6, add entries “10-6.372” and “10-6.376” in numerical order.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 52.1320 Identification of plan.

    (c)* * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-6.372 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual NOX Trading Allowance Allocations 12/30/15 6/28/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] 10-6.376 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual SO2 Trading Allowance Allocations 12/30/15 6/28/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-15048 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 435 [EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598; FRL-9947-87-OW] RIN 2040-AF35 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing a final Clean Water Act (CWA) regulation that protects human health, the environment and the operational integrity of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by establishing pretreatment standards that prevent the discharge of pollutants in wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and gas (UOG) extraction facilities to POTWs. UOG extraction wastewater can be generated in large quantities and contains constituents that are potentially harmful to human health and the environment. Certain UOG extraction wastewater constituents are not typical of POTW influent wastewater and can be discharged, untreated, from the POTW to the receiving stream; can disrupt the operation of the POTW (e.g., by inhibiting biological treatment); can accumulate in biosolids (sewage sludge), limiting their beneficial use; and can facilitate the formation of harmful disinfection by-products (DBPs). Based on the information collected by EPA, the requirements of this final rule reflect current industry practices for onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities. Therefore, EPA does not project that the final rule will impose any costs or lead to pollutant removals, but will ensure that current industry best practice is maintained over time.

    DATES:

    The final rule is effective on August 29, 2016. In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this regulation shall be considered issued for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on July 12, 2016. Under section 509(b)(1) of the CWA, judicial review of this regulation can be had only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals within 120 days after the regulation is considered issued for purposes of judicial review. Under section 509(b)(2), the requirements in this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov. A detailed record index, organized by subject, is available on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/eg/unconventional-oil-and-gas-extraction-effluent-guidelines.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information, see EPA's Web site: https://www.epa.gov/eg/unconventional-oil-and-gas-extraction-effluent-guidelines. For technical information, contact Karen Milam, Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology (4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1915; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Organization of This Preamble Table of Contents I. Regulated Entities and Supporting Documentation A. Regulated Entities B. Supporting Documentation II. Legal Authority III. Purpose and Summary of Final Rule A. Purpose and Summary of the Final Rule B. Summary of Costs and Benefits IV. Background A. Clean Water Act B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Program 1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) 3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) 4. Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT)/New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) C. Subcategorization D. Oil and Gas Extraction Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking History 1. Subpart C: Onshore 2. Subpart E: Agricultural and Wildlife Use E. State Pretreatment Requirements That Apply to UOG Extraction Wastewater F. Related Federal Requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act V. Industry Profile VI. Final Rule A. Scope/Applicability B. Option Selection 1. PSES 2. PSNS 3. Pollutants Selected for Regulation Pass-Through Analysis VII. Environmental Impacts A. Pollutants B. Impacts From the Discharge of Pollutants Found in UOG Extraction Wastewater C. Impact on Surface Water Designated Uses 1. Drinking Water Uses 2. Aquatic Life Support Uses 3. Livestock Watering Uses 4. Irrigation Uses 5. Industrial Uses VIII. Regulatory Implementation of the Standard A. Implementation Deadline B. Upset and Bypass Provisions C. Variances and Modifications IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. Regulated Entities and Supporting Documentation A. Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this final action include:

    Category Examples of regulated entities North American
  • Industry
  • Classification
  • System (NAICS) Code
  • Industry Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction 211111 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction 211112

    This section is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this final action. Other types of entities that do not meet the above criteria could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this final action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria listed in 40 CFR 435.30 and the definitions in 40 CFR 435.33(b) of the final rule and detailed further in Section VI, of this preamble. If you still have questions regarding the applicability of this final action to a particular entity, consult the person listed for technical information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    B. Supporting Documentation

    The final rule is supported by a number of documents including the Technical Development Document for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (TDD), Document No. EPA-820-R-16-003 (DCN SGE01188). This document is available in the public record for this final rule and on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/eg/unconventional-oil-and-gas-extraction-effluent-guidelines.

    II. Legal Authority

    EPA finalizes this regulation under the authorities of sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.

    III. Purpose and Summary of Final Rule A. Purpose and Summary of the Final Rule

    Responsible development of America's oil and gas resources offers important economic, energy security, and environmental benefits. EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders to understand and address potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing, an important process involved in producing unconventional oil and gas, to help ensure public confidence that oil and gas production is conducted in a safe and responsible manner. This final rule fills a gap in existing federal wastewater regulations to ensure that the current industry practice of not sending wastewater discharges from this sector to POTWs continues into the future. This rule does not address the practice of underground injection of wastewater discharges from this sector, which is covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (see Chapter A of the TDD).

    Recent advances in the well completion process, combining hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, have enhanced the technological and economic feasibility of oil and natural gas extraction from both existing and new resources. As a result, in 2013, United States (U.S.) crude oil and natural gas production reached their highest levels in more than 15 and 30 years, respectively (DCN SGE01192). Further, the Department of Energy (DOE) projects that natural gas production in the U.S. will increase by 45 percent by 2040, compared to 2013 production levels (DCN SGE01192). Similarly, the DOE projects that by 2020, crude oil production in the U.S. will increase by 43 percent compared to 2013 production levels (DCN SGE01192).

    Direct discharges of oil and gas extraction wastewater pollutants from onshore oil and gas resources to waters of the U.S. have been regulated since 1979 under the existing Oil and Gas Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) (40 CFR part 435), the majority of which fall under subpart C, the Onshore Subcategory. Oil and gas extraction activities subject to subpart C include production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, and well treatment. The limitations for direct dischargers in the Onshore Subcategory represent Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT). Based on the availability and economic practicability of underground injection technologies, the BPT-based limitations for direct dischargers require zero discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. However, there are currently no requirements in subpart C that apply to onshore oil and gas extraction facilities that are “indirect dischargers,” i.e., those that send their discharges to POTWs (municipal wastewater treatment facilities) which treat the water before discharging it to waters of the U.S.

    This final rule applies to a subset of oil and gas extraction, i.e., onshore extraction from shale and/or tight geologic formations (referred to hereafter as unconventional oil and gas (UOG) resources). UOG extraction wastewater can be generated in large quantities and contains constituents that are potentially harmful to human health and the environment. Wastewater from UOG wells often contains high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) (salt content). The wastewater can also contain various organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, metals, and naturally-occurring radioactive materials (referred to as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material or TENORM).1 This potentially harmful wastewater creates a need for appropriate wastewater management infrastructure and management practices. Historically, operators of oil and gas extraction facilities primarily managed their wastewater via underground injection (where available). Where UOG wells were drilled in areas with limited underground injection wells, and/or there was a lack of wastewater management alternatives, it became more common for operators to look to POTWs and private wastewater treatment facilities to manage their wastewater.

    1 Naturally occurring radioactive materials that have been concentrated or exposed to the accessible environment as a result of human activities such as manufacturing, mineral extraction, or water processing are referred to as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM). “Technologically enhanced” means that the radiological, physical, and chemical properties of the radioactive material have been altered by having been processed, or beneficiated, or disturbed in a way that increases the potential for human and/or environmental exposures. (See EPA 402-R-08-005-V2)

    POTWs collect wastewater from homes, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities and pipe it through sewer lines to the sewage treatment plant. In some cases, industrial dischargers can haul wastewater to the treatment plant by tanker truck. The industrial wastewater, commingled with domestic wastewater, is treated by the POTW and discharged to a receiving waterbody. Most POTWs, however, are designed primarily to treat municipally-generated, not industrial, wastewater. They typically provide at least secondary level treatment and, thus, are designed to remove suspended solids and organic material using biological treatment. As mentioned previously, wastewater from UOG extraction can contain high concentrations of TDS, radioactive elements, metals, chlorides, sulfates, and other dissolved inorganic constituents that POTWs are not designed to remove. Certain UOG extraction wastewater constituents are not typical of POTW influent wastewater and can be discharged, untreated, from the POTW to the receiving stream; can disrupt the operation of the POTW (e.g., by inhibiting biological treatment); can accumulate in biosolids (sewage sludge), limiting their beneficial use; and can facilitate the formation of harmful DBPs.

    Where UOG extraction wastewaters have been discharged through POTWs and private wastewater treatment plants in the past, it has been documented that the receiving waters have elevated levels of TDS, specifically chlorides and bromide (DCN SGE01328). The concentration of TDS in UOG extraction wastewater can be high enough that if discharged untreated to a surface water it has the potential to adversely affect a number of the designated uses of the surface water, including use as a drinking water source, aquatic life support, livestock watering, irrigation, and industrial use. High concentrations of TDS can impact aquatic biota by causing increased receiving water salinity, osmotic imbalances, and toxic effects from individual ions present in the TDS. Increases in instream salinity have been shown to cause shifts in biotic communities, limit biodiversity, exclude less-tolerant species and cause acute or chronic effects at specific life stages (DCN SGE00946).

    Discharges of bromide in industrial wastewater upstream of drinking water intakes—either directly or indirectly through POTWs—have led to the formation of carcinogenic disinfection by-products (brominated DBPs, in particular trihalomethanes) at drinking water utilities. Recent studies indicate that UOG extraction wastewaters contain various inorganic and organic DBP precursors that can react with disinfectants used by POTWs, and promote the formation of DBPs or alter speciation of DBPs, particularly brominated-DBPs, which are suspected to be among the more toxic DBPs (DCN SGE00535; DCN SGE00985). DBPs have been shown to have both adverse human health and ecological affects (DCN SGE00535; DCN SGE01126).

    Section 307(b) of the CWA provides EPA authority to establish nationally applicable pretreatment standards for industrial categories that discharge indirectly (i.e., send wastewater to any POTW); this authority applies to key pollutants, such as TDS and its constituents, that are not susceptible to treatment by POTWs, or for pollutants that would interfere with the operation of POTWs. Generally, EPA designs nationally applicable pretreatment standards for categories of industry (categorical pretreatment standards) to ensure that wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. EPA, in its discretion under section 304(g) of the Act, periodically evaluates indirect dischargers not subject to categorical pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for new pretreatment standards. Until issuance of this final rule, EPA had not established nationally applicable pretreatment standards for the onshore oil and gas extraction point source subcategory.

    This final rule establishes technology-based categorical pretreatment standards under the CWA for discharges of pollutants into POTWs from existing and new onshore UOG extraction facilities in subpart C of 40 CFR part 435 (80 FR 18557, April 7, 2015). The rule will fill a gap in federal CWA regulations and address concerns regarding the level of treatment provided by POTWs for UOG wastewater, potential interference with treatment processes, and potential impacts on water quality and aquatic life impacts that could result from inadequate treatment. Consistent with existing BPT-based requirements for direct dischargers in this subcategory, this final rule establishes pretreatment standards for existing and new sources (PSES and PSNS, respectively) that require zero discharge of wastewater pollutants associated with onshore UOG extraction facilities to POTWs.

    This final rule does not include pretreatment standards for wastewater pollutants associated with conventional oil and gas extraction facilities or coalbed methane extraction facilities. EPA is reserving consideration of any such standards for a future rulemaking, if appropriate. See Section V1.A.

    B. Summary of Costs and Benefits

    Because the data reviewed by EPA show that the UOG extraction industry is not currently managing wastewaters by sending them to POTWs, the final rule is not projected to affect current industry practice or to result in incremental compliance costs or monetized benefits. UOG extraction wastewater is typically managed through disposal via underground injection wells, reuse/recycle in subsequent fracturing jobs, or transfer to a centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility (see 80 FR 18570, April 7, 2015). EPA is promulgating this rule as a backstop measure because onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities have discharged to POTWs in the past and because the potential remains that some facilities may consider discharging to POTWs in the future.

    IV. Background A. Clean Water Act

    Congress passed the CWA to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The Act establishes a comprehensive program for protecting our nation's waters. Among its core provisions, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the U.S., except as authorized under the Act. Under section 402 of the CWA, discharges may be authorized through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The CWA establishes a two-pronged approach for these permits, technology-based controls that establish the floor of performance for all dischargers, and water quality-based limits where the technology-based limits are insufficient for the discharge to meet applicable water quality standards. To serve as the basis for the technology-based controls, the CWA authorizes EPA to establish national technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for discharges from different categories of point sources, such as industrial, commercial, and public sources, that discharge directly into waters of the U.S.

    Direct dischargers (those discharging directly to waters of the U.S.) must comply with effluent limitations in NPDES permits. Technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs) in NPDES permits for direct dischargers are derived from effluent limitations guidelines (CWA sections 301 and 304) and new source performance standards (CWA section 306) promulgated by EPA. Alternatively, TBELs may be established based on best professional judgment (BPJ) where EPA has not promulgated an applicable effluent guideline or new source performance standard (CWA section 402(a)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 125.3). The effluent guidelines and new source performance standards established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers are based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology, as specified in the Act. Additional limitations based on water quality standards are also required to be included in the permit where necessary to meet water quality standards. CWA section 301(b)(1)(C).

    EPA promulgates national effluent guidelines and new source performance standards for major industrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants (total suspended solids, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), fecal coliform, and pH), as outlined in CWA section 304(a)(4) and 40 CFR 401.16; (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., metals such as arsenic, mercury, selenium, and chromium; and organic pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and naphthalene), as outlined in section 307(a) of the Act, 40 CFR 401.15 and 40 CFR part 423, appendix A; and (3) nonconventional pollutants, which are those pollutants that are not categorized as conventional or toxic (e.g., ammonia-N, phosphorus, and TDS).

    Under section 307(b) of the CWA, there are general and specific prohibitions on the discharge to POTWs of pollutants in specified circumstances in order to prevent “pass through” or “interference.” Pass through occurs whenever the introduction of pollutants from a user will result in a discharge that causes or contributes to a violation of any requirement of the POTW permit. See 40 CFR 403.3(p). Interference means a discharge that, among other things, inhibits or disrupts the POTW or prevents biosolids use consistent with the POTW's chosen method of disposal. See 40 CFR 403.3(k). These general and specific prohibitions must be implemented through local limits established by POTWs in certain cases. See 40 CFR 403.5(c). POTWs with approved pretreatment programs must develop and enforce local limits to implement the general prohibitions on user discharges that pass through or interfere with the POTW and implement specific prohibitions in 40 CFR 403.5(b). In the case of POTWs that are not required to develop a pretreatment program, the POTWs must develop local limits where there is interference or pass through and the limits are necessary to ensure compliance with the POTW's NPDES permit or biosolids use.

    The CWA also authorizes EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges from facilities that discharge pollutants indirectly, by sending wastewater to POTWs, as outlined in sections 307(b) and (c) and 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c). Specifically, the CWA authorizes EPA to establish pretreatment standards for those pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers that EPA determines are not susceptible to treatment by a POTW or which would interfere with POTW operations. CWA sections 307(b) and (c). Under section 301(b)(1)(A) and 301(b)(2)(A) and the legislative history of the 1977 CWA amendments, pretreatment standards are technology-based and analogous to TBELs for direct dischargers for the removal of toxic pollutants. As explained in the statute and legislative history, the combination of pretreatment and treatment by the POTW is intended to achieve the level of treatment that would be required if the industrial source were making a direct discharge. Conf. Rep. No. 95-830, at 87 (1977), reprinted in U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works (1978), A Legislative History of the CWA of 1977, Serial No. 95-14 at 271 (1978). As such, in establishing pretreatment standards, EPA's consideration of pass through for national technology-based categorical pretreatment standards differs from that described above for general pretreatment standards. For categorical pretreatment standards, EPA's approach for pass through satisfies two competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers; and (2) that the treatment capability and performance of the POTWs be recognized and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers.

    B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Program

    EPA develops ELGs that are technology-based regulations for specific categories of dischargers. EPA bases these regulations on the performance of control and treatment technologies. The legislative history of CWA section 304(b), which is the heart of the effluent guidelines program, describes the need to press toward higher levels of control through research and development of new processes, modifications, replacement of obsolete plants and processes, and other improvements in technology, taking into account the cost of controls. Congress has also stated that EPA need not consider water quality impacts on individual water bodies as the guidelines are developed. See Statement of Senator Muskie (October 4, 1972), reprinted in U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Serial No. 93-1, at 170.

    There are four types of standards applicable to direct dischargers (facilities that discharge directly to waters of the U.S.), and two types of standards applicable to indirect dischargers (facilities that discharge to POTWs), described in detail later on. Subsections 1 through 4 describe standards for direct discharges and subsection 5 describes standards for indirect discharges.

    1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

    Traditionally, EPA defines BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, processes, or other common characteristics. BPT effluent limitations control conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age of equipment and facilities, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control technologies, any required process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). If, however, existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA can establish limitations based on higher levels of control than are currently in place in an industrial category, when based on an Agency determination that the technology is available in another category or subcategory and can be practically applied.

    2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

    For discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources, the CWA requires EPA to identify additional levels of effluent reduction that can be achieved with BCT. In addition to other factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two-part “cost reasonableness” test. In a July 9, 1986 Federal Register Notice, EPA published and explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in (51 FR 24974). Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: BOD5, total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501; 40 CFR part 401.16).

    3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

    BAT represents the second level of stringency for controlling direct discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants. In general, BAT-based effluent guidelines and new source performance standards represent the best available economically achievable performance of facilities in the industrial subcategory or category. Following the statutory language, EPA considers the technological availability and the economic achievability in determining what level of control represents BAT. CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). Other statutory factors that EPA considers in assessing BAT are the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

    4. Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT)/New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

    NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control technology (BADCT). Owners of new facilities have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application of the BADCT for all pollutants (that is, conventional, nonconventional, and toxic pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. CWA section 306(b)(1)(B).

    5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

    As discussed previously, section 307(b) of the Act authorizes EPA to issue pretreatment standards for discharges of pollutants from existing sources to POTWs. Section 307(c) of the Act authorizes EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). Both standards are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. Categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources are technology-based and are analogous to BPT and BAT effluent limitations guidelines, and thus the Agency typically considers the same factors in promulgating PSES for toxic and non-conventional pollutants as it considers in promulgating BAT. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir. 1986). Similarly, in establishing pretreatment standards for new sources, the Agency typically considers the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS (BADCT).

    C. Subcategorization

    In developing ELGs, EPA can divide an industry category into groupings called “subcategories” to provide a method for addressing variations among products, processes, treatment costs, and other factors that affect the determination of the “best available” technology. See Texas Oil & Gas Ass'n. v. US EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 939-40 (5th Cir.1998). Regulation of a category by subcategories provides that each subcategory has a uniform set of effluent limitations or pretreatment standards that take into account technological achievability, economic impacts, and non-water quality environmental impacts unique to that subcategory. In some cases, effluent limitations or pretreatment standards within a subcategory can be different based on consideration of these same factors, which are identified in CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). The CWA requires EPA, in developing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards, to consider a number of different factors, which are also relevant for subcategorization. The CWA also authorizes EPA to take into account other factors that the Administrator deems appropriate. CWA section 304(b).

    D. Oil and Gas Extraction Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking History

    The Oil and Gas Extraction industry is subcategorized in 40 CFR part 435 as follows: (1) Subpart A: Offshore; (2) subpart C: Onshore; (3) subpart D: Coastal; (4) subpart E: Agricultural and Wildlife Water Use; and (5) subpart F: Stripper. EPA promulgated the first Oil and Gas Extraction ELGs (40 CFR part 435) in 1979 establishing BPT-based limitations for the Offshore, Onshore, Coastal, and Agricultural and Wildlife Use subcategories. EPA established BAT- and NSPS-based limits for certain subcategories in 1993 (Offshore), 1996 (Coastal), and 2001 (Synthetic-based drilling fluids). EPA also established pretreatment standards for one subcategory (Coastal) in 1996.

    The previously established subpart C (Onshore) regulation covers wastewater discharges from field exploration, drilling, production, well treatment, and well completion activities in the onshore oil and gas industry. Although UOG resources occur in offshore and coastal regions, recent development of UOG resources in the U.S. has occurred primarily in onshore regions, to which the regulations in subpart C (Onshore) and subpart E (Agricultural and Wildlife Water Use) apply. Accordingly, this rule addresses the gap in onshore regulations, and only the regulations that apply to onshore oil and gas extraction are described in more detail here.

    1. Subpart C: Onshore

    Subpart C applies to facilities engaged in the production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, and well treatment in the oil and gas extraction industry which are located landward of the inner boundary of the territorial seas—and which are not included in the definition of other subparts—including subpart D (Coastal). The regulations at 40 CFR 435.32 specify the following for BPT: There shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants into navigable waters from any source associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment (i.e., produced water, drilling muds, drill cuttings, and produced sand).

    2. Subpart E: Agricultural and Wildlife Use

    Subpart E applies to onshore facilities located in the continental U.S. and west of the 98th meridian for which the produced water has a use in agriculture or wildlife propagation when discharged into navigable waters. Definitions in 40 CFR 435.51(c) explain that the term “use in agricultural or wildlife propagation” means that (1) the produced water is of good enough quality to be used for wildlife or livestock watering or other agricultural uses; and (2) the produced water is actually put to such use during periods of discharge. The regulations at 40 CFR 435.52 specify that the only allowable discharge is produced water, with an oil and grease concentration not exceeding 35 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The BPT regulations prohibit the discharge of waste pollutants into navigable waters from any source (other than produced water) associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment (i.e., drilling muds, drill cuttings, produced sands).

    E. State Pretreatment Requirements That Apply to UOG Extraction Wastewater

    In addition to applicable federal requirements, some states regulate the management, storage, and disposal of UOG extraction wastewater, including regulations concerning pollutant discharges to POTWs from oil and gas extraction facilities. In addition to pretreatment requirements, some states have indirectly addressed the issue of pollutant discharges to POTWs by limiting the management and disposal options available for operators to use.

    During initial development of Marcellus shale gas resources, some operators managed UOG wastewater by transfer to POTWs. EPA did not identify other areas in the U.S. where POTWs routinely accepted UOG extraction wastewaters. Chapter A of the TDD summarizes how Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia responded to UOG extraction wastewater discharges to their POTWs. EPA did not identify any states that require zero discharge of pollutants from UOG operations to POTWs in the same manner as this final rule.

    F. Related Federal Requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act

    As required by SDWA section 1421, EPA has promulgated regulations to protect underground sources of drinking water through Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs that regulate the injection of fluids underground. These regulations are found at 40 CFR parts 144-148, and specifically prohibit any underground injection not authorized by UIC permit. 40 CFR 144.11. The regulations classify underground injection into six classes; wells that inject fluids brought to the surface in connection with oil and gas production are classified as Class II UIC wells. Thus, onshore oil and gas extraction facilities that seek to meet the zero discharge requirements of the existing ELGs or final pretreatment standard through underground injection of wastewater must obtain a Class II UIC permit for such disposal or take the wastewater to an appropriately permitted injection facility.

    V. Industry Profile

    EPA gathered information on the industry via the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is a standard created by the U.S. Census for use in classifying business establishments within the U.S. economy. The industry category affected by this final rule is the Oil and Gas Extraction industry (NAICS code 21111). The industry has two segments: Crude Petroleum and Gas Extraction (NAICS 211111) which is made up of facilities that have wells that produce petroleum or natural gas or produce crude petroleum from surface shale or tar sands; and Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 211112), which is made up of facilities that recover liquid hydrocarbons from oil and gas field gases and sulfur from natural gas. According to data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB), in 2012 there were 6,646 firms in the overall Oil and Gas Extraction (OGE) industry. Of those firms, 98.5% were considered small business based on the Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria definition of a small firm in this industry as having 500 or fewer employees. In 2012, Oil and Gas Extraction sector firms employed, on average, 19 employees and had an estimated average $53 million in revenue per firm.

    EPA reviewed financial performance of oil and gas firms from 2006 to 2014. Generally, over the analysis period, all segments of the oil and gas industry showed a similar profile of revenue growth; however, reviews of financial performance and condition metrics indicate a recent deterioration in financial performance and condition for OGE firms since mid-2014 due to the fall in crude oil and natural gas prices. The prediction of slow price recovery indicates that the financial condition of OGE firms in general may not recover in the short term, though the crude oil and natural gas prices are forecast to increase through 2040 (DCN SGE01192). While many factors will affect further UOG development, and forecasts inevitably involve considerable uncertainty, production is expected to continue to increase. EIA forecasts that by 2040, shale gas will account for 55 percent of U.S. natural gas production, with tight gas as the second leading source at 22 percent, and shale/tight oil 2 will account for 45 percent of total U.S. oil production (DCN SGE01192). See the industry profile (DCN SGE01277) for more information.

    2 EIA reported this data as “tight oil” production but stated that it includes production from both shale oil formations (e.g., Bakken, Eagle Ford) and tight oil formations (e.g., Austin Chalk).

    VI. Final Rule A. Scope/Applicability

    Consistent with the proposal, the scope of this final rule is specific to pretreatment standards for onshore oil and gas extraction facilities (subpart C). EPA did not propose to reopen the regulatory requirements applicable to any other subpart or the requirements for direct dischargers in subpart C. Rather, the scope of the final rule amends subpart C only to add requirements for indirect dischargers where there currently are none. Further, also consistent with the proposal, the final rule establishes requirements for wastewater discharges from UOG extraction facilities to POTWs. It does not establish requirements for wastewater discharges from conventional oil and gas extraction (COG) facilities. EPA reserves consideration of any such standards for a future rulemaking, if appropriate.

    The final rule defines unconventional oil and gas resources as “crude oil and natural gas produced by a well drilled into a shale and/or tight formation (including, but not limited to, shale gas, shale oil, tight gas, and tight oil).” This definition is generally consistent with other readily available sources. For additional information, see Chapter B of the TDD.

    As a point of clarification, although coalbed methane would fit this definition, the final pretreatment standards do not apply to pollutants in wastewater discharges associated with coalbed methane extraction to POTWs. EPA notes that the requirements in the existing effluent guidelines for direct dischargers also do not apply to coalbed methane extraction, as this industry did not exist at the time that the effluent guidelines were developed and was not considered by the Agency in establishing the effluent guidelines (DCN SGE00761). To reflect the fact that neither the final pretreatment standards nor the existing effluent guideline requirements apply to coalbed methane extraction, EPA expressly reserved a separate unregulated subcategory for coalbed methane in this final rule. For information on coalbed methane, see https://www.epa.gov/eg/coalbed-methane-extraction-industry.

    B. Option Selection

    EPA analyzed three regulatory options at proposal, the details of which were discussed fully in the document published on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18557). In general, these three options ranged from requiring zero discharge of pollutants to POTWs, establishing non-zero pretreatment standards, or establishing no national pretreatment standards. Depending on the interests represented, public commenters supported virtually all of the regulatory options that EPA proposed—from the least stringent to the most stringent. Thus, in developing this final rule, EPA again considered the same three regulatory options.

    1. PSES

    After considering all of the relevant factors and technology options discussed in this preamble and in the TDD, as well as public comments, EPA decided to establish PSES based on current industry practice: Disposal in UIC wells, wastewater reuse/recycling to fracture 3 another well, or management by centralized waste treatment (CWT) facilities—none of which involve sending wastewater to POTWs. Thus, for PSES, the final rule establishes a zero discharge standard on all pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater.

    3 In some cases, industry has also re-used/recycled the water to drill another well that is not fractured.

    Generally, EPA designs pretreatment standards to meet Congress' objective to ensure that wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of pollutant removals prior to discharge to waters of the U.S. See Chemical Manufacturers Assn. v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 245 (5th Cir. 1989). This means that, typically, the requirements for indirect dischargers are analogous to those for direct dischargers. As explained in Section IV.C., the existing BPT-based requirement for direct dischargers in the Onshore Subcategory is zero discharge of wastewater pollutants into waters of the U.S. from any source associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment.

    As explained in Section XII.E of the proposal (80 FR 18570, April 7, 2015), EPA evaluated the practices currently used to manage UOG extraction wastewaters. Based on the information reviewed as part of this final rulemaking, EPA concludes that current industry practice is to not discharge pollutants from onshore UOG extraction to POTWs.4 Rather, the vast majority of this wastewater is managed by disposal in underground injection wells and/or re-use in fracturing another well. A small, but in some geographic areas increasing, portion of the industry also transfers its wastewater to CWT facilities.5

    4 EPA solicited additional data and information on current industry practice as well as its preliminary finding that no UOG facilities currently discharge to POTWs in the proposal. EPA did not receive data since proposal to contradict this finding.

    5 Existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards at 40 CFR part 437 apply to CWT facilities. The CWT industry handles wastewater and industrial process by-products from off-site. CWT facilities may receive a wide variety of hazardous and non-hazardous industrial wastes for treatment.

    The technology basis for the promulgated PSES is disposal in UIC wells, wastewater reuse/recycling to fracture another well, or management by CWT facilities. Because all existing UOG extraction facilities currently employ alternative wastewater management practices other than transfer to a POTW, the technology basis for meeting a zero discharge requirement is widely available. While EPA bases pretreatment standards and associated discharge limits on a technology basis, the agency does not require facilities to employ any specific technology; rather, facilities may comply with alternative technologies as long as they meet the prescribed limits.

    Some commenters asserted that UIC wells may not be available in the future in all geographic locations, but provided no data to support their assertion. EPA does not have any data to demonstrate that UIC capacity nationwide will be expended and that this current management option will not be available in the future (See Chapter D of the TDD). Further, data suggest that, where UIC wells are currently available, this availability will likely continue in the future (see Chapter D of the TDD). Moreover, the technology basis for the final pretreatment standards is not limited to UIC disposal. EPA identified two other approaches that also meet the zero discharge requirement: Reuse/recycle of the wastewater for re-fracturing other wells, or transfer of the wastewater to a CWT facility. In recent years, industry has greatly expanded its knowledge about the ability to reuse/recycle UOG flowback and long-term produced water (the major contributors to UOG extraction wastewater by volume) in fracturing another well. Consequently, as the UOG industry continues to grow and new wells are being fractured, the need for UIC capacity for UOG extraction wastewater may decrease, even in geographic locations with an abundance of UIC capacity, due to the increased availability of reuse/recycle. In addition, EPA's record demonstrates that in areas of the country where UIC wells and/or opportunities for reuse in fracturing another well are limited, UOG extraction facilities transfer their wastewater to a CWT facility (see Chapter D of the TDD). Some commenters assert that the option to transfer UOG wastewater to CWT facilities may be limited in the future because EPA may revise ELGs for this industry. While EPA is conducting a study of CWT facilities that accept oil and gas wastewater to determine if revision to the CWT regulations may be appropriate, EPA is not evaluating any approaches that would directly restrict their availability to accept such wastewaters.

    While the technology basis is best performing in that it achieves zero discharge of pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater to POTWs, the requirement reflects current industry practice and EPA therefore estimates that there will be no incremental pollutant reductions. Accordingly, because industry is already meeting this requirement, no facilities will incur incremental costs for compliance with the promulgated PSES and, therefore, the promulgated PSES is economically achievable. For the same reasons, the final PSES will result in no incremental non-water quality environmental impacts. Finally, because the final rule represents current industry practice, EPA requires that the PSES based on zero discharge of wastewater pollutants to POTWs be effective as of the effective date of this rule, 60 days after publication of this rule in the Federal Register.

    EPA did not establish PSES based on Option 2, under which EPA would establish non-zero numerical pretreatment standards for discharges of wastewater pollutants from UOG extraction facilities. Such an option could be similar to the one adopted in Pennsylvania in 2010 that requires pretreatment of oil and gas wastewaters before discharge to a POTW to meet a maximum TDS concentration of 500 mg/L as well as specific numerical concentrations for other pollutants (see Chapter A of the TDD). Some commenters suggested this approach would provide an “escape-valve” for the future in the event that UIC disposal well capacity is exhausted. Others have suggested this would allow the water to be available for re-use (other than in fracturing another well) if technologies become available to pre-treat it to remove dissolved pollutants in a cost effective manner.

    Although EPA identified technologies 6 that currently exist to treat dissolved pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater that could be used to set a non-zero numeric discharge limit, EPA did not select this option for the following reasons. First, the existing requirements for direct discharges of UOG extraction wastewater in the Onshore Subcategory require zero discharge of pollutants. As explained previously, EPA generally establishes requirements for direct and indirect discharges so that the wastewater receives comparable levels of pollutant removals prior to discharge to waters of the U.S.

    6 See DCN SGE01186.

    Second, as detailed previously, UOG facilities in this subcategory are currently meeting the zero discharge requirement. Thus, any option that would allow for a discharge of UOG pollutants above the current zero discharge level would be less stringent than the current industry practice and thus would potentially increase the discharge of such pollutants to POTWs. EPA reasonably concluded that—as compared to a less stringent non-zero technology basis in Option 2—a standard based on available zero discharge options reflects the “best” available technology within the meaning of Section 304(b) of the Clean Water Act. Moreover, unlike Option 2, a zero discharge technology option is consistent with the CWA goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters (CWA sections 101(a)(1); 301(b)(2)(A) and 306(a)(1)).

    Third, EPA disagrees with the commenters' suggestion that an option allowing for the discharge to POTWs is necessary as an “escape valve” in case of limited future availability of UIC disposal options. As explained previously, UIC disposal capacity is currently widely available, and EPA does not have data to suggest that this capacity will be limited in the future. Moreover, approaches to achieve zero discharge are not limited to UIC wells, and EPA has no data to suggest that other zero discharge options, such as reuse/recycle of wastewater for re-fracturing or sending wastewater to CWT facilities, will be limited in the future. Without any such data, there is no basis for EPA to conclude that an “escape valve” allowing for discharge to POTWs is needed to address concerns about limited future availability of zero discharge technology options.

    Fourth, although EPA identified technologies that currently exist to treat dissolved pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater, these TDS-removal technologies are also likely more costly, as demonstrated by information in the record on estimated costs of managing wastewater under various approaches, relative to the suite of technologies that form the zero discharge technology basis for the final rule. See DCN SGE01186, SGE00139, SGE00070, SGE00350, SGE00279, SGE01064, SGE00283, SGE00300, SGE00625, SGE00635, SGE00280, SGE00245, SGE00279, SGE00276, SGE00275.

    With respect to the comments suggesting that EPA establish a non-zero numerical treatment standard in order to allow for (non-fracturing) reuse/recycle of the wastewater, data collected for this rulemaking demonstrate that the current technologies are capable of reducing TDS (and other dissolved pollutants) well below 500 mg/L (see DCN SGE01186). To the extent that these technologies or others are developed in the future to reduce pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater to enable them to be reused/recycled for purposes other than fracturing another well, these pre-treated wastewaters can be used directly for the other applications rather than going to a POTW.

    In addition to the PSES option of zero discharge of wastewater pollutants, EPA also considered a “no rule” option, based on the discussion previously that no UOG facilities are currently transferring wastewater to POTWs, and given available alternative management options such as disposal in UIC wells and reuse/recycling.

    EPA did not select a “no rule” option for several reasons. First, there is no national regulation that prevents or requires pretreatment of such discharges—and, as mentioned previously, EPA is not aware of any POTWs that are designed to treat dissolved pollutants common in UOG extraction wastewater. Thus, as explained previously, some pollutants of concern in UOG extraction wastewater will not be physically, chemically, or biologically reduced by the treatment processes typically used at POTWs, and these pollutants, if sent to POTWs, are expected to be discharged from the POTW into receiving waters. In addition, these pollutants can cause operational problems for the POTW's biological treatment processes and alter the POTW's ability to adequately remove BOD, TSS, and other pollutants for which it is regulated. For some UOG pollutants, such as radionuclides, the data indicate POTWs will remove some portion while discharging the remainder (DCN SGE01028; DCN SGE01185). In these cases, some portion of the radionuclides will partition to the POTW biosolids, which can cause the POTW to incur increased costs to change its selected method of biosolids management (DCN SGE00615). See Chapter D of the TDD. This means that, absent a pretreatment standard, constituents of such wastewater could be discharged to receiving waters or interfere with POTW operations when other available options such as reuse/recycle and proper disposal in a Class II UIC well better protect water quality and aquatic communities and help further the zero discharge goal of the CWA. CWA section 101(a)(1).

    Second, as detailed in the TDD, few states have regulations or policies that prevent discharges of pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater to POTWs or that mandate pre-treatment prior to discharge to a POTW. In the absence of such regulations or policies, resource-constrained control authorities and/or POTWs that receive requests to accept UOG extraction wastewater would be in the position of having to evaluate whether to accept transfers of wastewater on a case-by-case basis. It is beneficial to the states as a practical matter to establish federal regulations that mandate this existing practice, in order to avoid the burden for each state to potentially repeat the effort of promulgating state-level regulations. EPA has discussed this rule with several states that have indicated that a federal pretreatment standard would reduce their administrative burden (DCN SGE00762; DCN SGE00743).

    Third, EPA also considered the future burden that continued lack of pretreatment standards can impose on POTWs. The UOG extraction industry is predicted to continue to grow in the future, resulting in the installation, fracturing, and possible re-fracturing of hundreds of thousands of wells. Well operators will continue to generate UOG extraction wastewater and could request that local POTWs accept their wastewater for discharge. In the absence of federal pretreatment standards, POTWs can legally accept UOG extraction wastewater to the extent that such wastewater transfers are in compliance with state and local requirements and that resulting discharges comply with their permits. Evaluating each potential customer (industrial user) and developing a determination for each new UOG extraction wastewater source on a case-by-case basis could be burdensome for POTWs. In addition, where a POTW determines it can accept this wastewater, complying with applicable reporting requirements could be a significant burden to some POTWs. EPA concluded that a national-level determination that UOG extraction wastewater contains pollutant concentrations that could pass through POTWs, and establishment of categorical pretreatment standards, will avoid burdening individual pretreatment Control Authorities (e.g. POTWs) with evaluating each individual request. While EPA does not have the information to quantify the reductions in administrative burden that will likely result from the final rule, states generally support EPA's position that such reductions will be realized (DCN SGE00762; DCN SGE00743).

    Fourth, history demonstrates that, absent controls preventing the transfer of or requiring pretreatment of such wastewater, POTWs could and did accept it. This occurred in Pennsylvania (see Chapter A and Chapter D of the TDD), where POTWs were used to manage UOG extraction wastewater until the state took action. This action included promulgating new regulations requiring pretreatment. Among the drivers behind these actions taken by Pennsylvania was that some waters were impaired by TDS. (DCN SGE00187). To avoid future scenarios where POTWs receive UOG extraction wastewater, it is reasonable to codify the zero discharge practice already adopted by the industry that EPA has found to be “best” in terms of pollutant removals, as well as both technologically available and economically achievable.

    2. PSNS

    After considering all of the relevant factors and technology options discussed in this preamble and in the TDD, as well as public comments, as is the case with PSES, EPA decided to establish PSNS based on the technologies described in Option 1. For PSNS, the final rule establishes a zero discharge standard on all pollutants in UOG wastewater.

    As previously noted, under section 307(c) of the CWA, new sources of pollutants into POTWs must comply with standards that reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through application of the best available demonstrated control technologies. Congress envisioned that new treatment systems could meet tighter controls than existing sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most efficient processes and treatment systems into the facility design. The technologies used to control pollutants at existing sources, disposal in UIC wells, wastewater reuse/recycling to fracture another well, and/or management at CWT facilities—are fully available to new sources for the same reasons specified earlier for existing sources. They achieve the greatest degree of effluent reduction available: zero discharge of pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater. Furthermore, EPA has not identified any technologies that are demonstrated to be available for new sources that are different from those identified for existing sources.

    EPA determined that the final PSNS present no barrier to entry into the market for new sources. EPA has no data in the record indicating that new sources would manage their wastewater any differently than existing sources or that the management options that are available for existing sources would not be available for new sources. Indeed, EPA's record demonstrates that as new UOG facilities have come into existence, they are relying on the same current industry best practices as existing facilities, using zero discharge technology options to avoid sending wastewater to POTWs. See TDD Table D-1 and DCN SGE01179.A03. Accordingly, EPA found that there are no overall incremental impacts from the final standards on new sources, as is the case for existing sources, since the incremental costs faced by new sources generally will be the same as those faced by existing sources. EPA projects no incremental non-water quality environmental impacts. Therefore, EPA established PSNS that are the same as the final PSES for this final rule.

    EPA rejected other options for PSNS for the same reasons that the Agency rejected other options for PSES. And, as with the final PSES, EPA determined that the final PSNS prevent pass through of pollutants from POTWs into receiving streams and also help control contamination of POTW sludge.

    3. Pollutants Selected for Regulation Pass-Through Analysis

    EPA identifies all pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater as pollutants of concern and similarly determined all pollutants pass through. As a result, all pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater are directly regulated by the final pretreatment standards.

    CWA section 301(b) directs EPA to eliminate the discharge of all pollutants where it is technologically available and economically achievable to do so (after a consideration of the factors specified in section 304(b) of the Act). The first step in such an analysis is typically to identify Pollutants of Concern (POCs)—or the pollutants to be potentially regulated by the effluent guideline. For some industries and wastestreams, not every pollutant in the wastestream may be a pollutant of concern. For example, not every pollutant may be present in an amount or frequency that EPA can demonstrate, using available data, is treatable by the candidate technology. Where this is the case, EPA may choose to establish numerical limitations for only a subset of the pollutants present in the wastestream. For other industries and wastestreams, the candidate technology may be capable of controlling all pollutants present in the wastestream regardless of amount or frequency. Where this is the case, EPA considers all pollutants in the wastestream to be POCs. This is the case in this final rule because, as described previously, the technology bases for the rule: underground injection of UOG extraction wastewater, recycling and reuse of that wastewater, or management by CWT facilities; results in zero discharge of all pollutants from UOG facilities to POTWs. Therefore, under this rule, all pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater are POCs. Chapter C of the TDD provides a summary of available characterization data for UOG extraction wastewaters.

    In addition, before establishing PSES/PSNS for a pollutant, EPA examines whether the pollutant “passes through” a POTW to waters of the U.S. or interferes with the POTW operation or sludge disposal practices. In determining whether a pollutant passes through POTWs for these purposes,7 where EPA establishes non-zero pretreatment standards, EPA generally compares the percentage of a pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs performing secondary treatment to the percentage removed by the BAT/NSPS technology basis. A pollutant is determined to pass through POTWs when the median percentage removed nationwide by well-operated POTWs is less than the median percentage removed by the BAT/NSPS technology basis. Pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants regulated under BAT/NSPS that pass through POTWs. In this way, EPA is able to ensure that the standards for indirect dischargers are equivalent to direct dischargers and that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs is recognized and taken into account in regulating the pollutants from indirect dischargers.

    7 As explained in Section IV, the definition of pass through for general pretreatment standards appropriately differs from the definition in establishing national categorical pretreatment standards as they serve different objectives.

    For those wastestreams regulated with a zero discharge limitation or standard, EPA typically sets the percentage removed by the technology basis at 100 percent for all pollutants. Because a POTW would not be able to achieve 100 percent removal of wastewater pollutants, the percent removal at a POTW would be less than that of the candidate zero-discharge technology. For this final rule, using this approach, EPA determined that all pollutants pass through and that it is appropriate to set PSES/PSNS for all pollutants to prevent pass through.

    VII. Environmental Impacts

    UOG production generates significant volumes of wastewater that need to be managed. As described in Section XII.C.2 of the proposed rule (80 FR 18569, April 7, 2015), unconventional wells can produce flowback volumes ranging between 210,000 and 2,100,000 gallons during the initial flowback process.8 During the production phase, wells typically produce smaller volumes of water (median flow rates range from 200-800 gallons per day) and continue producing wastewater throughout the life of the well (see TDD Chapter C.2).

    8 As explained in Chapter B of the TDD the length of the flowback process is variable. Literature generally reports it as 30 days or less (DCN SGE00532).

    In general, evidence of environmental impacts to surface waters from discharges of UOG extraction wastewater is sparsely documented—as direct discharges from onshore oil and gas extraction have been prohibited under the existing regulations since 1979; and based on current industry best practice, there have been few indirect discharges of such wastewater to POTWs. Some of the environmental impacts documented to date, such as increased DBP formation in downstream drinking water treatment plants, resulted from wastewater pollutants that passed untreated through POTWs in Pennsylvania (see Chapter D of the TDD).

    A. Pollutants

    As described in Section XII.D of the proposed rule (80 FR 18569, April 7, 2015), high concentrations of TDS are common in UOG extraction wastewater. Inorganic constituents leaching from geologic formations, such as sodium, potassium, bromide, calcium, fluoride, nitrate, phosphate, chloride, sulfate, and magnesium, represent most of the TDS in UOG extraction wastewater. Produced water can also include barium, radium, and strontium. Based on available data, TDS cations (positively charged ions) in UOG extraction wastewater are generally dominated by sodium and calcium, and the anions (negatively charged ions) are dominated by chloride (DCN SGE00284; See also Chapter C of the TDD). TDS concentrations vary among the UOG formations and can exceed 350,000 mg/L. For comparison, sea water contains approximately 35,000 mg/L TDS.

    B. Impacts From the Discharge of Pollutants Found in UOG Extraction Wastewater

    As explained in Chapter D of the TDD, POTWs are typically designed to treat organic waste, total suspended solids, and constituents responsible for biochemical oxygen demand, not to treat TDS. When transfers of UOG extraction wastewater to POTWs were occurring in Pennsylvania, these POTWs, lacking adequate TDS removal processes, diluted UOG extraction wastewaters with other sewage flows and discharged TDS-laden effluent into local streams and rivers. POTWs not sufficiently treating TDS in UOG extraction wastewater were a suspected source of elevated TDS levels in the Monongahela River in 2009 (DCN SGE00525). Also see Chapter D of the TDD for additional examples.

    In addition to UOG wastewater pollutants passing through POTWs, other industrial discharges of inadequately treated UOG extraction wastewater have also been associated with in-stream impacts. One study of discharges from a CWT facility in western Pennsylvania that treats UOG extraction wastewater examined the water quality and isotopic compositions of discharged effluents, surface waters, and stream sediments (DCN SGE00629).9 The facility's treatment process includes settling, precipitation, and fine screening, but does not remove TDS (DCN SGE00525). The study found that the discharge of the effluent from the CWT facility increased downstream concentrations of chloride and bromide above background levels. The chloride concentrations 1.7 kilometers downstream of the treatment facility were two to ten times higher than chloride concentrations found in similar reference streams in western Pennsylvania. Radium 226 levels in stream sediments at the point of discharge were approximately 200 times greater than upstream and background sediments.

    9 Discharges from CWT facilities are subject to ELGs in 40 CFR part 437. However, the effect of discharges of treated oil and gas wastewaters from CWT facilities that lack treatment for TDS is similarly representative of POTWs.

    C. Impact on Surface Water Designated Uses

    UOG extraction wastewater TDS concentrations are typically high enough, that if discharged untreated to surface water, affect adversely a number of designated uses of the surface water, including drinking water source, aquatic life support, livestock watering, irrigation, and industrial use.

    1. Drinking Water Uses

    Available data indicate that the concentration of TDS in UOG extraction wastewaters can often significantly exceed recommended drinking water concentrations. Because TDS concentrations in drinking water source waters are typically well below the recommended levels for drinking, few drinking water treatment facilities have technologies to remove TDS. Two published standards for TDS in drinking water include the U.S. Public Health Service recommendation and EPA's secondary maximum contaminant level recommendation that TDS in drinking water should not exceed 500 mg/L. High concentrations of TDS in drinking water primarily degrade its taste rather than pose a human health risk. Taste surveys found that water with less than 300 mg/L TDS is considered excellent, and water with TDS above 1,100 mg/L is unacceptable (DCN SGE00939). The World Health Organization dropped its health-based recommendations for TDS in 1993, instead retaining 1,000 mg/L as a secondary standard for taste (DCN SGE00947).

    Bromide in UOG wastewater discharges can adversely affect surface waters used as drinking water supplies. Recent studies of industrial discharges that contain bromide upstream of drinking water utilities' intakes demonstrate that with bromides present in drinking water source waters at increased levels, carcinogenic disinfection by-products (brominated DBPs, in particular trihalomethanes (THMs)) can form at the drinking water utility (DCN SGE01329). DBPs have been shown to have both adverse human health and ecological affects. Studies also demonstrate that bromide in UOG wastewaters treated at POTWs can lead to the formation of DBPs within the POTW. EPA reviewed a study of a POTW accepting UOG wastewater that unintentionally created DBPs due to insufficient removal of bromide and other UOG wastewater constituents (DCN SGE00535; DCN SGE00587). The study found that UOG extraction wastewaters contain various inorganic and organic DBP precursors that can react with disinfectants used by POTWs to promote the formation of DBPs, or alter speciation of DBPs, particularly brominated-DBPs, which are suspected to be among the more toxic DBPs (DCN SGE00535; DCN SGE00985). See Chapter D of the TDD for further discussion of DBP formation associated with UOG extraction wastewaters.

    2. Aquatic Life Support Uses

    TDS and its accompanying salinity play a primary role in the distribution and abundance of aquatic animal and plant communities. High levels of TDS can impact aquatic biota through increases in salinity, loss of osmotic balance in tissues, and toxicity of individual ions. Increases in salinity have been shown to cause shifts in biotic communities, limit biodiversity, exclude less-tolerant species and cause acute or chronic effects at specific life stages (DCN SGE00946). A detailed study of plant communities associated with irrigation drains reported substantial changes in marsh communities, in part because of an increase in dissolved solids (DCN SGE00941). Observations over time indicate a shift in plant community coinciding with increases in dissolved solids from estimated historic levels of 270 to 1170 mg/L, as species that are less salt tolerant such as coontail (Ceratophyllus demersum) and cattail (Typha sp.) were nearly eliminated. A related study found that lakes with higher salinity exhibit lower aquatic biodiversity, with species distribution also affected by ion composition (DCN SGE00940).

    Aquatic toxicity is dependent on the ionic composition of the mixture. Salts, specifically sodium and chloride, are the majority (i.e., much greater than 50 percent) of TDS in UOG produced water (DCN SGE00284). Typical chloride concentrations in UOG wastewater have been measured at concentrations up to 130,000 mg/L (see TDD Table C11). Macroinvertebrates, such as fresh water shrimp and aquatic insects that are a primary prey of many fish species, have open circulatory systems that are especially sensitive to pollutants like chloride. Based on laboratory toxicity data from EPA's 1988 chloride criteria document and more recent non-EPA studies, chloride acute effect concentrations for invertebrates ranged from 953 mg/L to 13,691 mg/L. Chloride chronic effect concentrations for invertebrates ranged from 489 mg/L to 556 mg/L. In addition to the laboratory data, EPA also reviewed data from a 2009 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection violation report documenting a fish kill attributed to a spill of diluted produced water in Hopewell Township, PA. The concentration of TDS at the location of the fish kill was as high as 7,000 mg/L. While not related to UOG extraction wastewater, negative impacts of high TDS, including fish kills, were documented during 2009 at Dunkard Creek located in Monongalia County, Pennsylvania. (DCN SGE00001 and DCN SGE00001.A01)

    3. Livestock Watering Uses

    POTW discharges to surface waters containing high concentrations of TDS can impact downstream uses for livestock watering. High TDS concentrations in water sources for livestock watering can adversely affect animal health by disrupting cellular osmotic and metabolic processes (DCN SGE01053). Domestic livestock, such as cattle, sheep, goats, horses, and pigs have varying degrees of sensitivity to TDS in drinking water.

    4. Irrigation Uses

    If UOG extraction wastewater discharges to POTWs increase TDS concentrations in receiving streams, downstream irrigation uses of that surface water can be negatively affected. Elevated TDS levels can limit the usefulness of water for irrigation. Excessive salts affect crop yield in the short term, and the soil structure in the long term. Primary direct impacts of high salinity water on plant crops include physiological drought, increased osmotic potential of soil, specific ion toxicity, leaf burn, and nutrient uptake interferences (DCN SGE00938). In general, for various classes of crops the salinity tolerance decreases in the following order: forage crops, field crops, vegetables, fruits.

    In addition to short-term impacts to crop plants, irrigating with high TDS water can result in gradual accumulation of salts or sodium in soil layers and eventual decrease in soil productivity. The susceptibility of soils to degradation is dependent on the soil type and structure. Sandy soils are less likely than finely textured soils to accumulate salts or sodium. Soils with a high water table or poor drainage are more susceptible to salt or sodium accumulation. The most common method of estimating the suitability of a soil for crop production is through calculation of its sodicity as estimated by the soil's sodium absorption ratio (SAR). The impact of irrigation water salinity on crop productivity is a function of both the SAR value and the electrical conductivity. The actual field-observed impacts are very site-specific depending on the soil and crop system (DCN SGE00938).

    5. Industrial Uses

    POTW discharges to surface waters are often upstream of industrial facilities that withdraw surface waters for various cooling and process uses. High concentration of TDS can adversely affect industrial applications requiring the use of water in cooling tower operations, boiler feed water, food processing, and electronics manufacturing. Concentrations of TDS above 500 mg/L result in excessive scaling in water pipes, water heaters, boilers and household appliances (DCN SGE00174). Depending on the industry, TDS in intake water can interfere with chemical processes within the plant. Some industries requiring ultrapure water, such as semi-conductor manufacturing facilities, are particularly sensitive to high TDS levels due to the treatment cost for the removal of TDS.

    VIII. Regulatory Implementation of the Standard

    The requirements in this rule apply to discharges from UOG facilities through local pretreatment programs under CWA section 307. Pretreatment standards promulgated under section 307(b) and (c) are self-implementing. See CWA section 307(d). The duty to comply with such standards is independent of any state or a municipal control authority permit or control mechanism containing the standards and associated reporting requirements.

    A. Implementation Deadline

    Because the requirements of the final rule are based on current practice, EPA determined that the PSES/PSNS standards apply on the effective date of the final rule, August 29, 2016.

    B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

    For discussion of upset and bypass provisions, see the proposed rule (80 FR 18569, April 7, 2015).

    C. Variances and Modifications

    For discussion of variances and modifications, see the proposed rule (80 FR 18569, April 7, 2015).

    IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This final rule codifies current industry practice and does not impose any additional reporting requirements.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule.

    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: A small business that is primarily engaged in Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction and Natural Gas Liquid Extraction by NAICS code 211111 and 211112 with fewer than 500 employees (based on Small Business Administration size standards). The small entities that are subject to the requirements of this final rule are small businesses that engage in UOG extraction as defined in Section V, of this preamble. No small businesses will experience a significant economic impact because the final rulemaking codifies current industry practice and does not impose any new requirement that is not already being met by the industry. I have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no incremental enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It does not alter the basic state-federal scheme established in the CWA under which EPA authorizes states to carry out the NPDES permit program. It will not have 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. Although this order does not apply to this action, as explained in Section VI, EPA coordinated closely with states through a workgroup, as well as outreach efforts to pretreatment coordinators and pretreatment authorities.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. The final rule contains no Federal mandates for tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA coordinated with tribal officials early in the process of developing this rule to enable them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA coordinated with federally recognized tribal governments in May and June of 2014, sharing information about the UOG pretreatment standards proposed rulemaking with the National Tribal Caucus and the National Tribal Water Council. EPA continued the outreach effort by collecting data about UOG operations on tribal reservations, UOG operators that are affiliated with Indian tribes, and POTWs owned or operated by tribes that can accept industrial wastewaters (see DCN SGE00785). Based on this information, there are no tribes operating UOG wells that discharge wastewater to POTWs nor are there any tribes that own or operate POTWs that accept industrial wastewater from UOG facilities; therefore, this final rule will not impose any costs on tribes.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action codifies current industry practice; therefore there is no change in environmental health or safety risks.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The final rule will neither increase nor decrease environmental protection (as described in Section VI) as it codifies current industry practice; therefore, EPA determined that the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. EPA requested comment on this E.O. in the proposal (80 FR 18579; April 7, 2015) and received no comments.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 435

    Environmental protection, Pretreatment, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Unconventional oil and gas extraction.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 435 is amended as follows:

    PART 435—OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION POINT SOURCE CATEGORY 1. The authority citation for part 435 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361.

    Subpart C—Onshore Subcategory 2. Add § 435.33 to subpart C to read as follows:
    § 435.33 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    (a) PSES for wastewater from unconventional oil and gas extraction. Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this section, must achieve the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    (1) There shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment for unconventional oil and gas extraction (including, but not limited to, drilling muds, drill cuttings, produced sand, produced water) into publicly owned treatment works.

    (2) For the purposes of this section,

    (i) Unconventional oil and gas means crude oil and natural gas produced by a well drilled into a shale and/or tight formation (including, but not limited to, shale gas, shale oil, tight gas, tight oil).

    (ii) Drill cuttings means the particles generated by drilling into subsurface geologic formations and carried out from the wellbore with the drilling fluid.

    (iii) Drilling mud means the circulating fluid (mud) used in the rotary drilling of wells to clean and condition the hole and to counterbalance formation pressure.

    (iv) Produced sand means the slurried particles used in hydraulic fracturing, the accumulated formation sands, and scales particles generated during production. Produced sand also includes desander discharge from the produced water waste stream, and blowdown of the water phase from the produced water treating system.

    (v) Produced water means the fluid brought up from the hydrocarbon-bearing strata during the extraction of oil and gas, and includes, where present, formation water, injection water, and any chemicals added downhole or during the oil/water separation process.

    (b) PSES for Wastewater from Conventional Oil and Gas Extraction. [Reserved]

    3. Add § 435.34 to subpart C to read as follows:
    § 435.34 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    (a) PSNS for wastewater from unconventional oil and gas extraction. Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any new source with discharges subject to this section must achieve the following pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    (1) There shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion, or well treatment for unconventional oil and gas extraction (including, but not limited to, drilling muds, drill cuttings, produced sand, produced water) into publicly owned treatment works.

    (2) For the purposes of this section, the definitions of unconventional oil and gas, drill cuttings, drilling muds, produced sand, and produced water are as specified in § 435.33(b)(2)(i) through (v).

    (b) PSNS for Wastewater from Conventional Oil and Gas Extraction. [Reserved]

    4. Add subpart H to read as follows: Subpart H—Coalbed Methane Subcategory [Reserved]
    [FR Doc. 2016-14901 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary of the Interior 43 CFR Part 10 [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20860; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] RIN 1024-AE28 Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule adjusts the level of civil monetary penalties contained in U.S. Department of the Interior regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act with an initial “catch-up” adjustment under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget guidance.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 28, 2016. Comments will be accepted until August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE34, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for RIN 1024-AE34 and follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, (202) 354-2204.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Calculation of Adjustment III. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Takings (E.O. 12630) F. Federalism (E.O. 13132) G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175) I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. National Environmental Policy Act K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) L. Clarity of This Regulation M. Administrative Procedure Act I. Background

    On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (“the Act”). The Act requires Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through rulemaking and then make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes.

    This rule adjusts the following civil monetary penalties:

    CFR Citation Description of the penalty Current
  • penalty
  • Catchup
  • adjustment
  • Adjusted
  • penalty
  • 43 CFR 10.12(g)(2) Failure of Museum to Comply $5,000 $1,428 $6,428 43 CFR 10.12(g)(3) Continued Failure to Comply Per Day 1,000 268 1,268
    II. Calculation of Adjustment

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance on calculating the catch-up adjustment. See February 24, 2016, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, from Shaun Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget, re: Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. Under this guidance, the Department has identified applicable civil monetary penalties and calculated the catch-up adjustment. A civil monetary penalty is any assessment with a dollar amount that is levied for a violation of a Federal civil statute or regulation, and is assessed or enforceable through a civil action in Federal court or an administrative proceeding. A civil monetary penalty does not include a penalty levied for violation of a criminal statute, or fees for services, licenses, permits, or other regulatory review. The calculated catch-up adjustment is based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI0-U) for the month of October in the year of the previous adjustment (or in the year of establishment, if no adjustment has been made) and the October 2015 CPI-U.

    III. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act of 2015 requires agencies to adjust civil penalties with an initial catch-up adjustment through an interim final rule. An interim final rule does not include first publishing a proposed rule. Thus, the RFA does not apply to this final rule.

    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

    (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    E. Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    F. Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    G. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department Policy)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.

    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    J. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of an administrative nature. (For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i).) We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that.

    K. Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    L. Clarity of This Regulation

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (a) Be logically organized;

    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    M. Administrative Procedure Act

    The Act requires agencies to publish interim final rules by July 1, 2016, with an effective date for the adjusted penalties no later than August 1, 2016. To comply with the Act, we are issuing these regulations as an interim final rule and are requesting comments post-promulgation. Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure . . . are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for prior public comment. The Office of the Secretary finds that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without first providing for public comment. It would not be possible to meet the deadlines imposed by the Act if we were to first publish a proposed rule, allow the public sufficient time to submit comments, analyze the comments, and publish a final rule. Also, the Office of the Secretary is promulgating this final rule to implement the statutory directive in the Act, which requires agencies to publish an interim final rule and to update the civil penalty amounts by applying a specified formula. The Office of the Secretary has no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for pre-promulgation public comment on this rule. Thus, pre-promulgation notice and public comment is impracticable and unnecessary.

    List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 10

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hawaiian Natives, Historic preservation, Indians—claims, Indians—lands, Museums, Penalties, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons given in the preamble, the Office of the Secretary amends 43 CFR part 10 as follows.

    PART 10—NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 470dd; 25 U.S.C. 9, 3001 et seq.

    § 10.12 [Amended]
    2. In § 10.12: a. In paragraph (g)(2) introductory text, remove “$5,000” and add in its place “$6,428”. b. In paragraph (g)(3), remove “$1,000” and add in its place “$1,268”.
    Dated: June 8, 2016. Michael Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15168 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Part 3160 [16X.LLWO310000.L13100000.PP0000] RIN 1004-AE46 Onshore Oil and Gas Operations—Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule adjusts the level of civil monetary penalties contained in the Bureau of Land Management's regulations governing onshore oil and gas operations as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the “Act”). The adjustments made by this interim final rule constitute the initial catch-up adjustments contemplated by the Act, and are consistent with applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.

    DATES:

    As required by the Act, this rule is effective on July 28, 2016. Comments will be accepted until August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for 1004-AE46 and follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AE46.

    Hand Delivery, or Courier: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M St. SE., Room 2134LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20003.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Wells, Division Chief, Fluid Minerals Division, 202-912-7143, for information regarding the BLM's Fluid Minerals Program. For questions relating to regulatory process issues, please contact Jennifer Noe, Division of Regulatory Affairs, at 202-912-7442. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to contact the above individuals.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background II. Calculation of Adjustment III. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866 and 13563) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Takings (E.O. 12630) F. Federalism (E.O. 13132) G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Departmental Policy) I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. National Environmental Policy Act K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) L. Clarity of This Regulation M. Administrative Procedure Act I. Background

    On November 2, 2015, the President signed the Act into law (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74). It requires all Federal agencies to review their existing regulations and adjust the level of civil monetary penalties found in those regulations for inflation. The Act contemplates two adjustments—an initial “catch-up” adjustment through rulemaking from the date the penalty in question was established to present day, and annual adjustments for inflation thereafter. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties found in existing regulations, in order to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes. The BLM has reviewed its existing regulations and determined that only the civil monetary penalties found at 43 CFR 3163.2 are subject to the Act's requirements.

    Once penalties subject to the Act have been identified, the Act specifies the formula and format to be used to adjust those amounts. (Section 701(b)) The adjustments contemplated by the Act are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October in 1987, the year the penalties were established by regulation, and the October 2015 CPI-U, so the catch-up adjustment multiplier is 2.06278 for all penalties. The Act caps adjustments at 150 percent, and Section 701(b)(1)(D) of the Act specifically requires that adjustments be promulgated as an interim final rule. The Act does not provide BLM with discretion with respect to either of these provisions.

    The adjustments made by this interim final rule constitute the initial “catch-up” adjustment contemplated by the Act and subsequent guidance from OMB, and include the following changes to the penalties provided by existing regulations:

    CFR citation Description of the penalty Current
  • penalty
  • Catchup
  • adjustment
  • Adjusted
  • penalty
  • 43 CFR 3163.2(a) Failure to comply $500 $531 $1,031 43 CFR 3163.2(b) If corrective action is not taken 5,000 5,314 10,314 43 CFR 3163.2(d) If transporter fails to permit inspection for documentation 500 531 1,031 43 CFR 3163.2(e) Failure to permit inspection, failure to notify 10,000 10,628 20,628 43 CFR 3163.2(f) False or inaccurate documents; unlawful transfer or purchase 25,000 26,570 51,570 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(1) Initial penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(a) for a major violation 500 531 1,031 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(1) Maximum penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(a) for a major violation 1,000 1,063 2,063 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(1) Initial penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(b) for a major violation 5,000 5,314 10,314 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(1) Maximum penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(b) for a major violation 10,000 10,628 20,628 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(1) Penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(d) for a major violation 500 531 1,031 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(1) Penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(e) for a major violation 10,000 10,628 20,628 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(1) Penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(f) for a major violation 25,000 26,570 51,570 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(2)(iii) Initial penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(a) for a minor violation 50 53 103 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(2)(iii) Initial penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(b) for a minor violation 500 531 1,031 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(2)(iii) Maximum penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(a) for a minor violation 100 106 206 43 CFR 3163.2(g)(2)(iii) Maximum penalty under 43 CFR 3163.2(b) for a minor violation 1,000 1,063 2,063
    II. Calculation of Adjustment

    OMB issued guidance on calculating the catch-up adjustment in accordance with the Act. See February 24, 2016, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, from Shaun Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget, re: Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. Under this guidance, the Department of the Interior has identified applicable civil monetary penalties and calculated the catch-up adjustment. A civil monetary penalty is any assessment with a dollar amount that is levied for a violation of a Federal civil statute or regulation, and is assessed or enforceable through a civil action in Federal court or an administrative proceeding. A civil monetary penalty does not include a penalty levied for violation of a criminal statute, or fees for services, licenses, permits, or other regulatory review. The calculated catch-up adjustment is based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October in the year of the previous adjustment (or in the year of establishment, if no adjustment has been made) and the October 2015 CPI-U.

    III. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant. Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science, and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The Act requires agencies to adjust civil penalties with an initial catch-up adjustment through an interim final rule. Since an interim final rule does not include first publishing a proposed rule, the RFA does not apply to this final rule.

    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

    (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    This rule will potentially affect individuals and companies who hold leases on Federal or Indian lands. The BLM believes that the vast majority of potentially affected entities will be small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration. However, the BLM does not believe the rule will pose a significant economic impact on the industry, including any small entities, for two reasons. First, any lessee can avoid being assessed civil penalties by operating in compliance with BLM rules and regulations. Second, payments for penalties adjusted as a result of this rule will be negligible compared with the $23 billion worth of crude oil and natural gas produced from Federal and Indian leases last year.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    E. Takings (E.O. 12630)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

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

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Departmental Policy)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.

    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    J. National Environmental Policy Act

    A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of an administrative nature. (For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i).) We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

    K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    L. Clarity of This Regulation

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (a) Be logically organized;

    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful.

    M. Administrative Procedure Act

    The Act requires agencies to publish interim final rules by July 1, 2016, with an effective date for the adjusted penalties no later than August 1, 2016. To comply with the Act, we are issuing these regulations as an interim final rule and are requesting comments post-promulgation. Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure . . . are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for prior public comment.

    The BLM is promulgating this rule as an interim final rule because the Act expressly directs us to do so by July 1, 2016. The BLM also finds that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without notice and public procedure for two reasons. First, it would not be possible to meet the deadlines imposed by the Act if the BLM were first to publish a proposed rule, allow the public sufficient time to submit comments, and analyze those comments, before publishing a final rule. Also, since the Act does not give the BLM any discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment for any given penalty to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for pre-promulgation public comment on this rule. Thus, pre-promulgation notice and public comment is impracticable and unnecessary.

    List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3160

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Indians—lands, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons given in the preamble, the BLM amends Chapter II of Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 3160—ONSHORE OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 3160 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 396d and 2107; 30 U.S.C. 189, 306, 359, and 1751; 43 U.S.C. 1732(b), 1733, 1740; and Sec. 107, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.

    Subpart 3163—Noncompliance, Assessments, and Penalties
    § 3163.2 [Amended]
    2. In § 3163.2: a. In paragraph (a), remove “$500” and add in its place “$1,031”. b. In paragraph (b), remove “$5,000” and add in its place “$10,314”. c. In paragraph (d), remove “$500” and add in its place “$1,031”. d. In paragraph (e) introductory text, remove “$10,000” and add in its place “$20,628”. e. In paragraph (f) introductory text, remove “$25,000” and add in its place “$51,570”. f. In paragraph (g)(1), remove “$500” each place that it occurs and add in its place “$1,031”; remove “$5,000” and add in its place “$10,314”; remove “$1,000” each place that it occurs and add in its place “$2,063”; remove “$10,000” each place that it occurs and add in its place “$20,628”; remove “$25,000” and add in its place “$51,570”. g. In paragraph (g)(2)(iii), remove “$50” and add in its place “$103”; remove “$500” and add in its place “$1,031”; remove “$100” and add in its place “$206”; remove “$1,000” and add in its place “$2,063”.
    Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15129 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 11 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-LE-2016-0045; FF09L00200-FX-LE18110900000] RIN 1018-BB32 Civil Penalties; Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary Penalties AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Interim rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is revising our civil procedure regulations. The regulations provide uniform rules and procedures for the assessment of civil penalties resulting from violations of certain laws and regulations enforced by the Service. We are issuing this interim rule, in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, to adjust for inflation in the statutory civil monetary penalties that may be assessed for violations of Service-administered statutes and their implementing regulations. We are required to adjust civil monetary penalties as necessary for inflation according to a formula specified in the Inflation Adjustment Act. This interim rule also revises the authority citation of part 11, updates the scope of the regulations, and corrects the address for the Departmental Cases Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior.

    DATES:

    This interim rule is effective July 28, 2016. We will accept comments on this interim rule received or postmarked on or before August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-HQ-LE-2016-0045.

    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-LE-2016-0045; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information that you provide to us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Beiriger, Special Agent in Charge, Branch of Investigations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, (703) 358-1949.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The regulations at 50 CFR part 11 provide uniform rules and procedures for the assessment of civil penalties resulting from violations of certain laws and regulations enforced by the Service.

    On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (Inflation Adjustment Act). The Inflation Adjustment Act requires Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch up” adjustment through rulemaking and then make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes.

    Under section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Inflation Adjustment Act, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (2015), each Federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties (civil penalties) that can be imposed under the laws administered by that agency. The Inflation Adjustment Act provides for an initial “catch up adjustment” to take effect no later than August 1, 2016, followed by subsequent adjustments to be made no later than January 15 every year thereafter. This interim rule adjusts, in accordance with the Inflation Adjustment Act, the maximum amount of each statutory penalty that may be imposed for violations of Service-administered statutes and their implementing regulations. Section 11.33 identifies the applicable Service-administered statutes and sets out the inflation-adjusted civil penalty amounts that may be imposed pursuant to each statutory provision. The adjusted penalty amounts are applicable to civil penalties assessed after the Inflation Adjustment Act takes effect.

    The Inflation Adjustment Act provides for determining the initial catch up adjustment by first determining the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is defined in section 5 of the Inflation Adjustment Act as the percentage (if any) for each civil monetary penalty by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the month of October 2015 exceeds the CPI 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 this Act. The Inflation Adjustment Act further provides that the initial catch up adjustment shall not exceed 150 percent of the amount of that civil monetary penalty on the date of the enactment of the Inflation Adjustment Act. The CPI is defined in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as the CPI for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor.

    Once the COLA is determined, the current civil penalty is adjusted accordingly. For instance, the current maximum civil penalty amount under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) is $5,000, see 16 U.S.C. 668(b), which was last adjusted in 1972. The CPI in October 1972 was 42.3 as compared to the CPI in October 2015, which was 237.838. This represents an increase of over 150 percent, but since the Inflation Adjustment Act caps the initial catch up adjustment at 150 percent, the COLA adjustment for civil penalties under BGEPA will be 150 percent. Thus, the current civil penalty of $5,000 under BGEPA will increase to $12,500 once this regulation becomes effective, as described below.

    OMB issued a memorandum, M-16-06, entitled “Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,” which provides in Table A the civil penalty catch-up adjustment multiplier by calendar year. The Appendix to OMB's memorandum provides step-by-step instructions for determining the catch up adjustment, and the Service determined the adjustments accordingly.

    Public Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this interim rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. We will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in DATES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission, including any personal identifying information, will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hard copy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hard copy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this interim rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (a) Be logically organized;

    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;

    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    Required Determinations Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this interim rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The Inflation Adjustment Act requires agencies to adjust civil penalties with an initial catch up adjustment through an interim rule. An interim rule does not include first publishing a proposed rule. Thus, the RFA does not apply to this rule.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    This interim rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

    (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), this interim rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments.

    a. This interim rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

    We are the lead agency for enforcing numerous conservation acts and executive orders, for regulating wildlife trade through the declaration process, for issuing permits to conduct activities affecting wildlife and their habitats, and for carrying out U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). No small government assistance or impact is expected as a result of this interim rule.

    b. This interim rule will not produce a Federal requirement that may result in the combined expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments of $100 million or greater in any year, so it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

    This interim rule will not result in any combined expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments.

    Executive Order 12630 (Takings)

    Under Executive Order 12630, this interim rule does not have significant takings implications. Under Executive Order 12630, this interim rule does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This interim rule has no private property takings implications as defined in Executive Order 12630. This executive order specifically exempts civil procedures for violations of law.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Under Executive Order 13132, this interim rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. This interim rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Under Executive Order 12988, the Department of the Interior has determined that this interim rule does not overly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The purpose of this interim rule is to adjust for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties that may be assessed for violations of Service-administered statutes and their implementing regulations. Specifically, this interim rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ensure clarity, has been written to minimize lawsuits, provides a clear legal standard for affected actions, and specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This interim rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    This interim rule has been analyzed under the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and part 516, chapter 8 of the Departmental Manual (DM) (516 DM 8). This interim rule does not amount to a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required. This interim rule is categorically excluded from further NEPA requirements, under 43 CFR 46.210. This categorical exclusion addresses policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature and whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis under NEPA.

    Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) and 512 DM 2 (Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no adverse effects. For violations of certain laws and regulations enforced by the Service, individual tribal members are subject to the same civil procedures as other individuals.

    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This interim rule applies only to U.S. Government civil procedures, it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and it is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    The Inflation Adjustment Act requires Federal agencies to publish interim rules by July 1, 2016, with an effective date for the adjusted penalties no later than August 1, 2016. To comply with the Inflation Adjustment Act, we are issuing these regulations as an interim rule and are requesting comments after publication. Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for prior public comment. The Service finds that there is good cause to issue this interim rule without first providing for public comment. It would not be possible to meet the deadlines imposed by the Inflation Adjustment Act if we were to first publish a proposed rule, allow the public sufficient time to submit comments, analyze the comments, and publish a final rule. The Service is issuing this interim rule to implement the statutory directive in the Inflation Adjustment Act, which requires agencies to publish an interim rule and to update the civil penalty amounts by applying a specified formula. The Service has no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for public comment prior to publication of this rule. Thus, pre-publication notice and public comment is impracticable and unnecessary. This rule will also update the address for the Office of Hearings and Appeals in sections 11.15, 11.25, and 11.26. Since these updates are merely ministerial, we find that pre-publication notice and public comment with respect to those revisions is unnecessary.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 11

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, Penalties, Plants, Transportation, Wildlife.

    Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons described above, we amend part 11, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

    PART 11—CIVIL PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 11 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm, 470aaa-470aaa-11, 668-668d, 1361-1384, 1401-1407, 1531-1544, 3371-3378, 4201-4245, 4901-4916, 5201-5207, 5301-5306; 18 U.S.C. 42-43; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; and Sec. 107, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Revise § 11.2 to read as follows:
    § 11.2 Scope of regulations.

    The regulations contained in this part apply only to actions arising under the following laws and regulations issued thereunder:

    (a) Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. 42-43;

    (b) Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.;

    (c) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668-668d;

    (d) Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.;

    (e) Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.;

    (f) African Elephant Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.;

    (g) Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.;

    (h) Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.;

    (i) Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa et seq.;

    (j) The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.;

    (k) Recreational Hunting Safety Act of 1994, 16 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.; and

    (l) Wild Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.

    3. Revise § 11.15 to read as follows:
    § 11.15 Request for a hearing.

    Except where a right to request a hearing is deemed to have been waived as provided in § 11.11, the respondent may, within 45 calendar days from the date of the notice of assessment referred to in § 11.14, file a dated, written request for a hearing with the Departmental Cases Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 351 South West Temple, Suite 6.300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.

    4. Amend § 11.25 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 11.25 Appeal.

    (a) Either the respondent or the Director may seek an appeal from the decision of an administrative law judge rendered subsequent to January 1, 1974, by the filing of a “Notice of Request for Appeal” with the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 351 South West Temple, Suite 6.300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, within 30 calendar days of the date of the administrative law judge's decision. Such notice shall be accompanied by proof of service on the administrative law judge and the opposing party.

    5. Revise § 11.26 to read as follows:
    § 11.26 Reporting service.

    Copies of decisions in civil penalty proceedings instituted under statutes referred to in subpart A of this part and rendered subsequent to June 3, 1970, may be obtained by letter of request addressed to the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 351 South West Temple, Suite 6.300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101. Fees for this service shall be as established by the Director of that Office.

    6. Add a new subpart D to part 11 to read as follows: Subpart D—Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments Sec. 11.31 Definitions. 11.32 Purpose and scope. 11.33 Adjustments to penalties. 11.34 Subsequent adjustments. Subpart D—Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments
    § 11.31 Definitions.

    (a) Civil monetary penalty means any penalty, fine, or other sanction that:

    (1)(i) Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law; or

    (ii) Has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law;

    (2) Is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and

    (3) Is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.

    (b) Inflation Adjustment Act means the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74, November 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 584, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

    § 11.32 Purpose and scope.

    The purpose of this part is to make the inflation adjustment, described in and required by the Inflation Adjustment Act, of each civil monetary penalty provided by law within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    § 11.33 Adjustments to penalties.

    The civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are adjusted as follows:

    Law Citation Type of violation Maximum civil monetary
  • penalty
  • (a) African Elephant Conservation Act 16 U.S.C. 4224(b) Any violation $9,893 (b) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 16 U.S.C. 668(b) Any violation 12,500 (c) Endangered Species Act of 1973 16 U.S.C. 1540(a)(1) (1) Knowing violation of section 1538 49,467 (2) Other knowing violation 23,744 (3) Any other violation 1,250 (d) Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 16 U.S.C. 3373(a) (1) Violations referred to in 16 U.S.C. 3373(a)(1) 25,000 (2) Violations referred to in 16 U.S.C. 3373(a)(2) 625 (e) Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 16 U.S.C. 1375 Any violation 25,000 (f) Recreational Hunting Safety Act of 1994 16 U.S.C. 5202(b) (1) Violation involving use of force or violence or threatened use of force or violence 15,909 (2) Any other violation 7,954 (g) Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1998 16 U.S.C. 5305a(b)(2) Any violation 17,403 (h) Wild Bird Conservation Act 16 U.S.C. 4912(a)(1) (1) Violation of section 4910(a)(1), section 4910(a)(2), or any permit issued under section 4911 41,932 (2) Violation of section 4910(a)(3) 20,127 (3) Any other violation 839
    § 11.34 Subsequent adjustments.

    The Secretary of the Interior or his or her designee will, every year after August 1, 2016, make the inflation adjustment described in and required by the Inflation Adjustment Act of each civil monetary penalty provided by law and within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Each annual adjustment will be reflected in the table in § 11.33.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. Michael J. Bean, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15268 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 160202068-6532-02] RIN 0648-XE425 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Small-Mesh Multispecies Specifications AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule modifies the specifications for northern and southern red hake for fishing years 2016 and 2017. This action is necessary to implement the Council's recommended measures in response to updated scientific information. These final specifications are intended to help achieve sustainable yield and prevent overfishing on these two red hake stocks.

    DATES:

    Effective June 28, 2016, until the effective date of the 2018-19 annual specifications and management measures, which will publish in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the specifications document, consisting of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and other supporting documents, are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following internet addresses: www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ or www.nefmc.org. Copies of the small entity compliance guide are available from John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Burns, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9144.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The New England Fishery Management Council manages the small-mesh multispecies fishery primarily through a series of exemptions from the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The small-mesh multispecies fishery is composed of five stocks of three species of hakes (northern and southern silver hake, northern and southern red hake, and offshore hake). It is managed separately from the other stocks of groundfish such as cod, haddock, and flounders, primarily because the fishery uses small mesh and modified nets that do not generally result in the catch of these other stocks. Amendment 19 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (April 4, 2013; 78 FR 20260) established a process for setting the small-mesh multispecies catch specifications, as well as set the specifications for the 2012-2014 fishing years. On May 28, 2015, NMFS published specifications for the 2015-2017 fishing years, based on stock assessment updates using data through the spring 2014 survey (80 FR 30379). The Northeast Fisheries Science Center completed a stock assessment update in 2015, using data through the 2015 spring survey. The 2015 update indicates that the northern red hake stock is increasing in biomass, while the southern stock is decreasing.

    The purpose of this action is to modify the northern and southern red hake specifications for the 2016 and 2017 fishing years. The Council recommended these changes in response to its review of the 2015 assessment update. The 2015 stock assessment update showed an increase in the northern red hake stock and a decrease in the southern red hake stock; however, the reasons for the decline in the southern stock area are unclear. In response to the updated stock assessment, the Council recommends modifications to the annual catch limits and total allowable landings limits.

    Final Measures

    This rule increases the northern red hake and decreases the southern red hake 2016 and 2017 annual catch limits and total allowable landings limits (Table 1), consistent with the stock assessment update and the Council's recommendation. The increase to the northern stock specifications will reduce unnecessary discards by delaying a reduction in the possession limits. This action will benefit the fishery without increasing the risk of overfishing. The decrease in the southern stock specifications is necessary to reduce the risk of overfishing, even though recent landings are approximately 20 percent below the revised level of total allowable landings (Table 2).

    Table 1—Summary of the Revised 2016 and 2017 Red Hake Specifications, in Metric Tons Northern
  • red hake
  • Existing Revised Southern
  • red hake
  • Existing Revised
    Overfishing Limit 331 556 3,400 1,816 Acceptable Biological Catch 287 496 3,179 1,717 Annual Catch Limit (ACL) 273 471 3,021 1,631 Total Allowable Landings (TAL) 104.2 120 1,309.4 746
    Table 2—Comparison of Revised 2016-2017 Red Hake Specifications and 2014 Catch and Landings, in Metric Tons Northern
  • red hake
  • Southern
  • red hake
  • Revised ACL 471 1,631 2014 Catch 278 1,277 % of Revised ACL 56% 74% Revised TAL 120 746 2014 Landings 74 603 % of Revised TAL 62% 81%
    Comments and Responses

    On April 7, 2016, NMFS published proposed specifications for public notice and comment. NMFS did not receive any comments in response to the proposed rule.

    Classification

    The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the small-mesh multispecies fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

    The Assistant Administrator finds good cause under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date. Because the fishing year began on May 1, 2016, delaying the effectiveness of this action, particularly the increase in the northern red hake catch limits, would not be in the best interest of the fishery resource or vessels fishing for small-mesh multispecies. The intent of this action is to allow the fishery to benefit from the increase in the northern red hake biomass by increasing the overall catch limits for the fishery. This action will also help to reduce red hake discards by ensuring that the possession limits are not reduced sooner than necessary. The accountability measures for the fishery require that the possession limits be reduced once certain harvest triggers are met. If the 30-day delay in the effective date stands, there is a risk that early-season fishing effort on the northern red hake stock could trigger a reduction in the possession limits before the increase in overall catch limits contained in this final rule take effect. In 2012 and 2013, northern red hake catch rates exceeded the Annual Catch Limits (ACL) and Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and the possession limit was reduced to the incidental level earlier than anticipated. Such a situation could cause economic hardship for fishermen by restricting them to a lower possession limit until the higher catch limits contained in this rule take effect and the higher possession limits are re-instated. Therefore, having the increased catch limits take effect upon publication will optimize the benefits to the industry by extending the season and will benefit the resource by helping to prevent excess discards and overages to the ACL and ABC.

    In addition, making the measures in this final rule effective upon publication will assist in reducing the risk of overfishing the southern red hake stock, even though the fishery is not expected to exceed the reduced catch limits.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none was prepared.

    There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the final measures included in this action.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15202 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 140904754-5188-02] RIN 0648-BG08 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; inseason adjustments to biennial groundfish management measures.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule announces inseason changes to management measures in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. This action, which is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP), is intended to allow fisheries to attain their allocations and maintain year-round fishing opportunities while keeping harvest within the annual catch limit (ACL) for sablefish north 36° N. lat.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective June 28, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gretchen Hanshew, phone: 206-526-6147, fax: 206-526-6736, or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access

    This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at https://www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/. Copies of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Groundfish Specifications and Management Measures for 2015-2016 and Biennial Periods Thereafter are available from Chuck Tracy, Acting Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280.

    Background Changes to Trip Limits the Limited Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access Sablefish Daily Trip Limit Fisheries North of 36° N. lat.

    The best available fisheries information indicates that catch of sablefish in the commercial non-trawl fisheries north of 36° N. lat. in 2016 will be higher than anticipated. The Council considered updated projections and the status of ongoing groundfish fisheries at its March 9-14, 2016, and April 9-14, 2016, meetings. The Council considered 2015 fishery harvest estimates and fishery models, updated with the best estimate reports from the Pacific Fishery Information Network through February 28, 2016.

    At its March meeting, the Council considered updated projections, indicating that sablefish landings through the end of the year would exceed the sablefish allocation in the limited entry fixed gear daily trip limit (DTL) fishery north of 36° N. lat. Projected landings in the limited entry fixed gear DTL fishery north of 36° N. lat. vary based on assumptions on the price per pound. If no action is taken—and this higher than anticipated catch continues in the limited entry fixed gear DTL fishery—then projected landings range from 90 percent of the allocation (low price assumption) to over 100 percent of the allocation (high price assumption) through the end of the year. In recent years, the Council has taken a precautionary approach to setting trip limits at the start of the year. Setting trip limits to target approximately 90 percent attainment of the allocation allows for flexibility to increase trip limits later in the year if harvest remains at or lower than anticipated levels, and also reduces the risk of early closure if catches are higher than anticipated. The Council considered a modest decrease to the weekly limit in the limited entry fixed gear DTL fishery north of 36° N. lat. With a slightly smaller weekly limit, harvest estimates through the end of the year were reduced to between 81 and 93 percent of the allocation (under low and high price per pound assumptions, respectively).

    The Council recommended and NMFS is implementing a reduction in the weekly limit for sablefish in the limited entry fixed gear fishery north of 36° N. lat. from “1,275 lb per week, not to exceed 3,375 lb per two months” to “1,125 lb per week, not to exceed 3,375 lb per two months.”

    At its April meeting, the Council considered 2015 fishery performance, status of ongoing fisheries in 2016, updated projections, and requests from industry regarding the open access DTL fishery north of 36° N. lat. Harvest of sablefish in the open access DTL fishery north of 36° N. lat. exceeded its allocation in 2015. Industry raised concerns that participation levels seen in 2015 may further increase in 2016 due to a predicted poor salmon fishing season and lack of a Dungeness crab fishery off California. If no action is taken and this higher than anticipated catch continues in the open access DTL fishery, landings through the end of the year are projected to be 70 percent of the allocation. The Council considered these updated projections, and concerns and recommendations from industry representatives. Based on public testimony, there is anecdotal evidence of a sharp increase in participation in this fishery, particularly in southern Oregon and northern California ports. Industry representatives recommended a precautionary decrease in trip limits beginning July 1 to slow landings and maintain year-round fishing opportunities. The Council considered a precautionary reduction to open access DTL trip limits to maintain harvest opportunities throughout the year even under much higher participation levels.

    The Council recommended and NMFS is implementing a reduction in the trip limit for sablefish in the open access fishery north of 36° N. lat. from “300 lb per day, or one landing per week of up to 1,000 lb, not to exceed 2,000 lb per two months” to “300 lb per day, or one landing per week of up to 850 lb, not to exceed 1,700 lb per two months,” beginning July 1, 2016.

    Decreases to trip limits in the limited entry fixed gear and open access DTL fisheries north of 36° N. lat. are intended to allow year-round fishing opportunities and reduce the risk of closure as occurred in 2015 (when the limited entry fixed gear and open access DTL fisheries north of 36° N. lat. were both closed on November 1, reducing the season length by two months).

    Classification

    This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best available information, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations.

    This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, during business hours.

    NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Also, for the same reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective June 28, 2016.

    The Council recommended that these changes be implemented as quickly as possible to reduce harvest of sablefish in the limited entry fixed gear and open access DTL fisheries north of 36° N. lat. based in information available at its March and April meetings. There was not sufficient time after those meetings to draft this document and undergo proposed and final rulemaking before this action needs to be in effect. For the action to be implemented in this final rule, affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS from managing fisheries using the best available science to approach, without exceeding, the sablefish ACLs in accordance with the PCGFMP and applicable law. These adjustments to management measures must be implemented in a timely manner to prevent the 2016 sablefish north 36° N. lat. allocations from being exceeded and help ensure year-round fishing opportunities, consistent with objectives of the PCGFMP. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the groundfish biennial harvest specifications and management measures established for 2015-2016.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior notice and comment and to waive the delay in effectiveness.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    2. Table 2 (North) and 2 (South) to part 660, subpart E, are revised to read as follows: BILLING CODE 3510-22-P ER28JN16.002 ER28JN16.003 ER28JN16.004 3. Table 3 (North) and 3 (South) to part 660, subpart F, are revised to read as follows:

    ER28JN16.005 ER28JN16.006 ER28JN16.007 ER28JN16.008
    [FR Doc. 2016-15155 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    81 124 Tuesday, June 28, 2016 Proposed Rules FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 347 RIN 3064-AE36 Alternatives to References to Credit Ratings With Respect to Permissible Activities for Foreign Branches of Insured State Nonmember Banks and Pledge of Assets by Insured Domestic Branches of Foreign Banks AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”).

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC is seeking public comment on a proposed rule to amend its international banking regulations (“Part 347”) consistent with section 939A (“section 939A”) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) and the FDIC's authority under section 5(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDI Act”). Section 939A directs each federal agency to review and modify regulations that reference credit ratings. The proposed rule would amend the provisions of subparts A and B of Part 347 that reference credit ratings. Subpart A, which sets forth the FDIC's requirements for insured state nonmember banks that operate foreign branches, would be amended to replace references to credit ratings in the definition of “investment grade” with a standard of creditworthiness that has been adopted in other federal regulations that conform with section 939A. Subpart B would be amended to revise the FDIC's asset pledge requirement for insured U.S. branches of foreign banks. The eligibility criteria for the types of assets that foreign banks may pledge would be amended by replacing the references to credit ratings with the revised definition of “investment grade.” The proposed rule would apply this investment grade standard to each type of pledgeable asset, establish a liquidity requirement for such assets, and subject them to a fair value discount. The proposed rule would also introduce cash as a new asset type that foreign banks may pledge under subpart B and create a separate asset category expressly for debt securities issued by government sponsored enterprises.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-AE36, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Follow instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site.

    Email: [email protected] Include the RIN 3064-AE36 on the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

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

    Public Inspection: All comments received must include the agency name and RIN 3064-AE36 for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/, including any personal information provided. Paper copies of public comments may be ordered from the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226 by telephone at 1 (877) 275-3342 or 1 (703) 562-2200.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric Reither, Senior Capital Markets Specialist, Capital Markets Branch, Division of Risk Management Supervision, [email protected]; Lanu Duffy, Senior International Advisor, International Affairs Branch, Division of Insurance and Research, [email protected]; Catherine Topping, Counsel, [email protected]; Benjamin Klein, Senior Attorney, [email protected], Legal Division.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Policy Objectives

    The intent of the proposed rule is to conform part 347 with section 939A's directive to reduce reliance on credit ratings. By removing references to credit ratings in part 347 and adopting an alternative standard of creditworthiness, the proposed rule would encourage regular, in-depth analysis of the credit risks associated with specific types of securities held by foreign branches of state nonmember banks under subpart A, or pledged for the benefit of the FDIC by the insured U.S. branches of foreign banks under subpart B. The proposed rule supports these objectives by establishing an “investment grade” definition that would be applied in both subparts A and B.

    The financial crisis in 2008 highlighted the importance of considering the liquidity of a security when assessing its overall risk. To address this concern, the proposed revisions to the asset pledge requirement in subpart B would include the application of a liquidity standard to the securities pledged to the FDIC by the insured U.S. branches of foreign banks, and would subject such pledged assets to a fair value discount. These amendments would support the objective of the asset pledge requirement, which is to ensure orderly asset liquidation at maximum value in the event such assets need to be liquidated to pay the insured deposits of the U.S. branch of the foreign bank.

    II. Background

    In the decades prior to the financial crisis in 2008, third party credit risk assessments by nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations (“NRSROs”) helped to provide transparency and efficiency to the securities markets. Their assessments of creditworthiness allowed originators and investors to more accurately and readily meet their risk tolerances and investment strategies. Many financial regulations used these external credit risk ratings to set limits on the activities of regulated entities in order to foster safe and sound investment practices. However, during the run up to the crisis many regulated institutions overly relied on the credit risk assessments of NRSROs, often neglecting to do a thorough analysis of their own. At the same time, flaws in the NRSROs' business model (including certain commercial relationships with the originators of securities and strong competition by NRSROs for market share) undermined the accuracy of the credit ratings. Consequently, many investors, including banking organizations, experienced significant losses on securities with ratings that implied credit losses would be very unlikely and minimal. This prompted Congress to enact section 939A, which directs each federal agency to review and modify regulations that reference credit ratings.

    Section 939A 1 requires each federal agency to review its regulations that require the use of an assessment of creditworthiness of a security or money market instrument and any references to or requirements in such regulations regarding credit ratings. Each agency must modify its regulations identified in the review by removing references to, or requirements of reliance on, credit ratings and substituting appropriate standards of creditworthiness.

    1 Pub. L. 111-203, section 939A, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (July 21, 2010).

    Subpart A of Part 347—Foreign Banking and Investment by Insured State Nonmember Banks

    Subpart A of part 347, 12 CFR 347.101, et seq., addresses the international banking and investment activities of state nonmember banks, including the establishment and operations of foreign branches and subsidiaries.2 In general, these regulations implement the FDIC's statutory authority under section 18(d)(2) of the FDI Act 3 regarding branches of insured state nonmember banks in foreign countries, and section 18(l) of the FDI Act 4 regarding insured state nonmember bank investments in foreign entities.

    2 A state nonmember bank may establish a non-U.S. branch with the approval of the FDIC (12 U.S.C. 1828(d)(2)). National banks must gain the approval of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”) to open a non-U.S. branch. These branches may engage in any activity that is permitted in the United States, as well as those that are usual in connection with the banking business in the foreign country where it is located. State member banks may establish foreign branches with the approval of the Federal Reserve. U.S. banking organizations may also conduct international banking activities through Edge and agreement corporations. (12 U.S.C. 611-631) (“Edge corporations”); (12 U.S.C. 601-604(a) (“agreement corporations”).

    3 12 U.S.C. 1828(d)(2).

    4 12 U.S.C. 1828(l).

    In addition to their general banking powers, banks with foreign branches are permitted to conduct a broad range of investment activities, including investment services and underwriting of debt and equity securities.5 Under 12 CFR 347.115(b), a foreign branch of a bank may invest in, underwrite, distribute and deal, or trade foreign government obligations that have an investment grade rating, up to an aggregate limit of ten percent of the bank's Tier 1 capital, as calculated under the Basel III capital rules in 12 CFR part 324, subpart C.6 Section 347.102(o) currently defines “investment grade” to mean a security that is rated in one of the four highest categories by two or more NRSROs or one NRSRO if the security is rated by only one NRSRO.7

    5 The limitations on international investments and the definition of permissible activities found in the FDIC's regulations in part 347 are similar to, but not exactly, those found in Regulation K of the Federal Reserve.

    6 12 CFR 324.20, et seq.

    7 An NRSRO is an entity registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as an NRSRO under section 15E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. See 15 U.S.C. 78o-7, as implemented by 17 CFR 240.17g-1.

    Subpart B of Part 347—Foreign Banks

    The regulations contained in subpart B of part 347 primarily implement provisions of the FDI Act and the International Banking Act (“IBA”) 8 concerning insured and noninsured U.S. branches of foreign banks.9 Each foreign banking organization maintaining an insured branch must comply with specific FDIC asset maintenance 10 and asset pledge requirements under section 5(c) of the FDI Act. These requirements are separate and apart from other capital equivalency requirements of the federal or state licensing authorities.11 The FDIC no longer insures the deposits accepted by branches of foreign banks, except for deposits made in branches of foreign banks that are insured by operation of the grandfathering provisions of the IBA, as amended by the Foreign Bank Supervision Enhancement Act of 1991 (“FBSEA”).12 The universe of these grandfathered branches is very limited. There are currently only ten insured U.S. branches of foreign banks in operation (four federal branches and six state branches). A foreign bank that has an insured branch must pledge assets for the benefit of the FDIC to protect the DIF in the event the FDIC is obligated to pay the insured deposits of an insured branch under section 11(f) of the FDI Act.13 Section 347.209(d) provides a list of the types of assets that a foreign bank may pledge for the benefit of the FDIC. In describing certain asset types, 12 CFR 347.209(d) references credit ratings issued by a nationally recognized rating service in connection with a determination of the credit quality of the assets that a foreign bank may pledge.

    8 Pub. L. 95-369, 92 Stat. 607 (Sept. 17, 1978) (codified at 12 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.).

    9 U.S. branches of foreign banks may be licensed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) or by an individual state. The Federal Reserve is required to approve any new foreign bank branch. The Federal Reserve, among other things, is required to certify that the country from which the foreign bank is located subjects its banks, including the applicant, to comprehensive, consolidated supervision. 12 U.S.C. 3105(d).

    10 The FDIC requires that an insured branch of a foreign bank maintain, on a daily basis, eligible U.S. dollar-denominated assets in an amount not less than 106% of the preceding quarter's average book value of the branch's liabilities excluding those due to other offices or wholly owned subsidiaries of the foreign bank. 12 CFR 347.210.

    11 Although U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks have no capital of their own, those that are federally licensed must deposit cash or eligible securities at approved insured banks to satisfy the “capital equivalency requirement” specified by the IBA. The amount of the deposit is required to be at least 5% of the total liabilities of the branch or agency office, or the capital that would be required if it were a freestanding national bank. 12 U.S.C. 3102(g)(2). The underlying purpose of the IBA provision is to ensure that branches and agencies of a foreign bank maintain a minimum level of unencumbered assets in the United States that would be available in a liquidation of the branch or agency. State-licensed branches and agencies also must meet capital equivalency requirements, which vary from state to state. See, e.g., N.Y. Banking Law § 202-b.

    12 Since the enactment of FBSEA, a foreign bank seeking to accept retail deposits (initial deposits under $250,000) in the United States may do so only by establishing a U.S. subsidiary bank (or savings association) whose deposits are insured by the FDIC. Before FBSEA, a small number of foreign bank branches had obtained FDIC insurance under the provisions of the IBA and thus were permitted to accept retail deposits. These branches (insured branches) are “grandfathered”, i.e., they may continue to receive insured retail deposits pursuant to section 6(d)(2) of the IBA (12 U.S.C. 3104(d)(2)).

    13 12 U.S.C. 1821(f).

    The proposed amendments and revisions are discussed below, by subpart. The FDIC invites public comment on all aspects of the proposal, including the potential costs and benefits of the proposed rule.14

    14 The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (“EGRPRA”) requires that regulations prescribed by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve (collectively, the Agencies) be reviewed by the Agencies to identify outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations. The EGRPRA review is currently ongoing, and will be conducted in four separate notices, with each notice focusing on certain categories of regulations. The first notice, published on June 4, 2014, included a review of part 347, subpart A. 79 FR 32172 (June 4, 2014). The FDIC received one comment on part 347, subpart A, where the commenter requested that the Agencies increase the capital-based limits on investments in foreign organizations. The FDIC is considering this comment as part of its EGRPRA review efforts, and not as a part of this proposed rulemaking.

    III. Description of the Proposed Revisions to Part 347—International Banking Subpart A—Foreign Banking and Investment by Insured State Nonmember Banks A. Section 347.102. Definitions

    The FDIC's rules in 12 CFR 347.102(o) define the term “investment grade” as a security that is rated in one of the four highest categories by two or more NRSROs; or one NRSRO if the security is rated by only one NRSRO. The proposed rule would amend the definition of “investment grade” by deleting the references to credit ratings and NRSROs. The new definition in the proposed rule would define “investment grade” as a security whose issuer has adequate capacity to meet all financial commitments under the security for the projected life of the exposure. Such an entity has adequate capacity to meet financial commitments if the risk of its default is low and the full and timely repayment of principal and interest is expected.

    B. Section 347.115. Permissible Activities for a Foreign Branch of an Insured State Nonmember Bank

    Section 347.115 defines the particular activities that a foreign branch of an insured state nonmember bank may conduct. These activities are subject to safety and soundness limitations and are limited by the extent to which the activities are consistent with banking practices in the foreign country where the bank maintains a branch. The proposed rule would retain the language of 12 CFR 347.115(b), but § 347.115(b) would be affected by the proposed rule insofar as § 347.115(b) uses the proposed definition of the term “investment grade” in 12 CFR 347.102(o). Section 347.115(b) allows the foreign branch of an insured state nonmember bank to engage in certain types of transactions with respect to the obligations of foreign countries, so long as aggregate investments, securities held in connection with distribution and dealing, and underwriting commitments do not exceed ten percent of the bank's Tier 1 capital. More specifically, a foreign branch of a bank may underwrite, distribute and deal, invest in, or trade obligations of the national government of the country in which the branch is located, as well as obligations of political subdivisions of such national government, and certain agencies or instrumentalities of such national government. Furthermore, foreign branches may, subject to the law of the issuing foreign country, underwrite, distribute and deal, invest in, or trade investment grade obligations of other foreign countries, political subdivisions, and certain agencies and instrumentalities. As provided for in the existing rule, if the obligation is an equity interest, it must be held through a subsidiary of the foreign branch and the insured state nonmember bank must meet its minimum capital requirements.

    The definition of “investment grade” for obligations of governments other than the host government was adopted in 2005 when the FDIC amended its international banking regulations, part 347.15 The definition was derived from the limitations and definitions of Regulation K of the Federal Reserve, which governs the international operations of foreign branches of member banks. Under the Federal Reserve regulations, a foreign branch of a member bank may underwrite, distribute, buy, sell, and hold certain government debt obligations only if such obligations are rated investment grade.16 The Federal Reserve adopted the definition of investment grade in its revisions to Regulation K in 2001. The investment grade rating requirement for obligations of governments other than the host government was considered appropriate because it limited cross-border transfer risk.17

    15 70 FR 17550 (April 6, 2005).

    16See 12 CFR 211.4(a)(2)(C)-(D) (providing that a foreign branch of a member bank may underwrite, distribute, buy, sell, and hold obligations of (1) the national government or political subdivision of any country, where such obligations are rated investment grade, and (2) an agency or instrumentality of any national government where such obligations are rated investment grade and are supported by the taxing authority, guarantee or full faith and credit of that government).

    17 66 FR 54346 (Oct. 26, 2001).

    The revisions in the proposed rule to the regulatory definition of “investment grade” will remove references to credit ratings consistent with section 939A but will not affect the general consistency between the Federal Reserve's Regulation K and the FDIC's part 347 with regard to permissible activities. For purposes of the proposed rule, an issuer would satisfy this requirement or new standard if the state nonmember bank appropriately determines that the obligor presents low default risk and is expected to make timely payments of principal and interest. The definition addresses the safety and soundness concerns of this activity of foreign branches—namely the exposure of the foreign branch and the DIF to the entity issuing the security—without reference to a credit rating or an NRSRO. The FDIC believes that the proposed standard provides a flexible, straightforward measure of creditworthiness that is consistent with existing policy.

    C. Consistency With Other Federal Regulations

    The proposed definition of investment grade in 12 CFR 347.102(o) is consistent with the definition of investment grade that was adopted by the FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve in the promulgation of regulatory capital rules that implement the Basel III framework (“Basel III capital rules”).18 This definition is also consistent with the non-ratings based, creditworthiness standard applicable to permissible corporate debt securities investments of savings associations adopted by the FDIC in 12 CFR part 362 19 and the credit quality standards regarding permissible investments for national banks adopted by the OCC under 12 CFR parts 1, 16, and 160.20 In addition, it is consistent with the final rules adopted by the OCC that remove references to credit ratings from its regulations pertaining to foreign bank capital equivalency deposits for federal branches under 12 CFR 28.15. The OCC's regulations previously allowed for the use of certificates of deposit (“CDs”) or bankers' acceptances as part of the deposit if the issuer of the instrument was rated “investment grade” by an internationally recognized rating organization. Under the revised regulation, the issuer of the certificate of deposit or banker's acceptance must have “an adequate capacity to meet financial commitments under the security for the projected life of the asset or exposure.” 21

    18See 78 FR 62018 (Oct. 11, 2013) (Federal Reserve and OCC) (final rule); 78 FR 55340 (Sept. 10, 2013)(interim final rule)(FDIC); 79 FR 20754 (April 14, 2014)(final rule)(FDIC). In finalizing the Basel III capital rules, Federal Reserve and OCC issued a joint final rule, and the FDIC separately issued a substantively identical interim final rule, which was later made final without substantive changes.

    19See Permissible Investments for Federal and State Savings Associations: Corporate Debt Securities, 77 FR 43151 (July 24, 2012).

    20See Alternatives to the Use of External Credit Ratings in the Regulations of the OCC, 77 FR 35253 (June 13, 2012).

    21See Alternatives to the Use of External Credit Ratings in the Regulations of the OCC, 77 FR 35253 (June 13, 2012).

    D. Request for Comment

    This NPR seeks comment on whether:

    • This standard of creditworthiness is sufficient to address safety and soundness concerns of this activity of foreign branches of state nonmember banks regarding exposure to obligations of foreign countries, and

    • The proposed revisions would address the FDIC's objective of applying a standard of creditworthiness, other than the exclusive use of credit ratings, that is transparent, well defined, differentiates credit risk, and provides for the timely measurement of changes to the credit profile of the investment.

    IV. Description of the Proposed Revisions to Part 347—International Banking Subpart B—Foreign Banks A. Section 347.209. Pledge of Assets

    The asset pledge requirement in 12 CFR 347.209 applies to insured U.S. branches of foreign banks. There are ten such branches that exist by authority of the statutory grandfathering established by FBSEA.22 The foreign banks that have branches covered by this grandfathering must pledge assets for the benefit of the FDIC.23 The amount that each foreign bank must pledge is determined by the supervisory risk posed by each U.S. branch and the U.S. branch's asset maintenance level.24 The amount of assets that a U.S. branch of a foreign bank must pledge varies from two percent to eight percent of the branch's liabilities and is determined by reference to the risk-based assessment schedule provided in 12 CFR 347.209(b)(1).

    22 12 U.S.C. 3104(d).

    23 The pledged assets must be placed at a depository approved by the FDIC. Generally, each insured branch of the foreign bank must meet the asset pledge requirement separately; however, a foreign bank with more than one insured branch in any state may treat all of its insured branches in the state as one entity for purposes of complying with this requirement. See 12 CFR 347.209(b)(5).

    24 12 CFR 347.209(b). Generally, an insured branch must maintain a level of assets that exceeds 106 percent of its liabilities. 12 CFR 347.210.

    FDIC rules in 12 CFR 347.209(d) describe the types of assets that may be pledged, and require that certain of these asset types have credit ratings within the top rating bands of an NRSRO. Under the existing rule, commercial paper may be eligible for pledging purposes if it is rated P-1 or P-2, or their equivalent, by an NRSRO.25 Municipal general obligations are eligible under the existing rule if they have a credit rating within the top two rating bands of a NRSRO. Notes issued by bank and thrift holding companies, banks, or savings associations must also be rated within the top two rating bands of an NRSRO in order to be eligible under the asset pledge requirement of the existing rule. The other types of eligible assets, which must be U.S. dollar denominated, are: bank CDs with maturities of not greater than one year; Treasury bills, interest bearing bonds, notes, debentures, or other direct obligations of or fully guaranteed by the United States or any agency thereof; banker's acceptances with a maturity not greater than 180 days; and obligations of certain international development banks.26

    25 P-1 and P-2 are Moody's top two rating bands for short-term obligations.

    26See 12 CFR 347.209(d)(1), (2), (5), and (6).

    The FDIC's asset pledge requirement has been in place since 1978. The FDIC adopted the current risk-based, asset pledge requirements in part 347 in 2005.27 The asset pledge requirement was established to provide the DIF protection against losses on insured deposit claims by depositors of U.S. branches of foreign banks. Since the adoption of its initial foreign banking regulation implementing the IBA and FDI Act's requirements, the FDIC has focused on the quality and marketability of assets pledged, as well as the assurance of payment within the United States, in determining whether the assets are acceptable to be pledged.28 The FDIC has made clear that the essence of the asset pledge requirement is that pledged assets be as free from risk and as liquid as possible in order to provide protection to the DIF.29

    27 70 FR 17550 (April 6, 2005).

    28See 43 FR 60279,60281 (Dec. 27, 1978).

    29See 49 FR 49614, 49615 (Dec. 21, 1984).

    Under the FDIC's deposit insurance authority in the FDI Act, the FDIC may impose requirements determined to be necessary to mitigate the risks associated with providing deposit insurance to an insured U.S. branch of a foreign bank. Consistent with section 939A and the FDIC's authority in the FDI Act, the proposed rule would revise the categories of assets in 12 CFR 347.209(d) that may be used for pledging. In so doing, the proposed rule would remove the references to credit ratings issued by NRSROs and substitute an investment grade standard to ensure the assets have appropriate credit quality. In addition, the proposed rule would permit only highly liquid assets to be pledged, and would submit these instruments to fair value haircuts. The three instances in subpart B that must be revised contain references not to investment grade ratings, but to the highest subset of rating bands within the investment grade categories established by the ratings agencies. In other words, subpart B embodies a standard for protection of the DIF from the pledged assets that goes beyond that of simply being investment grade. The FDIC believes that adopting the investment grade and highly liquid criteria, as well as the fair value haircut, would ensure that pledged assets continue to provide a high degree of protection to the DIF. The proposed credit and liquidity standards are discussed below.

    Credit and Liquidity Standards

    Under the proposed rule, instruments falling within the relevant asset categories would be eligible for pledging if they are “investment grade.” The proposed rule would add the definition of “investment grade” to the definitions section of subpart B, 12 CFR 347.202. Consistent with the proposed amendment to subpart A of part 347, the proposed rule would define “investment grade” as a security issued by an entity that has adequate capacity to meet financial commitments under the security for the projected life of the security or exposure. To meet this standard for asset pledge purposes, the insured branch or foreign bank would need to determine whether the risk of default by the obligor is low and full and timely repayment of principal and interest is expected. Using this “investment grade” standard as defined would be consistent with existing regulations and policies.30

    30 The investment grade standard is consistent with that adopted by the FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve in their issuance of Basel III capital rules; as adopted by the OCC under 12 CFR parts 1, 16, 28, 160; and as adopted by the FDIC under part 362 for corporate bonds held by savings associations.

    Also, under the proposed rule, instruments falling within the relevant asset categories would be eligible for pledging only if they are “highly liquid.” The proposed rule would define “highly liquid” securities as those that:

    • Exhibit low credit and market risk;

    • are traded in an active secondary two-way market that has committed market makers and independent bona fide offers to buy and sell so that a price reasonably related to the last sales price or current bona fide competitive bid and offer quotations can be determined within one day and settled at that price within a reasonable time period conforming with trade custom; and

    • are a type of asset that investors historically have purchased in periods of financial market distress during which market liquidity has been impaired.31

    31 The definition of a highly liquid asset is consistent with the definition established in 12 CFR part 252 subpart O Enhanced Prudential Standards for Foreign Banking Organizations (The Federal Reserve's Regulation YY).

    A foreign bank would be required to demonstrate that the instrument meets the highly liquid standard.

    Fair Value Discount

    In addition, the FDIC is proposing that the fair values of the investment grade and highly liquid pledged assets be discounted to reflect the credit risk and market price volatility of the asset. The discounted fair value of the assets would determine the pledged dollar amount. The FDIC would expect that the valuations of the pledged assets be updated at least quarterly. Quarterly valuation updates are consistent with the quarterly valuations currently required in the pledge agreement between each of the foreign banks and the FDIC.32 The proposed method for discounting fair values is consistent with the haircuts applied to financial collateral pledged to certain transactions under the Basel III capital rules as adopted by the FDIC.33

    32 12 CFR 347.209(e) provides that a foreign bank shall not pledge any assets unless a pledge agreement in a form and substance satisfactory to the FDIC has been executed by the foreign bank and the depository.

    33 FDIC-supervised institutions may use the risk-mitigating effects of financial collateral, subject to a market price volatility haircut, in determining the exposure amount of such transactions for risk-weighting purposes. See 79 FR 20760 (April 14, 2014).

    Further, the FDIC proposes to include a standardized haircut table, consistent with the Basel III capital rules, to promote simplicity and ease of reference.34 Under this approach, the applicable haircut would be determined by reference to the asset's risk-weight and remaining maturity.35 For example, a foreign insured branch may elect to pledge investment grade commercial paper with a fair value of $100,000 and remaining maturity of less than one year. These instruments are risk-weighted at 100 percent under the Basel III capital rules. Under the proposed reference table, the corresponding haircut would be 4 percent; therefore, the amount of the $100,000 asset that would count towards the satisfaction of the asset pledge requirement would be $100,000 multiplied by 0.96 (1 − 0.04), or $96,000. Consistent with the haircut requirements in the risk-based capital rules, pledged assets that receive a zero percent risk weight will generally not require a fair value haircut.36

    34 In 12 CFR 324.37(c)(3), the FDIC established requirements for applying standardized haircuts for market price volatility which are scheduled on Table 1 to § 324.37—Standard Supervisory Market Price Volatility Haircuts (Table 1). A portion of Table 1 concerning haircuts for non-sovereign issuers serves as the basis for the reference table included in the proposed rule.

    35See 12 CFR 324.32 for general risk weights.

    36 Assets with zero percent risk weight include cash; Treasury bills, interest bearing bonds, notes, debentures, or other direct obligations of or obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States or any agency thereof; and obligations of the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

    Assets That May Be Pledged

    The proposed rule also amends 12 CFR 347.209(d) by adding cash as a new asset type that foreign banks may pledge under subpart B and creating a separate asset category expressly for debt securities issued by government sponsored enterprises (“GSEs”). Cash and securities issued by GSEs are included in the definition of highly liquid assets in the Federal Reserve's regulation prescribing enhanced prudential standards for foreign banking organizations.37 With respect to debt securities issued by GSEs, the FDIC understands that some insured branches of foreign banks currently pledge such instruments under 12 CFR 347.209(d)(2) because they qualify as obligations of a U.S. government “instrumentality.” The Basel III capital rules recognize that the risk characteristics of GSE securities differ from those guaranteed by the U.S. government. The capital rules bear this out by assigning the former a twenty percent risk weight and the latter a zero percent risk weight.38 Therefore, the proposed rule would eliminate the reference to obligations of U.S. “instrumentalities” in 12 CFR 347.209(d)(2), and would create a separate category expressly for GSE securities. Creating a separate category for GSE securities is necessary because such securities would be subject to a haircut under the proposed rule to account for their twenty percent risk weight under the Basel III capital rules, whereas securities guaranteed by the U.S. government would not be subject to a haircut given their zero percent risk weight.

    37 12 CFR part 252 subpart O.

    38 12 CFR 324.32(a) and (c).

    Under the proposed rule, a foreign bank would be permitted to pledge the assets listed below, provided that such assets are denominated in United States dollars, and satisfy both the investment grade and highly liquid standards. Further, such assets would be discounted at the rates set forth in the haircut table.

    The proposed pledgeable asset categories include:

    (1) Cash;

    (2) Treasury bills, interest bearing bonds, notes, debentures, or other direct obligations of or obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States or any agency thereof;

    (3) Obligations of U.S. GSEs;

    (4) Negotiable CDs that are payable in the United States and that are issued by any state bank, national bank, state or federal savings association, or branch or agency of a foreign bank which has executed a valid waiver of offset agreement or similar debt instruments that are payable in the United States; provided, that the maturity of any certificate or issuance is not greater than one year; and provided further, that the issuing branch or agency of a foreign bank is not an affiliate of the pledging bank or from the same country as the pledging bank's domicile;

    (5) Obligations of the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development;

    (6) Commercial paper;

    (7) Notes issued by bank and savings and loan holding companies, banks, or savings associations organized under the laws of the United States or any state thereof or notes issued by branches or agencies of foreign banks, provided that the notes are payable in the United States, and provided further, that the issuing branch or agency of a foreign bank is not an affiliate of the pledging bank or from the same country as the pledging bank's domicile;

    (8) Banker's acceptances that are payable in the United States and that are issued by any state bank, national bank, state or federal savings association, or branch or agency of a foreign bank; provided, that the maturity of any acceptance is not greater than 180 days; and provided further, that the branch or agency issuing the acceptance is not an affiliate of the pledging bank or from the same country as the pledging bank's domicile;

    (9) General obligations of any state of the United States, or any county or municipality of any state of the United States, or any agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision of the foregoing or any obligation guaranteed by a state of the United States or any county or municipality of any state of the United States; and

    (10) Any other asset determined by the FDIC to be acceptable.39

    39 The FDIC also reserves the right to require the substitution of pledged assets with other assets deemed more acceptable to the FDIC, as currently provided in 12 CFR 347.209(d).

    Cash, treasury bills or other direct obligations of or fully guaranteed by the United States or any agency thereof, and the obligations of the stated international development banks will categorically satisfy the investment grade and highly liquid standards discussed above.40 Therefore, foreign banks that pledge these assets will not be required to perform individual analyses to verify that the assets meet the investment grade and highly liquid standards. Pledgeable assets that receive a zero percent risk weight will generally not require a fair value haircut.

    40 A direct debt obligation issued by a U.S. government-sponsored enterprise or an asset-backed security guaranteed by a U.S. GSE will categorically satisfy the investment grade standard only if the GSE is operating with capital support or another form of direct financial assistance from the U.S. government. All GSEs will categorically satisfy the liquidity standard.

    Foreign banks pledging assets that do not categorically satisfy the investment grade and highly liquid standards, will need to demonstrate that the assets being pledged meet the investment grade and highly liquid standards. Foreign banks can find the appropriate haircut by identifying the risk weight associated with the asset in the capital rules. Although requiring foreign banks to verify that pledged assets satisfy these standards may require some adjustment of existing processes, the FDIC believes that it will impose minimal additional burden. The FDIC believes that conducting credit analysis on these instruments will ensure they satisfy the investment grade standard necessary for pledging. In addition, market data (e.g., price quotes, bid/ask spreads, trade activity levels, or other price discovery information) are accessible through an insured branch's normal data source channels used in pre-purchase and ongoing investment due diligence. These resources and others should be available to confirm whether the assets pledged meet the highly liquid asset standard.

    For purposes of carrying out the section 939A review related to subpart B, the FDIC surveyed the insured U.S. branches of foreign banks to examine the composition of assets pledged. At the time of the review, treasury bills, bank notes, and CDs were the primary instruments pledged. Consequently, the haircut provision could impact foreign banks that pledge bank notes or CDs because they may need to pledge additional collateral under the proposed rule compared with the pledge requirements under the existing rule. The FDIC views the proposed amendments to the pledgeable asset criteria as resulting in minimal impact on the insured U.S. branches of foreign banks.

    Other Technical Revisions

    The proposed rule would also add a definition of “agency” to the definitions section of subpart B, 12 CFR 347.202, which already contains a definition of “branch” under the existing regulation, in order to clarify that negotiable CDs, banker's acceptances, and notes issued by a branch or agency of a foreign bank located only in the United States would be eligible for pledging. The definition is not currently in existing subpart B. The term agency is used in 12 CFR 347.209(d)(1), (d)(4), and (d)(7) to describe the types of bank CDs, banker's acceptances, and notes issued by a branch or agency of a foreign bank that are eligible for pledging by a U.S. branch of a foreign bank. The proposed rule would use the definition of “agency” found in section 1(b)(1) of the IBA, which defines “agency” to mean “any office or any place of business of a foreign bank located in any State of the United States at which credit balances are maintained incidental to or arising out of the exercise of banking powers, checks are paid, or money is lent but at which deposits may not be accepted from citizens or residents of the United States”.41 This definition makes clear that only negotiable CDs, banker's acceptances, or notes issued by an agency of a foreign bank located in the United States are eligible pledged assets. The FDIC does not allow for the pledging of these instruments unless they are issued by an agency of a foreign bank located in the United States. It is also consistent with the definition of “branch” in subpart B, which means any office or place of business of a foreign bank located in any state of the United States.42 The proposed rule would also amend 12 CFR 347.209(d)(7) to remove the reference to “United States” in the description of branches or agencies of foreign banks because those terms as defined in existing subpart B, and as proposed, necessarily mean an office or place of business of a foreign bank located in the United States. Furthermore, the proposed rule would amend 12 CFR 347.209(d)(7) to clarify that, consistent with requirements associated with pledging CDs and banker's acceptances in (d)(1) and (d)(4), a pledging U.S. branch of a foreign bank may not pledge a note issued by a branch or agency of a foreign bank that has the same country of domicile as the pledging bank. This requirement avoids potential same-country risks represented by the branches and agencies as direct extensions of foreign banks.

    41 12 U.S.C. 3101(1). The proposed definition is also consistent with the definition of agency in the Federal Reserve's and OCC's international banking regulations. See 12 CFR 211.21(b) (Federal Reserve) and 12 CFR 28.11(g) (OCC).

    42 12 CFR 347.202(b).

    The FDIC proposes to amend the list of eligible collateral to eliminate the obsolete exception for non-negotiable CDs that were “pledged as collateral to the FDIC on March 18, 2005, until maturity according to the original terms of the existing deposit agreement.” In 2005, when the FDIC amended its international banking regulations in part 347, it adopted 12 CFR 347.209(d)(1)(i) requiring only negotiable CDs.43 The FDIC surveyed the composition of assets pledged by insured branches in 2005 before finalizing the regulations and found that only one branch had pledged a non-negotiable CD. In addition, the maturity date for any non-negotiable CD that was grandfathered under this provision has passed. Consequently, the provision by its terms is obsolete and no longer serves a useful purpose.

    43 70 FR 17550 (April 6, 2005).

    B. Request for Comment

    The FDIC seeks comment on all aspects of this proposal, and specifically whether:

    • The proposed investment grade and liquidity standards and haircut requirements for pledged assets under subpart B of part 347 are reasonable provisions.

    • The removal of references to external credit ratings required under section 939A should be implemented as proposed or whether there are alternatives that would achieve a creditworthiness standard that is sufficiently risk sensitive.

    • Pledged assets should be subject to the highly liquid standard as proposed and whether the criteria for highly liquid assets provide reasonable standards of assurance, or whether other criteria should be considered in addition to, or in lieu of, the criteria proposed.

    • Pledged assets be discounted as proposed, or whether the full fair values of assets pledged under the existing risk-based assessment schedule already provide sufficient protection to the DIF.

    • Pledged assets should be discounted using the table of risk weights and remaining maturities as proposed, or whether pledged assets should be discounted by each foreign bank based on an internal assessment of any credit risk and market price volatility for each asset pledged.

    • Another method of discounting would advance the objective of ensuring that pledged assets be as free from risk and as liquid as possible.

    • The types of assets that may be pledged should be expanded to include cash and obligations of U.S. GSEs as proposed and whether these asset types constitute appropriate additions to the assets that currently may be pledged.

    • There are any other asset types that should be considered for inclusion as a pledgeable asset.

    • The proposed provisions would have a material economic impact on foreign banking organizations subject to part 347.

    • Imposing the highly liquid standard and haircut requirement would cause undue regulatory burden.

    V. Expected Effects A. Subpart A

    The applicability of the proposed revision to subpart A of part 347 would be limited to state nonmember banks that operate branches in foreign countries. As of March 31, 2016, there were nine state nonmember banks operating 16 foreign branches in seven countries. The majority of the state nonmember banks with foreign branches consist of larger multi-billion dollar financial institutions with commensurate systems and capabilities, while two of the foreign branches operated by the smaller state nonmember banks are limited-service facilities. The revision to subpart A would therefore apply to a small number of generally larger nonmember banks with more sophisticated operations, and the effect of the revision to the definition of “investment grade” would impose minimal additional burden. Note that prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act and implementation of section 939A, state nonmember banks were expected to have a credit risk management framework for securities and investments that included robust pre-purchase analysis and ongoing monitoring by the banking organization. The proposed revision in subpart A will shift the focus away from reliance on credit ratings and onto this in-depth analysis and monitoring. The revision to the definition of “investment grade” in part 347 would encourage regular, in-depth analysis by the banking organization of credit risks of securities, which is a prudent practice already expected of banks. This would likely result in little or no additional costs associated with credit risk analysis over those currently expended. However, potential credit losses will likely decline as covered institutions are more diligent in assessing their credit risk exposure, which would provide a benefit.

    B. Subpart B

    The revisions to subpart B of part 347 would apply only to the insured U.S. branches of foreign banks. As of March 31, 2016, there were ten insured branches of foreign banks. The FDIC would expect the revisions to subpart B to have the effect of ensuring that collateral pledged by these institutions is very low risk and as liquid as possible in order to provide protection to the DIF. The FDIC expects that these revisions would do so while imposing minimal additional burden and with little or no alteration of the composition or types of assets that insured branches of foreign banks currently pledge, or have pledged in the recent past, under the current provisions of subpart B.

    VI. Alternatives Considered

    Section 939A requires that agencies adopt standards of creditworthiness that, to the extent feasible, are uniform. The adoption of an alternative definition of “investment grade” would be inconsistent with section 939A's directive to adopt uniform standards.

    In addition to adopting the definition of “investment grade,” the proposal would amend subpart B of part 347 to impose liquidity and discounting requirements for assets pledged by insured branches of foreign banks operating in the United States. Alternatives to the proposed definition of “highly liquid” would contradict the definition of highly liquid assets as adopted in other Dodd-Frank Act rulemakings, thereby creating different treatment of the same securities. Similarly, the calculation of fair value discounts for pledged assets is based on the risk weights assigned to such assets in the capital rules. The FDIC welcomes and requests public comment on all aspects of the proposed rule, including the presentation of alternatives that would advance the FDIC's objective of ensuring that assets pledged under subpart B of part 347 be free from risk and as liquid as possible in order to provide protection to the DIF.

    VII. Regulatory Analyses A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) 44 the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) control number. The collection of information associated with subpart A is entitled Foreign Branching and Investment by Insured State Nonmember Banks (OMB No. 3064-0125). This information collection consists of applications related to establishing and closing a foreign branch; applications related to acquiring stock of a foreign organization; and records and reports which a nonmember bank must maintain once it has established a foreign branch or foreign organization. As described above, the proposed rule's revision to subpart A consists of a change to the definition of “investment grade” and imposes no additional reporting burden on insured state nonmember banks. Therefore, the FDIC expects that the PRA burden estimates of this collection will not be affected by this proposed rule. Accordingly, the FDIC will not be submitting any information collection request to OMB relating to the information collection associated with subpart A (OMB 3064-0125).

    44 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    The collection of information associated with subpart B is entitled Foreign Banks (OMB No. 3064-0114). This information collection consists of, among other things, internal recordkeeping by insured branches of foreign banks, and reporting requirements related to an insured branch's pledge of assets to the FDIC. Under the proposed rule, all assets pledged to the FDIC under subpart B must be investment grade, highly liquid, and subject to a fair value discount. Several types of assets pledged by banks under subpart B would be categorically investment grade and highly liquid, and subject to a zero percent discount under the proposed rule. Insured branches of foreign banks would be able to continue to pledge these assets without any adjustment to their reporting and recordkeeping requirements. To the extent that an insured branch of a foreign bank pledges an asset that would not be categorically investment grade, highly liquid, or that would not receive a zero percent discount, the FDIC would expect minimal additional burden to accompany such a pledge of assets. Recordkeeping associated with the diligence that would be required for determining that an asset is highly liquid and investment grade is already expected of these institutions as part of their pre-purchase and ongoing investment due diligence. Similarly, the calculation of the applicable fair value discount is based on the risk weight of the applicable asset under the Basel III capital rules, which is an analysis that should already be undertaken by these institutions. Therefore, the FDIC expects that any resulting changes in burden would be so minimal that they would not alter the existing PRA burden estimates of this collection. Notwithstanding the fact that the FDIC does not expect a change in burden, the proposed rule may alter to some extent the nature of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with subpart B. Accordingly, the FDIC will be submitting an information collection request to OMB relating to the information collection associated with subpart B (OMB 3064-0114). The existing burden estimates for the information collection associated with subpart B are as follows:

    Title Times/year Respondents
  • per year
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Moving a branch 1 1 8 8 Consent to operate 1 1 8 8 Conduct activities 1 1 8 8 Recordkeeping 1 10 120 1,200 Pledge of assets Documents 4 10 0.25 10 Reports 4 10 2 80 Total Burden 1,314

    The FDIC welcomes comment on its existing information collections. Specifically, comments are invited on:

    • Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

    • The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    • Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    All comments will become a matter of public record. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, by facsimile to 202-395-5806, or by email to [email protected], Attention, Federal Banking Agency Desk Officer.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) generally requires that, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed rule on small entities (defined in regulations promulgated by the Small Business Administration to include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal to $550 million). A regulatory flexibility analysis, however, is not required if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the proposed rule. For the reasons provided below, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The proposed rule makes revisions to the existing rules in subpart A of part 347 consistent with section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act.45 The rules in subpart A of part 347 address issues related to the international activities and investments of insured state nonmember banks. In general, they implement the FDIC's statutory authority under section 18(d)(2) of the FDI Act regarding branches of insured state nonmember banks in foreign countries, and section 18(l) of the FDI Act regarding insured state nonmember bank investments in foreign entities. As of June 30, 2015, there were nine state nonmember banks that report having foreign branches. There are 16 foreign branches between these nine institutions. Available information indicates that state nonmember banks with foreign investments or foreign branches are not small entities.

    45 Subpart J of part 303 contains the procedural rules that implement part 347. No revisions are proposed to these rules.

    The proposed rule also would amend subpart B of part 347 as applied to insured U.S. branches of foreign banks. As of March 31, 2016, there were ten insured branches of foreign banks, only one of which qualifies as a small entity. Therefore, the revisions to subpart B of part 347 would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Plain Language

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the FDIC to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC invites comment on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand.

    For example:

    • Has the FDIC organized the material to inform your needs? If not, how could the FDIC present the rule more clearly?

    • Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? If not, how could the rule be more clearly stated?

    • Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?

    • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes would achieve that?

    • Is this section format adequate? If not, which of the sections should be changed and how?

    • What other changes can the agencies incorporate to make the regulation easier to understand?

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 347

    Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Foreign banking, Insured foreign branches, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, United States investments abroad.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 12 CFR Chapter III Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to amend part 347 of chapter III of Title 12, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 347 1. The authority citation for part 347 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1813, 1815, 1817, 1819, 1820, 1828, 3103, 3104, 3105, 3108, 3109; Pub. L. No. 111-203, section 939A, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (July 21, 2010) (codified 15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note).

    2. In § 347.102, revise paragraph (o) to read as follows:
    § 347.102 Definitions.

    (o) Investment grade means a security issued by an entity that has adequate capacity to meet financial commitments for the projected life of the exposure. Such an entity has adequate capacity to meet financial commitments if the risk of its default is low and the full and timely repayment of principal and interest is expected.

    3. In § 347.202, paragraphs (p) through (y) are redesignated as paragraphs (s) through (bb), paragraphs (k) through (o) are redesignated as paragraphs (m) through (q), paragraphs (b) through (j) are redesignated as paragraphs (c) through (k); and new paragraphs (b), (l), and (r) are added to read as follows:
    § 347.202 Definitions.

    (b) Agency means any office or any place of business of a foreign bank located in any State of the United States at which credit balances are maintained incidental to or arising out of the exercise of banking powers, checks are paid, or money is lent but at which deposits may not be accepted from citizens or residents of the United States.

    (l) Highly liquid means, with respect to a security, that the security has low credit and market risk; is traded in an active secondary two-way market that has committed market makers and independent bona fide offers to buy and sell so that a price reasonably related to the last sales price or current bona fide competitive bid and offer quotations can be determined within one day and settled at that price within a reasonable time period conforming with trade custom; is a type of asset that investors historically have purchased in periods of financial market distress during which market liquidity has been impaired.

    (r) Investment grade means a security issued by an entity that has adequate capacity to meet financial commitments for the projected life of the exposure. Such an entity has adequate capacity to meet financial commitments if the risk of its default is low and the full and timely repayment of principal and interest is expected.

    4. In § 347.209, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 347.209 Pledge of assets.

    (d) Assets that may be pledged. This paragraph sets forth the kinds of assets that may be pledged to satisfy the requirements of this section. A foreign bank shall be deemed to have pledged any such assets for the benefit of the FDIC or its designee at such time as any such asset is placed with the depository. The FDIC reserves the right to require the substitution of pledged assets with other assets deemed acceptable to the FDIC.

    (1) A foreign bank may pledge the kinds of assets set forth in this subparagraph, provided that: Such assets are denominated in United States dollars; such assets are investment grade, as that term is defined in § 327.202(q); and such assets are highly liquid, as that term is defined in § 347.202(k). Furthermore, for the purposes of calculating the amount of assets required to be pledged under paragraph (b) of this section, the assets that are eligible for pledging under paragraph (d)(2) of this section must be discounted at the rates set forth in Table 1 to § 347.209.

    (i) Cash

    (ii) Treasury bills, interest bearing bonds, notes, debentures, or other direct obligations of or obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States or any agency thereof;

    (iii) Obligations of United States government-sponsored enterprises;

    (iv) Negotiable certificates of deposit that are payable in the United States and that are issued by any state bank, national bank, state or federal savings association, or branch or agency of a foreign bank which has executed a valid waiver of offset agreement or similar debt instruments that are payable in the United States; provided, that the maturity of any certificate or issuance is not greater than one year; and provided further, that the issuing branch or agency of a foreign bank is not an affiliate of the pledging bank or from the same country as the pledging bank's domicile;

    (v) Obligations of the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development;

    (vi) Commercial paper;

    (vii) Notes issued by bank and savings and loan holding companies, banks, or savings associations organized under the laws of the United States or any state thereof or notes issued by branches or agencies of foreign banks, provided that the notes are payable in the United States, and provided further, that the issuing branch or agency of a foreign bank is not an affiliate of the pledging bank or from the same country as the pledging bank's domicile;

    (viii) Banker's acceptances that are payable in the United States and that are issued by any state bank, national bank, state or federal savings association, or branch or agency of a foreign bank; provided, that the maturity of any acceptance is not greater than 180 days; and provided further, that the branch or agency issuing the acceptance is not an affiliate of the pledging bank or from the same country as the pledging bank's domicile;

    (ix) General obligations of any state of the United States, or any county or municipality of any state of the United States, or any agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision of the foregoing or any obligation guaranteed by a state of the United States or any county or municipality of any state of the United States;

    (x) Any other asset determined by the FDIC to be acceptable.

    5. Amend § 347.209, by adding Table 1 to read as follows:
    § 347.209 Pledge of assets. Table 1 to § 347.209—Supervisory Haircuts for Assets Pledged Under § 347.209(d) Remaining Maturity Haircut % Assigned Based on Maturity and Risk Weight Risk Weight (%) by Issuer as specified in Part 324.32 0% 20% 50% 100% <= to 1 Year 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 > 1 Year but <= 5 Years 0 4.0 6.0 8.0 > 5 years 0 8.0 12.0 16.0

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 21st day of June, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15096 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0831; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-061-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to identify the part number and serial number of the main landing gear (MLG) sliding tubes installed on the airplane; and inspection of affected chromium plates for damage; an inspection of affected sliding tube axles for damage; and replacement of the sliding tube if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by a report of a rupture of a MLG sliding tube axle. This action revises the NPRM by removing certain service information that does not adequately address the identified unsafe condition and revising the compliance method. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to detect and correct cracks in the axle and (partial) detachment of the axle and wheel from the sliding tube, which could result in failure of an MLG. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by August 12, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.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.

    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-2015-0831; 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 (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0831; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-061-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2015 (80 FR 22939) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a rupture of a MLG sliding tube axle. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to identify the part number and serial number of the MLG sliding tubes installed on the airplane; and an inspection of the axle on certain MLG sliding tubes for damage, and replacement of the sliding tube if necessary.

    Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-313, dated February 25, 2013, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013; and Service Bulletin 201-32-62, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013; do not adequately address the identified unsafe condition because this service information does not include all Required for Compliance steps required in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014. Therefore, this SNPRM proposes revising the service information specified for accomplishing the proposed actions.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0058, dated March 11, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A main landing gear (MLG) sliding tube axle rupture occurred in service. Investigation of the affected part showed that this failure was due to an abnormal grinding operation during overhaul by a certain maintenance and repair organization located in Singapore. A population of MLG sliding tubes was subsequently identified whose axles may have been subject to this grinding operation, which may have resulted in areas of residual stress on the axles on the MLG sliding tubes. In addition, the MSN [manufacturer serial number] of the aeroplanes which are known to have had the affected parts installed have been identified.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to cracks in the axle and (partial) detachment of axle and wheel from the sliding tube, possibly resulting in failure of a MLG with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, the MLG gear manufacturer, issued Service Bulletin (SB) 200-32-313 and SB 201-32-62 [both dated February 25, 2013], providing inspection instructions and criteria for removal from service of the affected MLG sliding tubes.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time Special Detailed Inspection (SDI) of the axle on the affected MLG sliding tubes and, depending on findings, replacement of the MLG sliding tube.

    The SDI includes a detailed visual inspection of the chromium plate for damage, and a Barkhausen noise inspection of the sliding tube axles for damage.

    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-2015-0831.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014. This service information describes procedures for inspecting MLG axles and brake flanges by doing a detailed visual inspection of the chromium plates for damage, and a Barkhausen noise inspection of the sliding tube axles for damage, and replacement of affected parts if necessary. 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.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comments received.

    Request To Revise Parts Installation Limitation

    American Airlines requested that we revise paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to allow installation of serviceable MLG sliding tubes that have passed the inspection required by paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). American Airlines stated that it believes that this is the intent of the MCAI.

    We agree with the commenter's request and have revised paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this proposed AD accordingly.

    Additional Changes to This SNPRM

    We have removed Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-313, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013; and Service Bulletin 201-32-62, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013; as sources of service information in this SNPRM. We have specified Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

    Differences Between This SNPRM and the MCAI or Service Information

    The effectivity in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014, does not include Model A318 series airplanes. This SNPRM specifies using the procedures specified for Model A319 series airplanes in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014, for accomplishing the proposed actions on Model A318 series airplanes.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 18 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this SNPRM. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this SNPRM on U.S. operators to be $4,590, or $1,530 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary on-condition actions would take about 3 work-hours, for a cost of $255 per product. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide part cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this SNPRM. 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

    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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0831; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-061-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a rupture of a main landing gear (MLG) sliding tube axle. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the axle and (partial) detachment of the axle and wheel from the sliding tube, which could result in failure of an MLG.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) MLG Sliding Tube Part Number and Serial Number Identification

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an inspection to identify the part number and serial number of the MLG sliding tubes installed on the airplane. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the MLG sliding tubes can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (h) Identification of Airplanes Not Affected by the Requirements of Paragraph (i) of This AD

    An airplane with a manufacturer serial number (MSN) not listed in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, provided it can be determined that no MLG sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since first flight of the airplane.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (h) of This AD Affected Airplanes Listed by MSN 0179 0214 0296 0412 0558 0604 0607 0668 0704 0720 0726 0731 0754 0771 0799 0828 0841 0855 0909 0914 0925 0939 0986 1028 1030 1041 1070 1083 1093 1098 1108 1148 1294 1356 2713 2831 Table 1 to Paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of This AD—Affected MLG Sliding Tubes Part No. Serial No. 201160302 78B 201160302 1016B11 201160302 1144B 201371302 B4493 201371302 B4513 201371302 SS4359 201371302 B4530 201371302 B4517 201371302 B4568 201371302 B4498 201371302 4490B 201371302 B202-4598 201371302 B165-4623 201371302 B244-4766 201371302 B267-4794 201371302 B272-4813 201160302 1108B 201371304 B041-4871 201371304 B045-4869 201371304 B001-4781 201371304 B051-4892 201371304 B110-1952 201371304 B054-4891 201371304 B063-4921 201371304 B071-4911 201371304 B071-4917 201371304 B080-1933 201371304 B117-5010 201371304 B120-4989 201371304 B132-2023 201371304 B114-1956 201371304 B208-2009 201371304 B133-1947 201371304 B154-5037 201371304 B89 4952 201371304 B129-1964 201371304 B227-2010 201371304 B170-5031 201371304 B182-5047 201371304 B239-2053 201371304 B1401-2856 201371304 B1813-3142 201371304 B116-5004 201522353 B011-149 201522350 B014-25 201522350 B019-56 201522350 B019-57 201522350 B021-69 201522350 B022-60 201522353 B03-111 201522353 B03-110 201522353 B112-317 201522353 B174-351 201522353 B179-392 201383350 4377B 201383350 4393B 201383350 B1831 201383350 B1832 201383350 SS4355B 201383350 SS4400B (i) Inspections

    For each MLG sliding tube, identified as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect affected MLG axles and brake flanges by doing a detailed visual inspection of the chromium plates for damage, and a Barkhausen noise inspection of the sliding tube axles for damage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014. For Model A318 series airplanes, use the procedures specified for Model A319 series airplanes in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014.

    (j) Corrective Action

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any damage is detected: Before further flight, replace the MLG sliding tube with a serviceable tube, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014. For Model A318 series airplanes, use the procedures specified for Model A319 series airplanes in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014.

    (k) Definition of Serviceable Sliding Tube

    For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable sliding tube is defined as a sliding tube that meets the criterion in either paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.

    (1) A sliding tube having a part number and serial number not listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD.

    (2) A sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD that has passed the inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (l) Parts Installation Prohibitions

    (1) For airplanes that have an MLG sliding tube installed that has a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD: After an airplane is returned to service following accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, no person may install on any airplane an MLG sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD unless that sliding tube has passed the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, do not have an MLG sliding tube installed that has a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD: No person may install on any airplane an MLG sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD unless that sliding tube has passed the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (m) 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; 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) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified 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 procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (3) 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 Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (n) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified (if the operator elects to do so), provided the MLG remains extended throughout the flight.

    (o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0058, dated March 11, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0831-0003.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 16, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14969 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7418; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-163-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a potential chafing condition exists between the negative-G fuel feed drain line of the auxiliary power unit (APU) and its surrounding structure and components. This proposed AD would require, for certain airplanes, a detailed inspection for chafing conditions of the negative-G fuel feed drain line of the APU, and corrective actions if necessary. For certain other airplanes, this proposed AD would require replacement of the APU negative-G fuel feed tube assembly and the drain line. We are proposing this AD to prevent a chafing condition in the negative-G fuel feed drain line, which can result in fuel leaking from the drain line. Leakage of the negative-G fuel feed drain line is a dormant failure. This condition, in combination with a nearby hot surface or other potential ignition source, could result in an uncontrolled fire in the aft equipment bay.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 12, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.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.

    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-2016-7418; 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 Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Norman Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7337; fax: 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7418; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-163-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-26, dated September 14, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was reported that a potential chaffing condition exist between the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) negative-G fuel feed drain line and its surrounding structure and components. Leakage of the negative-G fuel feed drain line is a dormant failure, however, in combination with a nearby hot surface or other potential ignition source, could result in an uncontrolled fire in the aft equipment bay.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates [for certain airplanes] the detailed visual inspection [for chafing conditions, e.g., fouling between the drain line and other components and insufficient clearance] and, if required, rectification [corrective actions], to ensure required clearance between the APU negative-G fuel feed drain line and its surrounding structure and components [and, for certain other airplanes, this [Canadian] AD mandates replacement of the APU negative-G fuel feed tube assembly and the drain line].

    Corrective actions include replacing the APU negative-G fuel feed drain line. 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-2016-7418.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued the following service information:

    • Service Bulletin 601-0640, dated May 19, 2015; and Service Bulletin 604-28-021 dated May 19, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for chafing conditions of the negative-G fuel feed drain line of the APU, and corrective actions.

    • Service Bulletin 605-28-009, dated May 19, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for chafing conditions of the negative-G fuel feed drain line of the APU, replacement of the APU negative-G fuel feed tube assembly and the drain line, and corrective actions.

    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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 504 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it will take about 22 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $6,334 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,134,816 or $8,204 per product.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

    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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-7418; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-163-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) airplanes, having serial numbers (S/Ns) 3001 through 3066 inclusive.

    (2) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes, having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive.

    (3) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, having S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 through 5970 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that a potential chafing condition exists between the negative-G fuel feed drain line of the auxiliary power unit (APU) and its surrounding structure and components. We are issuing this AD to prevent a chafing condition in the negative-G fuel feed drain line, which can result in fuel leaking from the drain line. This condition, in combination with a nearby hot surface or other potential ignition source, could result in an uncontrolled fire in the aft equipment bay.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Corrective Action for Certain Airplanes

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, comply with the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (1) For Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) airplanes, having S/Ns 3001 through 3066 inclusive; and Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes, having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive: Do a detailed inspection for chafing conditions of the negative-G fuel feed drain line of the APU, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0640, dated May 19, 2015.

    (2) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, having S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Do a detailed inspection for chafing conditions of the negative-G fuel feed drain line of the APU, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-28-021, dated May 19, 2015.

    (3) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, having S/Ns 5701 through 5913 inclusive, 5917, 5918, and 5923 through 5970 inclusive: Do a detailed inspection for chafing conditions of the negative-G fuel feed drain line of the APU, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions in Part A and, if applicable, Part B of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-28-009, dated May 19, 2015.

    (h) Modification for Certain Other Airplanes

    For Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes having S/Ns 5914 through 5916 inclusive and 5919 through 5922 inclusive: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the APU negative-G fuel feed tube assembly and the drain line, in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-28-009, dated May 19, 2015.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD:

    An inspection is not required.

    (i) Service Information Exception

    Where any service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD specifies to contact the manufacturer for corrective action, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, 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: Norman Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7337; fax 516-794-5531. 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, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-26, dated September 14, 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-2016-7418.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 16, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14965 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7269; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-198-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that during inspections to detect corrosion of the bulk cargo doors, several cracks were discovered. This proposed AD would require a general visual inspection of the bulk cargo door frame to identify any structural repairs, a detailed visual inspection of the frame at the repaired area for any cracking if necessary, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the bulk cargo doors; such cracking could result in rapid airplane decompression or possible loss of the bulk cargo door.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 12, 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.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.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.

    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-2016-7269; 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 Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7269; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-198-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0238, dated December 18, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During inspections to detect corrosion on the Bulk Cargo Doors of Airbus A300 family aeroplanes, several cracks were discovered. Investigations revealed that a set of SRM [structural repair manual] repair solutions was defined in 1993, and was classified as permanent and without limitation. As of 2011, this set of repair solutions was revised and classified permanent, but with post-repair required actions.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in rapid decompression events or even loss of the bulk cargo door.

    As per Ageing Aircraft rules, it was determined that new inspections have to be completed on the Bulk Cargo Door Frames to detect potential fatigue damages on repaired structures or to perform a new repair scheme.

    Based on the fact that several aeroplanes could potentially be flying with potential fatigue damages on repaired structures, Airbus was requested to issue Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A53W010-15 to provide fleet-wide inspection instructions to address this condition.

    For the reasons describes above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the bulk cargo door frame to determine whether a repair has been accomplished and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    The required actions in this NPRM include a detailed visual inspection of the bulk cargo door frame at the repaired area for any cracking, repair of cracks, and post-repair inspections of crack-free frames. 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-2016-7269.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A53W010-15, Revision 00, including Appendixes 1, 2, and 3, dated December 15, 2015. The service information describes a general visual inspection of the bulk cargo door frame to identify any structural repairs, and a detailed visual inspection of the frame at the repaired area. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 135 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $11,475

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD, except for the cost of reporting, specified as follows:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Reporting 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85
    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

    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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-7269; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-198-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, that have accumulated more than 14,600 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    For airplanes that have accumulated 14,600 total flight cycles or fewer as of the effective date of this AD, no actions are required by this AD.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during inspections to detect corrosion of the bulk cargo doors, several cracks were discovered. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the bulk cargo doors; such cracking could result in rapid airplane decompression or possible loss of the bulk cargo door.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    Within 250 flight cycles or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a general visual inspection of the bulk cargo door frame to identify the existence of any structural repairs, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53W010-15, Revision 00, including Appendixes 1, 2, and 3, dated December 15, 2015.

    (h) Detailed Visual Inspection

    If, during the general visual inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, any repair is found on the bulk cargo door frame: Before further flight, do a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the frame at the repaired area, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A53W010-15, Revision 00, including Appendixes 1, 2, and 3, dated December 15, 2015.

    (i) Crack Repair

    If any cracking is found during the detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (j) Post-Repair Actions for Crack-Free Frames

    If no cracking is found during the detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do the actions in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD: Send a report of the inspection results to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com/).

    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the inspection.

    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Within 2,800 flight cycles after the detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do applicable post-repair inspections and repairs, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (k) 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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; 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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0238, dated December 18, 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-2016-7269.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 10, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14968 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7270; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-116-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-700 and -700C series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that for airplanes with blended winglets, the nose-up pitch trim limit and associated warning for the horizontal stabilizer control system will allow take-off with incorrect trim settings. This proposed AD would require, depending on airplane configuration, replacing the pitch trim light plates on the flight deck control stand, relocating the position warning horn switches of the horizontal stabilizer, revising the software, removing the placard, and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent take-off with incorrect settings of the horizontal stabilizer pitch trim system. Settings outside of the appropriate pitch trim limits could result in loss of controllability of the airplane during take-off.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 12, 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.

    For Aviation Partners Boeing service information identified in this NPRM, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; phone: 206-830-7699; fax: 206-767-3355; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com.

    For The Boeing Company service information identified in this NPRM, 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. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7270.

    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-2016-7270; 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:

    Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6659; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7270; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-116-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We have received a report that for airplanes with blended winglets, the nose-up pitch trim limit and associated warning for the horizontal stabilizer control system will allow takeoff with incorrect trim settings. The trim control system was recently analyzed for potential nose-up mis-trim occurrences during take-off for airplanes with blended winglets. Results of the analysis indicated that Model 737-700 airplanes with blended winglets are not compliant with the certification rules for specific conditions. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the loss of controllability of the airplane during take-off.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing the pitch trim light plates on the flight deck control stand, relocating the position warning horn switches of the horizontal stabilizer, revising the software, and doing related investigative and corrective actions.

    The related investigative actions include verifying that the stabilizer “B” measurement is at a certain dimension, performing a light plate function test, performing a stabilizer functional test, loading and verifying model/engine database software, performing a flight management computer configuration check, and verifying all settings.

    The corrective actions include adjusting the stabilizer, adjusting the light plate, replacing the light plate, rigging and adjusting the horizontal stabilizer trim system, and repairing the light plate switch.

    We reviewed Aviation Partners Service Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17, 2015. The service information describes procedures for revising the software and removing the placard.

    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.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7270.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 569 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Relocation Up to 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $0 Up to $340 Up to $193,460 Replacement Up to 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $1,973 Up to $2,228 Up to $1,267,732 Software installation 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 0 170 96,730 Placard Removal (2 airplanes) 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 85 170

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

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

    (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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-7270; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-116-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-700 and -700C series airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) Airplanes having supplemental type certificate ST00830SE installed (Aviation Partners Boeing blended winglets), as identified in Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016.

    (2) Airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015.

    (3) Airplanes identified in Aviation Partners Service Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that for airplanes with blended winglets, the nose-up pitch trim limit and associated warning for the horizontal stabilizer control system will allow take-off with incorrect trim settings. We are issuing this AD to prevent take-off with incorrect settings of the horizontal stabilizer pitch trim system. Settings outside of the appropriate pitch trim limits could result in loss of controllability of the airplane during take-off.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement, Relocation, and Applicable Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, relocate the position warning horn switches of the horizontal stabilizer, replace the pitch trim light plates on the flight deck control stand, revise the software, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, relocate the position warning horn switches of the horizontal stabilizer, replace the pitch trim light plates on the flight deck control stand, revise the software, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, and Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

    (h) Software Revision and Placard Removal

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the software and remove the placard, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Service Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17, 2015.

    (i) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service Information

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, dated March 31, 2015; or Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 1, dated August 6, 2015.

    (j) Exception to the Service Information

    Where Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action, and specifies that action as Required for Compliance (RC): Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (k) 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 (l)(1) 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, modification, or alteration 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, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6659; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; phone: 206-830-7699; fax: 206-767-3355; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 14, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14966 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7267; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-015-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes, and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by several occurrences of loss of airspeed data on both pilot and co-pilot air speed indicators due to the accumulation of ice on the pitot probes. An investigation revealed that the accumulation of ice was due to inoperative pitot probe heaters. This proposed AD would require replacing the existing circuit breakers in both the left and right side of the pitot heater system with circuit breakers that have higher trip points. We are proposing this AD to prevent circuit breakers from tripping and cutting power supply to the pitot probe heater, which could cause loss of airspeed data and result in the flightcrew not being able to control the airspeed of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 12, 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.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-4000; fax: 416-375-4539; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.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.

    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-2016-7267; 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 Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7267; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-015-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-04, dated February 1, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes, and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been several occurrences of loss of airspeed data on both pilot and co-pilot Airspeed Indicators (ASI) due to the accumulation of ice on the pitot probes. Subsequent investigation revealed that the build up of ice on the pitot probes was due to inoperative pitot probe heaters. When flying in heavy precipitations, the increased heat required by the pitot probe to clear ice build up may result in a current demand in excess of the trip point of the associated circuit breakers (CB). Under this condition, the CB may trip and cut power supply to the heater. If not corrected, the loss of airspeed data may result in the crew not being able to control the aeroplane's airspeed.

    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the replacement of the existing CBs with CBs that have higher trip points.

    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-2016-7267.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-30-39, dated November 11, 2015, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-30-40, dated November 11, 2015. The service information describes replacing the existing circuit breakers in both the left and right side of the pitot heater system with circuit breakers that have higher trip points. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 83 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Replacement 20 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,700 Up to $1,194 $2,894 $240,202
    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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

    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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-7267; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-015-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 003 through 672 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and rain protection.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by several occurrences of loss of airspeed data on both pilot and co-pilot air speed indicators due to the accumulation of ice on the pitot probes. An investigation revealed that the accumulation of ice was due to inoperative pitot probe heaters. We are issuing this AD to prevent circuit breakers from tripping and cutting power supply to the pitot probe heater, which could cause loss of airspeed data and result in the flightcrew not being able to control the airspeed of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement

    Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, within 5,000 flight hours or 60 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace the existing circuit breakers in both the left and right side of the pitot heater system with circuit breakers that have higher trip points, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-30-39, dated November 11, 2015 (for the right side), and Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-30-40, dated November 11, 2015 (for the left side).

    (h) Airplanes That Meet the Requirements of Paragraph (g) of This AD

    For airplanes on which Bombardier ModSum IS8Q3000004 has been incorporated in production, no action is required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 New York ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7300; fax: 516-794-5531. 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, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-04, dated February 1, 2016, 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-2016-7267.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-4000; fax: 416-375-4539; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14971 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6989; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-7] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tekamah, NE AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tekamah Municipal Airport, Tekamah, NE. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate standard instrument approach procedures (SIAP) at Tekamah Municipal Airport for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone 1-800-647-5527 or 202-366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-6989; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-6989/Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Tekamah Municipal Airport, Tekamah, NE., with a segment extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.7 miles southeast of the airport. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary to accommodate the SIAPs at Tekamah Municipal Airport for compliance with FAA Joint Order 7400.2K, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE NE E5 Tekamah, NE [Amended] Tekamah Municipal Airport, NE (Lat. 41°45′49″ N., long. 96°10′41″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Tekamah Municipal Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 154° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 9.7 miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 20, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15186 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6986; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-6] Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Farmington, MO; and Amendment of Class E Airspace for the following Missouri Towns; Ava, MO; Cameron, MO; Chillicothe, MO; Farmington, MO; and Festus, MO AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to remove Class E surface area airspace at Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bill Martin Memorial Airport, Ava, MO; Cameron Memorial Airport, Cameron, MO; Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO; Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; and Festus Memorial Airport, Festus, MO. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDBs), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the above airports.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone 1-800-647-5527 or 202-366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-6986; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove Class E surface area airspace at Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bill Martin Memorial Airport, Ava, MO; Cameron Memorial Airport, Cameron, MO; Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO; Farmington Regional Airport; and Festus Memorial Airport, Festus, MO.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-6986/Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by removing Class E surface area airspace at Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO, as the airspace is no longer needed. This proposal also would modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the following airports:

    Within a 6.8-mile radius of Bill Martin Memorial Airport, Ava, MO, with a segment extending to from the 6.8-mile radius to the Dogwood VHF omnidirectional range collocated tactical air navigation (VORTAC) west/northwest of the airport;

    Within a 6.4-mile radius of Cameron Municipal Airport, Cameron, MO;

    Within a 6.4-mile radius of Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO;

    Within a 6.4-mile radius of Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO, with a segment extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.5 miles southwest of the airport, and a segment extending from the 6.4-mile radius to the Farmington VORTAC; and

    Within a 6.9-mile radius of Festus Memorial Airport, Festus, MO, with a segment extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 8.8 miles south of the airport.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs including the Cameron NDB, Perrine NDB, and Festus NDB; cancellation of NDB approaches; and implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ACE MO E2 Farmington, MO [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE MO E5 Ava, MO [Amended] Ava, Bill Martin Memorial Airport, MO (Lat. 36°58′19″ N., long. 92°40′55″ W.) Dogwood VORTAC (Lat. 37°01′24″ N., long. 92°52′37″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Ava Bill Martin Memorial Airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 107° radial of the Dogwood VORTAC extending from the 6.8-mile radius to the VORTAC.

    ACE MO E5 Cameron, MO [Amended] Cameron Memorial Airport, MO (Lat. 39°43′39″N., long. 94°16′35″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Cameron Memorial Airport.

    ACE MO E5 Chillicothe, MO [Amended] Chillicothe Municipal Airport, MO (Lat. 39°46′55″ N., long. 93°29′47″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Chillicothe Municipal Airport.

    ACE MO E5 Farmington, MO [Amended] Farmington Regional Airport, MO (Lat. 37°45′40″ N., long. 90°25′43″ W.) Farmington VORTAC (Lat. 37°40′24″ N., long. 90°14′03″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Farmington Regional Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 204° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.5 miles southwest of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the Farmington VORTAC 299° radial extending from the 6.4-mile radius of the airport to the VORTAC.

    ACE MO E5 Festus, MO [Amended] Festus Memorial Airport, MO (Lat. 38°11′42″ N., long. 90°23′08″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Festus Memorial Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 188° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 8.8 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 20, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15185 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0448] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Fall River Grand Prix, Mt Hope Bay and Taunton River, Fall River, MA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Mt Hope Bay and the Taunton River in the vicinity of Fall River, MA, during the Fall River Grand Prix marine event August 27-28, 2016. This safety zone is intended to safeguard mariners from the hazards associated with high-speed, high-performance motorboats competing in the event. Vessels would be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within this safety zone during periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0448 using the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, contact Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc, Chief of the Waterways Management Division at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, telephone 401-435-2351, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Acronyms CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of The Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Borden Light Marina of Fall River, MA, notified the Coast guard that it intends to conduct the 2nd annual Fall River Grand Prix powerboat races in the vicinity of the Taunton River and Mt Hope Bay adjacent to the Fall River waterfront. Similar to the inaugural event in 2015, this is a two-day event where high-speed, high-performance motorboats participate in controlled races within a well-defined water area. The COTP Southeastern New England has determined that potential hazards associated with the Fall River Grand Prix require a safety zone in the vicinity of the Taunton River and Mt Hope Bay, in waters adjacent to Fall River, to provide for both participant and spectator safety.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators in the vicinity of the Fall River Grand Prix before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The 2nd Annual Fall River Grand Prix is a two-day event where high-speed, high-performance motorboats participate in controlled races within a well-defined water area. The safety zone proposed in this NPRM will encompass the racing area and will include a buffer between the racing motorboats and spectator craft to provide a margin of safety. As these races are part of a national series of events, governed by a national racing and safety organization (the U.S. Offshore Powerboat Association), and operated by experienced high-speed motorboat crews and support teams, they are expected to generate local and regional media coverage, and attract spectators on a number of recreational and excursion vessels.

    The Coast Guard is establishing this safety zone, in conjunction with the Fall River Grand Prix, to ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with high-speed, high-performance motorboat racing. The Coast Guard anticipates little concern with the proposed safety zone by mariners, as there is little major commercial vessel activity in Mt Hope Bay and the Taunton River in the vicinity of Fall River, MA, and most recreational vessels are not restricted to the deep draft channel and can easily transit via alternate routes. Also, the safety zone will be enforced only during periods of actual racing, which will be limited to only a few hours on each of the two days of the event.

    Regardless, in the unlikely situation where a commercial or recreational vessel may still need to transit Mt Hope Bay and the Taunton River in the vicinity of Fall River, MA, for any number of reasons including destination, familiarity with the waterway, tide restrictions, etc., these vessels may be able to continue transits through Mt Hope Bay and the Taunton River, even during enforcement of the safety zone, as there will be sufficient room for most recreational vessels and some commercial vessels to pass to the west of the safety zone. Also, the Coast Guard routinely works with the local marine pilot organization and shipping agents to coordinate vessel transits during marine events, and would continue to do so for the entire event to avoid major interruptions to shipping schedules.

    The Coast Guard proposes to add a temporary safety zone that would encompass the navigation channel from approximately Mt Hope Bay buoy R10 southwest of Brayton Point channel, and would extend approximately two miles to the northeast up to and including Mt Hope Bay buoy C17 north of the I-195/Braga Bridge. The safety zone would be enforced only during times of actual vessel racing.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    We expect the adverse economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some adverse impact on the public, the potential impact would be minimized for the following reasons: The safety zone will be in effect for only a few hours each day for two consecutive days, and vessels will only be restricted from the zone in Mt Hope Bay and the Taunton River in the vicinity of Fall River, MA during those limited periods when the races are actually ongoing; during periods when there is no actual racing (e.g., racing vessels are transiting from the pier to the racing site; downtime between races, etc.) vessels may be allowed to transit through the safety zone; there is an alternate route available for recreational vessels to the west of the safety zone that does not add substantial transit time and is already routinely used by mariners; many vessels, especially recreational vessels, may transit in all portions of the affected waterway except for those areas covered by the proposed safety zone; and vessels may enter or pass through the affected waterway with the permission of the COTP or the COTP's representative.

    Notification of the Fall River Grand Prix and the associated safety zone would be made to mariners through the Rhode Island Port Safety Forum, local Notice to Mariners, event sponsors, and local media well in advance of the event.

    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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone in conjunction with the Fall River Grand Prix event, a high-speed, high-performance motorboat racing event. Such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    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.

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    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 proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for Part 165 reads as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Add § 165.T0448 to read as follows:
    § 165.T0448 Safety Zone for the Fall River Grand Prix, Mt Hope Bay and Taunton River, Fall River, MA

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: Mt Hope Bay and the Taunton River navigation channel from approximately Mt Hope Bay buoy R10 southwest of Brayton Point channel, and extending approximately two miles to the northeast up to and including Mt Hope Bay buoy C17 north of the Braga Bridge. The safety zone is encompassed by the following coordinates:

    Corner Latitude Longitude SW 41°41.40′ N. 7°11.15′ W. NW 41°41.48′ N. 71°11.1′ W. SE 41°42.33′ N. 71° 09.40′ W. NE 41°42.42′ N. 71°09.47′ W.

    (b) Enforcement Period. Vessels will be prohibited from entering this safety zone, when enforced, during the Fall River Grand Prix marine event between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. from Saturday, August 27, 2016 to Sunday, August 28, 2016.

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    (1) Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England (COTP), to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

    (2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.

    (3) Patrol Commander. The Coast Guard may patrol each safety zone under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM.”

    (4) Spectators. All persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.

    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 as well as the following regulations apply to the safety zone established in conjunction with the Fall River Grand Prix, Taunton River, vicinity of Fall River, MA. These regulations may be enforced for the duration of the event.

    (2) No later than 8 a.m. each day of the event, the Coast Guard will announce via Safety Marine Information Broadcasts and local media the times and duration of each race scheduled for that day, and the precise area(s) of the safety zone that will be enforced.

    (3) Vessels may not transit through or within the safety zone during periods of enforcement without Patrol Commander approval. Vessels permitted to transit must operate at a no-wake speed, in a manner which will not endanger participants or other crafts in the event.

    (4) Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the movement of event participants or official patrol vessels in the safety zone unless authorized by an official patrol vessel.

    (5) The Patrol Commander may control the movement of all vessels in the safety zone. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    (6) The Patrol Commander may delay or terminate the Fall River Grand Prix at any time to ensure safety. Such action may be justified as a result of weather, traffic density, spectator operation or participant behavior.

    Dated: June 14, 2016. Richard J. Shultz, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Southeastern New England.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15331 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0250; FRL-9948-40-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; GA 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 Georgia, through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), on March 25, 2013, to demonstrate that the State 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. GAEPD certified that the Georgia SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Georgia. EPA is proposing to determine that portions of Georgia's infrastructure submission, submitted on March 25, 2013, addresses certain required infrastructure elements for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0250 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 via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Overview

    On February 9, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion, 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. Additionally, 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 “Georgia Rule” indicates that the cited regulation has been approved into Georgia's federally-approved SIP. The term “Georgia statute” indicates cited statutes in Georgia Air Quality Act, Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Section 12-9, et seq., which are not a part of the SIP unless otherwise indicated.

    Today's action is proposing to approve Georgia'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 requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4). On March 18, 2015, EPA approved Georgia's March 25, 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. EPA is not proposing any action today regarding the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4). For the aspects of Georgia's submittal proposed for approval today, EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that Georgia'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 110(a)(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 Georgia that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour 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 (NNSR) 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.

    6See, 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

    8See, 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 (GHGs). 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 fine particulate matter (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, among other things, 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).

    17See, 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 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

    IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed the elements of the sections 110(a)(1) and (2) “infrastructure” provisions?

    Georgia'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. Several regulations within Georgia's SIP are relevant to air quality control regulations. The following State regulations include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures: 391-3-1-.01, Definitions. Amended.; 391-3-1-.02, Provisions. Amended.; and 391-3-1-.3, Permits. Amended. These regulations collectively establish enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means or techniques for activities that contribute to NO2 concentrations in the ambient air, and provide authority for GAEPD to establish such limits and measures as well as schedules for compliance through SIP-approved permits to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that the cited provisions are adequate to protect 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 start up, shut down, and malfunction (SSM) 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: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator. Georgia's authority to monitor ambient air quality is found in the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality, Powers and duties of director as to air quality generally (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6). 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 includes a certified evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary support equipment.19 On June 15, 2015, EPA received Georgia's plan for 2015. On October 13, 2015, EPA approved Georgia's monitoring network plan. Georgia's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152. The Georgia statute, along with Georgia's Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, 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. No specific statutory or regulatory authority is necessary for GAEPD to authorize data analysis or to submit such data to EPA, and that data submissions are provided in response to Federal regulations. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements 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: Section 110(a)(2)(C) 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).

    Enforcement: GAEPD's Enforcement Program covers mobile and stationary sources, consumer products, and fuels. The enforcement requirements are met through two Georgia Rules for Air Quality: 391-3-1-.07, Inspections and Investigations. Amended. and 391-3-1-.09 Enforcement. Amended. Georgia also cites to enforcement authority found in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-13) in its submittal. Collectively, these regulations and State statute provide for enforcement of NO2 emission limits and control measures.

    Preconstruction PSD Permitting for Major Sources: With respect to Georgia's March 25, 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 program that regulates emissions of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Georgia's federally approved SIP contains its minor NSR permitting program at Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(1), Construction (SIP)Permit, which governs the preconstruction permitting of modifications, construction of minor stationary sources, and minor modifications of major stationary sources.

    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia'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 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 Georgia's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure submissions did not address prongs 1 and 2.

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With respect to Georgia'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 Georgia's March 25, 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 Georgia's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure submissions 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. The following two Georgia Rules for Air Quality provide Georgia the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element related to PSD and permitting regulations. Specifically, Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02. Provisions. Amended and 391-3-1-.03. Permits. Amended collectively require any new major source or major modification to undergo PSD or NNSR permitting and thereby provide notification to other potentially affected Federal, state, and local government agencies.

    Additionally, Georgia does not have any pending obligation under section 115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for ensuring 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 Georgia'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.

    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), GAEPD's infrastructure SIP demonstrates that it is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards and general policies, a system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. In its SIP submittal, Georgia describes its authority for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) as the CAA section l05 grant process, the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10), and Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9) which establishes Georgia's Air Permit Fee System. For Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the State does not rely on localities in Georgia for specific SIP implementation. As evidence of the adequacy of GAEPD's resources with respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to Georgia on April 19, 2016, outlining CAA section 105 grant commitments and the current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2015. The letter EPA submitted to GAEPD can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0520. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2015, therefore, GAEPD's grants were finalized and closed out. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia has adequate resources for implementation of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP provide: (1) The majority of members of the state board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. With respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining the state board requirements of CAA section 128, Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission cites Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5) Powers and duties of Board of Natural Resources as to air quality generally) which provides the powers and duties of the Board of Natural Resources as to air quality and provides that at least a majority of members of this board represent the public interest and not derive any significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders and that potential conflicts of interest will be adequately disclosed. This provision has been incorporated into the federally approved SIP.

    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the State has adequately addressed the requirements of section 128(a), and accordingly has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve GAEPD's infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii).

    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. GAEPD's infrastructure submission identifies how the major source and minor source emission inventory programs collect emission data throughout the State and ensure the quality of such data. These data are used to compare against current emission limits and to meet requirements of EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). The following State rules enable Georgia to meet the requirements of this element: Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3), Sampling; 391-3-1-.02(6)(b), Source Monitoring; 391-3-1-.02(7), Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality; 391-3-1-.02(8), New Source Performance Standards; 391-3-1-.02(9), Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 391-3-1-.02(11), Compliance Assurance Monitoring; and 391-3-1-.03, Permits. Amended. Also, the Georgia Air Quality Act Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-5(b)(6)) provides the State with the authority to conduct actions regarding stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting in support of this infrastructure element. These rules collectively require emissions monitoring and reporting for activities that contribute to NO2 concentrations in the air, including requirements for the installation, calibration, maintenance, and operation of equipment for continuously monitoring or recording emissions, or provide authority for GAEPD to establish such emissions monitoring and reporting requirements through SIP-approved permits and require reporting of NO2 emissions.

    Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3), “Sampling,” 20 specifically, in “Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants” under Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements allows the use of all available information to determine compliance,21 and EPA is unaware of any provision preventing the use of credible evidence in the Georgia SIP.

    20 Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3) Sampling is not approved into Georgia's federally-approved SIP.

    21 “Credible Evidence,” makes allowances for owners and/or operators to utilize “any credible evidence or information relevant” to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed, for the purpose of submitting compliance certification, and can be used to establish whether or not an owner or operator has violated or is in violation of any rule or standard.

    Additionally, Georgia 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. Georgia made its latest update to the 2011 NEI on December 12, 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 Georgia'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 Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).

    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the Act requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission cites air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies in the Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12-9-2 Declaration of public policy, 12-9-6 Powers and duties of director as to air quality generally, 12-9-12 Injunctive relief, 12-9-13 Proceedings for enforcement, and 12-9-14 Powers of director in situations involving imminent and substantial danger to public health), and Rule 391-3-1-.04 “Air Pollution Episodes.” O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-2 provides “[i]t is declared to be the public policy of the state of Georgia to preserve, protect, and improve air quality . . . to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards so as to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare.” O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(10) provides the Director of EPD authority to “issue orders as may be necessary to enforce compliance with [the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A)] and all rules and regulations of this article.” O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-12 provides that “[w]henever in the judgment of the director any person has engaged in or is about to engage in any act or practice which constitutes or will constitute an unlawful action under [the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A)], he may make application to the superior court of the county in which the unlawful act or practice has been or is about to be engaged in, or in which jurisdiction is appropriate, for an order enjoining such act or practice or for an order requiring compliance with this article. Upon a showing by the director that such person has engaged in or is about to engage in any such act or practice, a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order shall be granted without the necessity of showing lack of an adequate remedy of law.” O.C.G.A. Section 12-19-13 specifically pertains to enforcement proceedings when the Director of EPD has reason to believe that a violation of any provision of the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A), or environmental rules, regulations or orders have occurred. O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-14 also provides that the Governor, may issue orders as necessary to protect the health of persons who are, or may be, affected by a pollution source or facility after “consult[ation] with local authorities in order to confirm the correctness of the information on which action proposed to be taken is based and to ascertain the action which such authorities are or will be taking.”

    Rule 391-3-1-.04 “Air Pollution Episodes” provides that the Director of EPD “will proclaim that an Air Pollution Alert, Air Pollution Warning, or Air Pollution Emergency exists when the meteorological conditions are such that an air stagnation condition is in existence and/or the accumulation of air contaminants in any place is attaining or has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, lead to a substantial threat to the health of persons in the specific area affected.” Collectively the cited provisions provide that Georgia EPD demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority in the state. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP, and State laws are adequate for emergency powers related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission 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. GAEPD is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS in Georgia. The State 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. Georgia has no areas that have been designated as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).

    The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(12) provide Georgia the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. Section 12-9-6(b)(l2) of the Georgia Air Quality Act requires GAEPD to submit SIP revisions whenever revised air quality standards are promulgated by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia adequately demonstrates a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H).

    10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection: EPA is proposing to approve Georgia'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 complies with the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, and visibility protection. With respect to Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA took final action to approve Georgia's March 25, 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.

    Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): 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 carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121 relative to consultation. The following State rules and statutes, as well as the State's Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development activities: Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5(b)(17)); Georgia Administrative Procedures Act (O.C.G.A. § 50-13-4); and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) as it relates to Class I areas. Section 12-9-5(b)(l7) of the Georgia Air Quality Act states that the DNR Board is to “establish satisfactory processes of consultation and cooperation with local governments or other designated organizations of elected officials or federal agencies for the purpose of planning, implementing, and determining requirements under this article to the extent required by the federal act.”

    Additionally, Georgia adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity which includes the development of mobile inventories for SIP development.22 Required partners covered by Georgia's consultation procedures include Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) consultation with government officials.

    22 Georgia rule 391-3-1-.15, Georgia Transportation Conformity and Consultation Interagency Rule, is approved into the State's SIP. See 77 FR 35866.

    Public notification (127 public notification): GAEPD has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of instances or areas exceeding the NAAQS along with associated health effects through the Air Quality Index reporting system in required areas. GAEPD's Ambient Monitoring Web page (www.georgiaair.org/amp) provides information regarding current and historical air quality across the State. Daily air quality forecasts may be disseminated to the public in Atlanta through the Georgia Department of Transportation's electronic billboards. In its SIP submission, Georgia also notes that the non-profit organization in Georgia, “Clean Air Campaign,” disseminates statewide air quality information and ways to reduce air pollution. Georgia rule 391-3-1-.04, Air Pollution Episodes enables the State to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. In addition, the following State statutes provide Georgia the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. OCGA 12-9-6(b)(8) provides authority to the Georgia Board of Natural Resources “To collect and disseminate information and to provide for public notification in matters relating to air quality. . .”. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia'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 Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public notification.

    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 to fulfill its obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J). 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) related to Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling and Submission of 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. The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(2)) provides GAEPD the authority to conduct modeling actions and to submit air quality modeling data to EPA in support of this element. GAEPD maintains personnel with training and experience to conduct source-oriented dispersion modeling with models such as AERMOD that would likely be used for modeling NO2 emissions from sources. The State also notes that its SIP-approved PSD program, which includes specific (dispersion) modeling provisions, provides further support of GAEPD's ability to address this element. All such modeling is conducted in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, “Guideline on Air Quality Models.”

    Additionally, Georgia participates in a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, for the Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Georgia's air quality regulations and practices demonstrate that GAEPD 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 Georgia's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K).

    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) 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.

    Georgia's PSD and NNSR permitting programs are funded with title V fees. Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(9), Permit Fees incorporates the EPA-approved title V fee program and fees for synthetic minor sources. Georgia's authority to mandate funding for processing PSD and NNSR permits is found in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10). Additionally, Georgia's approved title V operating permit program at 391-3-1-.03(10), Title V Operating Permits, 23 covers the cost of implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).

    23 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: Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Consultation and participation by affected local entities is authorized by the Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-5(b)(17)) and the Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.15, Transportation Conformity, which defines the consultation procedures for areas subject to transportation conformity. Furthermore, GAEPD 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 has worked with the Federal Land Managers as a requirement of the regional haze rule. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia'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 (110(a)(2)D(i) and 110(a)(2)(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 Georgia's March 25, 2013, SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS has met the above-described infrastructure SIP requirements because these aspects of the submission are consistent with section 110 of the CAA. This proposed action, however, does not include the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J), which have been approved in a separate action, or the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of prongs 1, 2 and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.

    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).

    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. 2016-15136 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0294; FRL-9948-41-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the October 26, 2015, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from Alabama concerning the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Under CSAPR, large electricity generating units (EGUs) in Alabama are subject to Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring the units to participate in CSAPR's federal trading program for annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and one of CSAPR's two federal trading programs for annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2). This action would approve into Alabama's SIP the state's regulations requiring Alabama EGUs to participate in new CSAPR state trading programs for annual NOX and SO2 emissions integrated with the CSAPR federal trading programs, replacing the corresponding FIP requirements. These CSAPR state trading programs are substantively identical to the CSAPR federal trading programs except with regard to the provisions allocating emission allowances among Alabama units. EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the SIP revision concerning these CSAPR state trading programs because these portions of the SIP revision meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's regulations for approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision replacing the requirements of a CSAPR FIP. Under the CSAPR regulations, approval of these portions of the SIP revision would automatically eliminate Alabama units' obligations to participate in CSAPR's federal trading programs for annual NOX and SO2 emissions under the corresponding CSAPR FIPs addressing interstate transport requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Approval of these portions of the SIP revision would satisfy Alabama's good neighbor obligation under the CAA to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. EPA is not proposing to act at this time on the portion of Alabama's SIP submittal intended to replace Alabama units' obligations to participate in CSAPR's federal trading program for ozone-season NOX emissions under a separate CSAPR FIP.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0294 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:

    Steven Scofield, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Scofield can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9034 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. Summary II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions IV. Alabama's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis A. Alabama's SIP Submittal B. EPA's Analysis of Alabama's Submittal 1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal 2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring Allocation 3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State Budget 4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA 5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or Recorded 6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program Provisions 7. Complete, Substantively Identical Trading Program Provisions 8. Only Non-Substantive Substitutions for the Term “State” 9. Exclusion of Provisions Addressing Units in Indian Country V. EPA's Proposed Action on Alabama's Submittal VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary

    EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the October 26, 2015, SIP submittal from Alabama concerning CSAPR 1 trading programs for annual emissions of NOX and SO2. Large EGUs in Alabama are subject to CSAPR FIPs that require the units to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program.2 CSAPR also provides a process for the submission and approval of SIP revisions to replace the requirements of CSAPR FIPs with SIP requirements under which a state's units participate in CSAPR state trading programs that are integrated with and, with certain permissible exceptions, substantively identical to the CSAPR federal trading programs.

    1 Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39 and subparts AAAAA through DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97).

    2 EPA has proposed to replace the terms “Transport Rule” and “TR” in the text of the Code of Federal Regulations with the updated terms “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” and “CSAPR.” 80 FR 75706 and 75759 (December 3, 2015). Except where otherwise noted, EPA uses the updated terms here.

    The portions of the SIP revision proposed for approval would incorporate into Alabama's SIP state trading program regulations for annual NOX and SO2 emissions that would replace EPA's federal trading program regulations for those emissions for Alabama units for control periods in 2017 and later years. EPA is proposing to approve these portions of the SIP revision because they meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision replacing a federal trading program with a state trading program that is integrated with and substantively identical to the federal trading program except for permissible differences with respect to emission allowance allocation provisions. Under the CSAPR regulations, approval of these portions of the SIP revision would automatically eliminate the obligations of units in Alabama (but not any units in Indian country within Alabama's borders) to participate in CSAPR's federal trading programs for annual NOX and SO2 emissions under the corresponding CSAPR FIPs. EPA proposes to find that approval of these portions of the SIP revision would satisfy Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.

    The Phase 2 SO2 budget established for Alabama in the CSAPR rulemaking has been remanded to EPA for reconsideration.3 If EPA finalizes approval of these portions of the SIP revision as proposed, Alabama will have fulfilled its obligations to provide a SIP that address the interstate transport provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA would no longer be under an obligation to (nor would EPA have the authority to) address those interstate transport requirements through implementation of a FIP, and approval of these portions of the SIP revision would eliminate Alabama units' obligations to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program. Elimination of Alabama units' obligations to participate in the federal trading programs would include elimination of the federally-established Phase 2 budgets capping allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances to Alabama units under those federal trading programs. As approval of these portions of the SIP revision would eliminate Alabama's remanded federally-established Phase 2 SO2 budget and eliminate EPA's authority to subject units in Alabama to a FIP, it is EPA's opinion that finalization of approval of this SIP action would address the judicial remand of Alabama's federally-established Phase 2 SO2 budget.4

    3EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

    4 Although the court in EME Homer City Generation remanded Alabama's Phase 2 SO2 budget because it determined that the budget was too stringent, nothing in the court's decision affects Alabama's authority to seek incorporation into its SIP of a state-established budget as stringent as the remanded federally-established budget or limits EPA's authority to approve such a SIP revision. See 42 U.S.C. 7416, 7410(k)(3).

    Large electricity generating units in Alabama are also subject to an additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. While Alabama's SIP submittal also seeks to replace the requirements of the CSAPR FIP concerning Alabama units' ozone-season NOX emissions, EPA is not proposing to act on that portion of the SIP submittal at this time. Approval of this SIP revision concerning other CSAPR trading programs would have no effect on the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program as applied to Alabama units, and the FIP requiring the units to participate in that program would remain in place.

    Section II of this document summarizes relevant aspects of the CSAPR federal trading programs and FIPs as well as the range of opportunities states have to submit SIP revisions to modify or replace the FIP requirements while continuing to rely on CSAPR's trading programs to address the states' obligations to mitigate interstate air pollution. Section III describes the specific conditions for approval of such SIP revisions. Section IV contains EPA's analysis of Alabama's SIP submittal, and Section V sets forth EPA's proposed action on the submittal. Section VI addresses required statutory and Executive Order reviews.

    II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate transport of air pollution. As amended, CSAPR requires 28 Eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain three NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide “budgets” for emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years. As a mechanism for achieving compliance with the emissions limitations, CSAPR established four federal emissions trading programs: A program for annual NOX emissions, a program for ozone-season NOX emissions, and two geographically separate programs for annual SO2 emissions. CSAPR also established up to three FIPs applicable to the large electricity generating units in each covered state. Each CSAPR FIP requires a state's units to participate in one of the four CSAPR trading programs.

    CSAPR includes provisions under which states may submit and EPA will approve SIP revisions to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport-related obligations using either CSAPR's federal emissions trading programs or state emissions trading programs integrated with the federal programs.5 Through such a SIP revision, a state may replace EPA's default provisions for allocating emission allowances among the state's units, employing any state-selected methodology to allocate or auction the allowances, subject to timing conditions and limits on overall allowance quantities. In the case of CSAPR's federal trading program for ozone-season NOX emissions (or an integrated state trading program), a state may also expand trading program applicability to include certain smaller electricity generating units. If a state wants to replace CSAPR FIP requirements with SIP requirements under which the state's units participate in a state trading program that is integrated with and identical to the federal trading program even as to the allocation and applicability provisions, the state may submit a SIP revision for that purpose as well. However, no emissions budget increases or other substantive changes to the trading program provisions are allowed. A state whose units are subject to multiple CSAPR FIPs and federal trading programs may submit SIP revisions to modify or replace the requirements under either some or all of those FIPs.

    5See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the ability to submit SIP revisions to meet their transport-related obligations using mechanisms other than the CSAPR federal trading programs or integrated state trading programs.

    States can submit two basic forms of CSAPR-related SIP revisions effective for emissions control periods in 2017 or later years.6 Specific conditions for approval of each form of SIP revision are set forth in the CSAPR regulations, as described in section III below. Under the first alternative—an “abbreviated” SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces the default allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions of a CSAPR federal trading program for the state.7 Approval of an abbreviated SIP revision leaves the corresponding CSAPR FIP and all other provisions of the relevant federal trading program in place for the state's units.

    6 CSAPR also provides for a third, more streamlined form of SIP revision that is effective only for control periods in 2016 and is not relevant here. See § 52.38(a)(3), (b)(3); § 52.39(d), (g).

    7 § 52.38(a)(4), (b)(4); § 52.39(e), (h).

    Under the second alternative—a “full” SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces a CSAPR federal trading program for the state with a state trading program integrated with the federal trading program, so long as the state trading program is substantively identical to the federal trading program or does not substantively differ from the federal trading program except as discussed above with regard to the allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.8 For purposes of a full SIP revision, a state may either adopt state rules with complete trading program language, incorporate the federal trading program language into its state rules by reference (with appropriate conforming changes), or employ a combination of these approaches.

    8 § 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5); § 52.39(f), (i).

    The CSAPR regulations identify several important consequences and limitations associated with approval of a full SIP revision. First, upon EPA's approval of a full SIP revision as correcting the deficiency in the state's SIP that was the basis for a particular CSAPR FIP, the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's jurisdiction without the need for a separate EPA withdrawal action, so long as EPA's approval of the SIP is full and unconditional.9 Second, approval of a full SIP revision does not terminate the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program for any units located in any Indian country within the borders of the state, and if and when a unit is located in Indian country within a state's borders, EPA may modify the SIP approval to exclude from the SIP, and include in the surviving CSAPR FIP instead, certain trading program provisions that apply jointly to units in the state and to units in Indian country within the state's borders.10 Finally, if at the time a full SIP revision is approved EPA has already started recording allocations of allowances for a given control period to a state's units, the federal trading program provisions authorizing EPA to complete the process of allocating and recording allowances for that control period to those units will continue to apply, unless EPA's approval of the SIP revision provides otherwise.11

    9 § 52.38(a)(6), (b)(6); § 52.39(j).

    10 § 52.38(a)(5)(iv) and (v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v) and (vi), (b)(6); § 52.39(f)(4) and (5), (i)(4) and (5), (j).

    11 § 52.38(a)(7), (b)(7); § 52.39(k).

    Certain CSAPR Phase 2 emissions budgets have been remanded to EPA for reconsideration.12 However, the CSAPR trading programs remain in effect and all CSAPR emissions budgets likewise remain in effect pending EPA final action to address the remands. The remanded budgets include the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 emissions budget applicable to Alabama units under the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program.

    12EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

    In 2015, EPA proposed to update CSAPR to address Eastern states' interstate air pollution mitigation obligations with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Among other things, the proposed rule would amend the Phase 2 emissions budget applicable to Alabama units under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program and would make technical corrections and nomenclature changes that would apply throughout the CSAPR regulations, including the CSAPR FIPs at 40 CFR part 52 and the CSAPR federal trading program regulations for annual NOX, ozone-season NOX, and SO2 emissions at 40 CFR part 97.13

    13 80 FR 75706, 75710, 75757 (December 3, 2015).

    III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    Each CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP revision must meet the following general submittal conditions:

    Timeliness and completeness of SIP submittal. If a state wants to replace the default allowance allocation or applicability provisions of a CSAPR federal trading program, the complete SIP revision must be submitted to EPA by December 1 of the year before the deadlines described below for submitting allocation or auction amounts to EPA for the first control period for which the state wants to replace the default allocation and/or applicability provisions.14 This SIP submission deadline is inoperative in the case of a SIP revision that seeks only to replace a CSAPR FIP and federal trading program with a SIP and a substantively identical state trading program integrated with the federal trading program. The SIP submittal completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 also apply.

    14 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(vi), (b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(vii); § 52.39(e)(2), (f)(6), (h)(2), (i)(6).

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP seeking to address the allocation or auction of emission allowances must meet the following further conditions:

    Methodology covering all allowances potentially requiring allocation. For each federal trading program addressed by a SIP revision, the SIP revision's allowance allocation or auction methodology must replace both the federal program's default allocations to existing units 15 at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.511(a), 97.611(a), or 97.711(a), as applicable, and the federal trading program's provisions for allocating allowances from the new unit set-aside (NUSA) for the state at 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a), 97.511(b)(1) and 97.512(a), 97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), or 97.711(b)(1) and 97.712(a), as applicable.16 In the case of a state with Indian country within its borders, while the SIP revision may neither alter nor assume the federal program's provisions for administering the Indian country NUSA for the state, the SIP revision must include procedures addressing the disposition of any otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country NUSA that may be made available for allocation by the state after EPA has carried out the Indian country NUSA allocation procedures.17

    15 In the context of the approval conditions for CSAPR-related SIP revisions, an “existing unit” is a unit for which EPA has determined default allowance allocations (which could be allocations of zero allowances) in the rulemakings establishing and amending CSAPR. A spreadsheet showing EPA's default allocations to existing units is posted at www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/techinfo.html.

    16 § 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii); § 52.39(e)(1), (f)(1), (h)(1), (i)(1).

    17See §§ 97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii), 97.612(b)(10)(ii), 97.712(b)(10)(ii).

    Assurance that total allocations will not exceed the state budget. For each federal trading program addressed by a SIP revision, the total amount of allowances auctioned or allocated for each control period under the SIP revision (prior to the addition by EPA of any unallocated allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state) may not exceed the state's emissions budget for the control period less the sum of the amount of any Indian country NUSA for the state for the control period and any allowances already allocated to the state's units for the control period and recorded by EPA.18 Under its SIP revision, a state is free to not allocate allowances to some or all potentially affected units, to allocate or auction allowances to entities other than potentially affected units, or to allocate or auction fewer than the maximum permissible quantity of allowances and retire the remainder.

    18 § 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(5)(i)(A), (b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(5)(ii)(A); § 52.39(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), (i)(1)(i).

    Timely submission of state-determined allocations to EPA. The SIP revision must require the state to submit to EPA the amounts of any allowances allocated or auctioned to each unit for each control period (other than allowances initially set aside in the state's allocation or auction process and later allocated or auctioned to such units from the set-aside amount) by the following deadlines.19 Note that the submission deadlines differ for amounts allocated or auctioned to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes and amounts allocated or auctioned to other units.

    19 § 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and (C), (a)(5)(i)(B) and (C), (b)(4)(ii)(B) and (C), (b)(5)(ii)(B) and (C); § 52.39(e)(1)(ii) and (iii), (f)(1)(ii) and (iii), (h)(1)(ii) and (iii), (i)(1)(ii) and (iii).

    Units Year of the control period Deadline for submission to EPA of allocations or auction results Existing 2017 and 2018 June 1, 2016. 2019 and 2020 June 1, 2017. 2021 and 2022 June 1, 2018. 2023 and later years June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period. Other All years July 1 of the year of the control period.

    No changes to allocations already submitted to EPA or recorded. The SIP revision must not provide for any change to the amounts of allowances allocated or auctioned to any unit after those amounts are submitted to EPA or any change to any allowance allocation determined and recorded by EPA under the federal trading program regulations.20

    20 § 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(5)(i)(D), (b)(4)(ii)(D), (b)(5)(ii)(D); § 52.39(e)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(iv), (i)(1)(iv).

    No other substantive changes to federal trading program provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that also expands program applicability as described below.21 Any new definitions adopted in the SIP revision (in addition to the federal trading program's definitions) may apply only for purposes of the SIP revision's allocation or auction provisions.22

    21 § 52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5); § 52.39(e), (f), (h), (i).

    22 § 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(iii); § 52.39(e)(1), (f)(2), (h)(1), (i)(2).

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP revision seeking to expand applicability under the CSAPR NOx Ozone Season Trading Program (or an integrated state trading program) must meet the following further conditions:

    Only electricity generating units with nameplate capacity of at least 15 MWe. The SIP revision may expand applicability only to additional fossil fuel-fired boilers or combustion turbines serving generators producing electricity for sale, and only by lowering the generator nameplate capacity threshold used to determine whether a particular boiler or combustion turbine serving a particular generator is a potentially affected unit. The nameplate capacity threshold adopted in the SIP revision may not be less than 15 MWe.23

    23 § 52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i).

    No other substantive changes to federal trading program provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that also addresses the allocation or auction of emission allowances as described above.24

    24 § 52.38(b)(4), (b)(5).

    In addition to the general submittal conditions and the other applicable conditions described above, a CSAPR-related full SIP revision must meet the following further conditions:

    Complete, substantively identical trading program provisions. The SIP revision must adopt complete state trading program regulations substantively identical to the complete federal trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 through 97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, or 97.702 through 97.735, as applicable, except as described above in the case of a SIP revision that seeks to replace the default allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.

    Only non-substantive substitutions for the term “State.” The SIP revision may substitute the name of the state for the term “State” as used in the federal trading program regulations, but only to the extent that EPA determines that the substitutions do not substantively change the trading program regulations.25

    25 §§ 52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv); 52.39(f)(3), (i)(3).

    Exclusion of provisions addressing units in Indian country. The SIP revision may not include references to or impose requirements on any unit in any Indian country within the state's borders and must not include the federal trading program provisions governing allocation of allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state.26

    26 §§ 52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v); 52.39(f)(4), (i)(4).

    IV. Alabama's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis A. Alabama's SIP Submittal

    In the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA determined that air pollution transported from Alabama would unlawfully affect other states' ability to attain or maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.27 Alabama units meeting the CSAPR applicability criteria are consequently subject to CSAPR FIPs that require participation in the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program, the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, and the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program.28

    27 76 FR 48208, 48213 (August 8, 2011).

    28 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2), (b)(2); § 52.39(c); § 52.54(a), (b); § 52.55.

    On October 26, 2015, Alabama submitted to EPA a SIP revision including provisions that, if all portions were approved, would incorporate into Alabama's SIP CSAPR state trading program regulations that would replace the CSAPR federal trading program regulations with regard to Alabama units' SO2, annual NOX, and ozone-season NOX emissions for control periods in 2017 and later years. The SIP submittal includes three sets of duly adopted state rules: ADEM Administrative Code rules 335-3-5-.06 through 335-3-5-.36, which establish Alabama's “TR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program”; rules 335-3-8-.07 through 335-3-8-.38, which establish Alabama's “TR NOX Annual Trading Program”; and rules 335-3-8-.39 through 335-3-8-.70, which establish Alabama's “TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program”.29 In general, each individual rule in Alabama's three sets of CSAPR state trading program rules is designed to replace one individual section (or in a few cases two or three sections) of the corresponding federal trading program regulations, and each set of rules is designed to collectively replace all sections of the corresponding federal trading program regulations. For example, Alabama rule 335-3-5-.06 is designed to replace 40 CFR 97.401 through 97.403, while Alabama rules 335-3-5-.06 through 335-3-5-.36 are designed to collectively replace all of subpart AAAAA of 40 CFR part 97 (i.e., 40 CFR 97.401 through 97.435).

    29 Consistent with the current CSAPR regulatory text, Alabama's rules use the terms “Transport Rule” and “TR” instead of the updated terms “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” and “CSAPR”. For simplicity, EPA uses the updated terms here except where otherwise noted.

    With regard to form, some of the individual rules for each Alabama CSAPR state trading program are set forth as full regulatory text—notably the rules addressing program applicability, emissions budgets and variability limits, and allowance allocations—but most of the rules incorporate the corresponding federal trading program section or sections by reference. Several of the Alabama rules adopt cross-references to other Alabama rules in place of cross-references to specific federal trading program sections that would be replaced by those other Alabama rules.

    With regard to substance, the rules for each Alabama CSAPR state trading program differ from the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program regulations in three main ways. First, the applicability provisions in the Alabama rules require participation in Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs only for units in Alabama, not for units in any other state or in Indian country within the borders of Alabama or any other state. Second, the Alabama rules set forth a methodology for allocating emission allowances among Alabama units that differs from the default allowance allocation provisions in the federal trading program regulations. Finally, the Alabama rules omit a number of federal trading program provisions not applicable to Alabama's state trading programs, including provisions setting forth the amounts of emissions budgets, NUSAs, Indian country NUSAs, and variability limits for other states; provisions addressing EPA's procedures for allocating allowances from Indian country NUSAs; and provisions addressing EPA's recordation of certain allowance allocations.

    The Alabama SIP adopts the Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets found at 40 CFR 97.410(a)(1)(iv) and 97.710(a)(1)(iv), respectively. Although the court in EME Homer City remanded Alabama's Phase 2 SO2 budget because it determined that EPA required more emissions reductions than necessary to address the downwind air quality problems to which Alabama contributes, Alabama is voluntarily adopting a Phase 2 SO2 budget that is equivalent to the federally-developed budget remanded by the court. Nothing in the court's decision affects Alabama's authority to seek incorporation into its SIP of a state-established budget as stringent as the remanded federally-established budget or limits EPA's authority to approve such a SIP revision. See 42 U.S.C. 7416, 7410(k)(3). Accordingly, EPA will evaluate the approvability of the Alabama SIP submission consistent with this budget.

    The SIP revision was submitted to EPA by a letter from the Director of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. The letter and its enclosures describe steps taken by Alabama to provide public notice prior to adoption of the state rules.

    At this time, EPA is proposing to take action on the portions of Alabama's SIP submittal designed to replace the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program with regard to Alabama units. EPA is not proposing to take action at this time on the portion of the SIP submittal designed to replace the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program with regard to Alabama units. As noted in section II above, EPA has proposed to update CSAPR to address Eastern states' interstate air pollution mitigation obligations with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The proposal would further reduce the ozone-season NOX emissions budgets for control periods in 2017 and later years for a number of states, including Alabama.30 Action on the portion of Alabama's SIP submittal related to ozone-season NOX emissions would be premature while the proposed update is pending because there is a foreseeable potential conflict between the total amount of allowances that would be allocated to Alabama units under Alabama's state trading program, which reflects Alabama's current ozone-season NOX budget, and the total amount of allowances that could permissibly be allocated to the units under a final updated budget.

    30 Alabama's current Phase 2 emissions budget under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program is 31,499 tons. 40 CFR 97.510(a)(1)(iv). Alabama's proposed updated CSAPR emissions budget for ozone season NOX emissions is 9,979 tons. 80 FR at 75770.

    EPA has previously approved a separate Alabama SIP revision replacing the default allowance allocation provisions of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program, the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, and the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program for Alabama existing units for the control period in 2016.31

    31 80 FR 52272 (September 22, 2015).

    B. EPA's Analysis of Alabama's Submittal

    As described in section IV.A above, at this time EPA is taking action on the portions of Alabama's SIP submittal designed to replace the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program for Alabama units but not the portion of the SIP submittal designed to replace the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. The analysis discussed in this section addresses only the portions of Alabama's SIP submittal on which EPA is taking action at this time. For simplicity, throughout this section EPA refers to the portions of the submittal on which EPA is proposing to take action as “the submittal” or “the SIP revision” without repeating the qualification that at this time EPA is analyzing and proposing to act on only portions of the SIP submittal.

    1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal

    Alabama's SIP revision seeks in part to replace the default allowance allocation provisions in the CSAPR federal trading program regulations for annual NOX and SO2 emissions as applied to Alabama units with state regulations establishing a different state-determined methodology, starting with the control periods in 2017. Under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(B) and 52.39(h)(1)(ii), the deadline for submission of state-determined allowance allocations for the 2017 and 2018 control periods is June 1, 2016, which under §§ 52.38(a)(5)(vi) and 52.39(i)(6) makes December 1, 2015, the deadline for submission to EPA of a complete SIP revision establishing state-determined allocations for those control periods. Alabama submitted its SIP revision to EPA on October 26, 2015, and EPA has determined that the submittal complies with the applicable minimum completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. Because Alabama's SIP revision was timely submitted and meets the applicable completeness criteria, it meets the conditions under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(vi) and 52.39(i)(6) for timely submission of a complete SIP revision.

    2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring Allocation

    Paragraphs 335-3-8-.14(1) and 335-3-5-.13(1) of the Alabama rules set forth total amounts of 71,962 CSAPR Annual NOX allowances and 213,258 CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances, respectively, that would be allocated to Alabama units for each control period in 2017 and later years according to the allocation procedures set forth under the remaining paragraphs of Alabama rules 335-3-8-.14 and 335-3-5-.13 (Paragraphs 335-3-8-.13(1) and 335-3-5-.12(1) set forth the same amounts as the respective state emissions budgets, in conjunction with the corresponding variability limits). These totals match the amounts of the respective Phase 2 emissions budgets for Alabama established under the federal trading program regulations for annual NOX and SO2 emissions, thereby addressing the full quantities of allowances that could be allocated to Alabama units under the default allocation provisions for the federal trading programs.32 As noted earlier, although the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budget was remanded because the court in EME Homer City determined that the budget was too stringent, nothing in the court's decision affects Alabama's authority to seek incorporation into its SIP of a state-established budget as stringent as the remanded federally-established budget or limits EPA's authority to approve such a SIP revision. See 42 U.S.C. 7416, 7410(k)(3). Because the current CSAPR federal trading program regulations for annual NOX and SO2 emissions do not provide for portions of Alabama's overall emissions budgets to be allocated pursuant to the Indian country NUSA allocation procedures, there is no current need for the Alabama rules establishing CSAPR state trading programs for annual NOX and SO2 emissions to include provisions addressing the disposition of otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country NUSA that might be made available by EPA for state allocation.33 The allocation provisions in the Alabama rules therefore enable Alabama's SIP revision to meet the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i) and 52.39(i)(1) that the state's allocation or auction methodology must cover all allowances potentially requiring allocation by the state.

    32 40 CFR 97.410(a)(1)(iv); § 97.710(a)(1)(iv).

    33 Since promulgating the current CSAPR regulations, EPA has learned of Indian country within Alabama's borders. If any units were to locate in that area of Indian country in the future, EPA would determine at that time what actions, if any, should be taken to make CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances available for allocation to those units.

    3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State Budget

    As discussed in section IV.B.2 above, paragraphs 335-3-8-.14(1) and 335-3-5-.13(1) of the Alabama rules set forth the total amounts of CSAPR Annual NOX allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances to be allocated to Alabama units for each control period under the state trading programs; these total amounts equal the amounts of the respective annual NOX and SO2 emissions budgets established for Alabama units under the CSAPR federal trading program regulations; and under the current CSAPR federal trading program regulations for annual NOX and SO2 there is no possibility of additional allowances from an Indian country NUSA being allocated to Alabama units. EPA has not yet allocated or recorded CSAPR allowances for the control periods in 2017 or later years. The allocation methodology in Alabama's SIP revision therefore meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(A) and 52.39(i)(1)(i) that, for each trading program, the total amount of allowances allocated under the SIP revision (before the addition of any otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country NUSA) may not exceed the state's budget for the control period less the amount of the Indian country NUSA for the state and any allowances already allocated and recorded by EPA.

    4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA

    Paragraphs 335-3-8-.14(2)(a) through (d) and 335-3-5-.13(2)(a) through (d) of the Alabama rules provide for all allowance allocations to Alabama units established under the Alabama rules to be submitted to EPA by the following deadlines: allocations for the control periods in 2017 and 2018, by June 1, 2016; allocations for the control periods in 2019 and 2020, by June 1, 2017; allocations for the control periods in 2021 and 2022, by June 1, 2018; and allocations for later control periods, by June 1 of the fourth or fifth year before the year of the control period. These submission deadlines match or precede the submission deadlines discussed in section III above (specifically, the deadlines under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(B) and 52.39(i)(1)(ii) for allocations to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes and the submission deadlines under §§ 52.38(a)(5)(i)(C) and 52.39(i)(1)(iii) for allocations to other units). Alabama's SIP revision therefore meets the conditions under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(B) and (C) and 52.39(i)(1)(ii) and (iii) requiring that the SIP revision provide for submission of state-determined allowance allocations to EPA by the deadlines specified in those provisions.

    5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or Recorded

    The Alabama rules include no provisions allowing alteration of allocations after the allocation amounts have been provided to EPA and no provisions allowing alteration of any allocations made and recorded by EPA under the federal trading program regulations, thereby meeting the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(D) and 52.39(i)(1)(iv).

    6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program Provisions

    With the exception of the provisions addressing allowance allocations discussed above, the Alabama state trading program rules generally incorporate sections of the corresponding federal trading program regulations by reference or set forth full text that is very similar to the text in the corresponding federal trading program regulations.34 Some of the differences between the Alabama rules and the corresponding federal trading program regulations are clearly non-substantive. For example, in instances where an Alabama rule contains full text substituting for the text of a section of the federal trading program regulations, the remaining Alabama rules adopt cross-references to the full-text Alabama rule in place of cross-references to the section of the federal trading program regulations that would be replaced by the full-text Alabama rule. The Alabama rules also contain definitions for certain terms used in the state trading programs' allocation provisions that are not used in the federal trading program regulations, as expressly permitted under the CSAPR regulations.35 Most of the remaining differences between the Alabama rules and the corresponding sections of the federal trading program regulations consist of non-substantive renumbering of the provisions.36

    34 EPA has proposed to make certain technical corrections to the CSAPR FIP and federal trading program regulations in order to more accurately reflect EPA's intent as described in the CSAPR rulemaking and has also proposed to replace “TR” with “CSAPR” throughout the regulations (for example, “TR NOX Annual unit” would become “CSAPR NOX Annual unit”). See 80 FR 75706, 75758. Because the proposed technical corrections merely clarify and do not change EPA's interpretations, where the proposed corrections would apply to a provision incorporated by reference in the Alabama rules, EPA would interpret the Alabama rules as reflecting the corrections. Further, EPA anticipates that if the proposed nomenclature updates are finalized, the final CSAPR federal regulations would explicitly provide that terms that include “CSAPR” encompass otherwise identical terms in approved SIP revisions that include “TR”.

    35 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(ii); § 52.39(i)(2).

    36 Instances where Alabama's CSAPR state trading program rules omit provisions of the CSAPR federal trading program regulations are discussed in sections IV.B.7 and 9 below.

    In addition to the clearly non-substantive or expressly authorized differences summarized above, a few of Alabama's rules contain other differences from the federal trading program regulations. In each case, EPA has determined that the changes do not represent substantive changes to the federal trading program regulations. First, paragraphs 335-3-8-.08(1)(c), 335-3-8-.09(1)(a), 335-3-8-.34(2)(a), 335-3-5-.07(1)(c), 335-3-5-.08(1)(a), and 335-3-5-.32(2)(a) of the Alabama rules require Alabama units to submit certain petitions, statements, and notices not only to EPA but also to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Because the additional notification requirements do not alter the respective authorities or responsibilities of EPA and the Department, EPA considers the requirements to be non-substantive changes.

    Second, paragraphs 335-3-8-.20(2)(a), 335-3-8-.23(2)(a), 335-3-5-.18(2)(a), and 335-3-5-.21(2)(a) of the Alabama rules provide that, like EPA, the Department will not adjudicate certain private legal disputes. Because the Department is not required to adjudicate such disputes under the federal trading program regulations in any event, these additions to the text of the state trading program rules merely clarify that the Department is not undertaking a new adjudication responsibility under the state trading programs. EPA therefore considers these additions to be non-substantive changes.

    Third, paragraph 335-3-8-.07(2)(b)8. of the Alabama CSAPR state trading program rules for annual NOX emissions substitutes a reference to Alabama rule 335-3-16-.01 (an Alabama air permit program rule) for a reference to 40 CFR 70.2 (the definitions section of the federal regulations governing state operating permit programs under CAA title V) in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program definition of “permitting authority.” 37 Although substitutions to definitions in the CSAPR federal trading program regulations generally are not permissible in a CSAPR-related SIP revision, in this case the substitution has no substantive effect, for two reasons. First, the state trading program rule, like the CSAPR federal trading program definition, includes a reference to the definition of “permitting authority” in 40 CFR 71.2 (the definitions section of the federal operating permit program under CAA title V) which encompasses the definition of “permitting authority” in § 70.2, so all the intended possible meanings of “permitting authority” are captured in the state trading program rules despite the loss of the reference to 40 CFR 70.2. Second, Alabama rule 335-3-16-.01 contains no definition of “permitting authority,” so the substitution does not introduce any new, unintended meanings of “permitting authority” in the state trading program rules. EPA therefore considers the substitution to be a non-substantive change.

    37 Alabama's CSAPR state trading program rules for SO2 emissions do not contain a comparable substitution provision.

    Finally, paragraphs 335-3-8-.10(2)(a) and (b) and 335-3-5-.09(2)(a) and (b) of the Alabama rules substitute references to Alabama rule 335.3.16-.13(3) (the Alabama rule addressing minor permit modification procedures) for references to 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2) (the minor permit modification procedures section of the federal regulations governing state operating permit programs under CAA title V) in the federal trading program regulations regarding title V permit requirements. As applied to Alabama units only, the substituted Alabama rule provisions are substantively identical to the provisions in 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2) that would be replaced. Because in the context of Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs these particular provisions need to address only Alabama units and not units from other states participating in the CSAPR trading programs, EPA determines that these substitutions have no substantive effect.

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that none of the textual additions or substitutions made to the CSAPR federal trading program regulations in Alabama's corresponding CSAPR state trading program rules are substantive, and that Alabama's SIP revision therefore meets the conditions under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5) and 52.39(i) of making no substantive changes to the provisions of the federal trading program regulations beyond the provisions addressing allowance allocations.

    7. Complete, Substantively Identical Trading Program Provisions

    With the following exceptions, the Alabama rules comprising Alabama's CSAPR state trading program for annual NOX emissions either incorporate by reference or adopt full-text replacements for all of the provisions of 40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, and the Alabama rules comprising Alabama's CSAPR state trading program for SO2 emissions either incorporate by reference or adopt full-text replacements for all of the provisions of 40 CFR 97.702 through 97.735. The first exception is that Alabama rules 335-3-8-.13 and 335-3-5-.12, which generally address the amounts of emissions budgets and related quantities, omit the provisions of 40 CFR 97.410 and 97.710 setting forth the amounts of the Phase 1 emissions budgets, NUSAs, and variability limits for Alabama; the amounts of the Phase 2 NUSAs for Alabama; and the amounts of all emissions budgets, NUSAs, Indian country NUSAs, and variability limits for other states. Omission of the Alabama Phase 1 emissions budget and NUSA amounts is appropriate because Alabama's state trading programs do not apply to emissions occurring in Phase 1 of CSAPR. Omission of the default Alabama NUSA amounts under the federal trading program regulations is appropriate because the allocation procedures under Alabama's state trading programs establish NUSA amounts differently. Omission of the budget, NUSA, Indian country NUSA, and variability limit provisions for other states from state trading programs in which only Alabama units participate does not undermine the completeness of the state trading programs.

    The second exception is that Alabama rules 335-3-8-.14 and 335-3-5-.13, generally addressing allowance allocations, omit 40 CFR 97.411(b)(2) and 97.412(b) and 97.711(b)(2) and 97.712(b), concerning EPA's administration of Indian country NUSAs. Omission of these provisions from Alabama's state trading program rules is required, as discussed in section IV.B.9 below.

    The third exception is that Alabama rules 335-3-8-.24 and 335-3-5-.22, which generally incorporate by reference the federal trading programs' recordation schedule provisions, exclude from incorporation by reference 40 CFR 97.421(a), (b), (h), and (i) and 97.721(a), (b), (h), and (i), respectively, concerning EPA's schedule for recording certain allowance allocations. The federal trading program provisions at §§ 97.421(a) and (b) and 97.721(a) and (b), which address recordation of allocations to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes of allowances for the compliance periods in 2015 and 2016, do not need to be included in Alabama's state trading program rules because those allocations have already been recorded. The federal trading program provisions at §§ 97.421(h) and 97.721(h), which address recordation of allocations from Indian country NUSAs, are appropriately excluded from state trading programs because a state may not administer an Indian country NUSA. The federal trading program provisions at §§ 97.421(i) and 97.721(i), which address recordation of second-round NUSA allocations, are not needed in Alabama's state trading program rules because Alabama would provide EPA the amounts of its NUSA allocations on the earlier schedule applicable to allocations to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes.38 Omission of these provisions from Alabama's state trading programs therefore does not undermine the completeness of the state trading programs.

    38 For the same reason, Alabama's state rules could permissibly omit 40 CFR 97.421(g) and 97.721(g), which address recordation of first-round NUSA allocations. Note that notwithstanding the lack of provisions addressing recordation of NUSA allocations in Alabama's state trading program rules, EPA would retain authority to complete the recordation of 2016 NUSA allocations to Alabama units because EPA has already started recording allocations to Alabama units of allowances for the compliance periods in 2016. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(7); § 52.39(k).

    Because none of the omissions undermines the completeness of the Alabama's state trading programs and because, as discussed in section IV.B.6 above, EPA has determined that Alabama's SIP revision makes no other substantive changes to the provisions of the federal trading program regulations beyond the provisions addressing allowance allocations, Alabama's SIP revision meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5) and 52.39(i) that the SIP revision must adopt complete state trading program regulations substantively identical to the complete federal trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 through 97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, or 97.702 through 97.735, as applicable, except for permissible differences in allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.

    8. Only Non-Substantive Substitutions for the Term “State”

    Paragraphs 335-3-8-.08(1)(a)1. and 335-3-5-.07(1)(a)1. of the Alabama rules substitute the term “the State of Alabama”, and paragraphs 335-3-8-.08(1)(b) and 335-3-5-.07(1)(b) of the Alabama rules similarly substitute the term “the State” (meaning Alabama), for the phrase “a State (or Indian country within the borders of such State)” in the corresponding federal trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.410(a)(1) and 97.710(a)(1) and at §§ 97.410(b) and 97.710(b), respectively. These provisions of the Alabama rules define the units that are required to participate in Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs. The substitutions appropriately exclude units located in other states and units located in Indian country with the borders of Alabama or any other state, thereby limiting the applicability of Alabama's state trading programs to units that are subject to Alabama's jurisdiction. These substitutions do not substantively change the provisions of CSAPR's federal trading program regulations. The remaining Alabama rules do not substitute for the term “State” as used in the federal trading program regulations. Alabama's SIP revision therefore meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iii) and 52.39(i)(3) that the SIP revision may substitute the name of the state for the term “State” as used in the federal trading program regulations, but only to the extent that EPA determines that the substitutions do not substantively change the provisions of the federal trading program regulations.

    9. Exclusion of Provisions Addressing Units in Indian Country

    The Alabama rules do not set forth any full text provisions directly addressing units in Indian country within the state's borders. As discussed in section IV.B.8 above, paragraphs 335-3-8-.08(1)(a)1. and 335-3-5-.07(1)(a)1. of the Alabama rules define the units required to participate in Alabama's state trading programs in a manner that appropriately excludes units located in Indian country within Alabama's borders from coverage under Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs. Although various other provisions of the CSAPR federal trading program regulations incorporated by reference into the Alabama rules without modification refer to units in Indian country, the clear exclusion of any such units from coverage under the state trading program applicability provisions—in other words, the fact that such units are not “TR NOX Annual units” or “TR SO2 Group 2 units” for purposes of the state trading programs—renders the remaining provisions of Alabama's state trading program rules inoperative as to the units. EPA therefore interprets the Alabama rules as not imposing any requirements on units located in Indian country within the state's borders.

    As discussed in section IV.B.7 above, Alabama rules 335-3-8-.14 and 335-3-5-.13, which address allowance allocations under the state trading programs, contain no provisions replacing 40 CFR 97.411(b)(2), 97.412(b), 97.711(b)(2), or 97.712(b), the portions of the corresponding federal trading program regulations governing allocations of allowances from Indian country NUSAs Thus, the Alabama rules do not include any express state rule provisions concerning administration of Indian country NUSAs. Further, Alabama rules 335-3-8-.24 and 335-3-5-.22, which generally incorporate by reference the federal trading programs' recordation schedule provisions, exclude 40 CFR 97.421(h) and 97.721(h), respectively, provisions addressing recordation of Indian country NUSA allocations. EPA notes that paragraphs 335-3-8-.14(3)(i) and 335-3-5-.13(3)(i) of the Alabama rules, which incorporate by reference the federal trading program regulations generally addressing corrections of incorrect allocations, fail to exclude 40 CFR 97.411(c)(5)(iii) and 97.711(c)(5)(iii), addressing corrections of certain incorrect Indian country NUSA allocations. However, the regulations governing approval of CSAPR-related SIP revisions do not expressly require exclusion of these federal trading program provisions (unlike the Indian country NUSA allocation provisions) and, further, the provisions are inoperative as to Alabama because the CSAPR federal trading program regulations do not currently establish Indian country NUSAs for Alabama.39 EPA therefore interprets the Alabama state rules as sufficiently excluding provisions addressing administration of the Indian country NUSA provisions under the federal trading programs.

    39 Since promulgating the current CSAPR regulations, EPA has learned of Indian country within Alabama's borders. If any units were to locate in that area of Indian country in the future, EPA would determine at that time what actions, if any, should be taken to make CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances available for allocation to those units.

    In summary, EPA has determined that Alabama's SIP revision adequately meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv) and 52.39(i)(4) of not including references to or imposing requirements on any unit in any Indian country within the state's borders and not including the federal trading program provisions governing allocation of allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state.

    V. EPA's Proposed Action on Alabama's Submittal

    EPA is proposing to approve the portions of Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP submittal concerning the establishment for Alabama units of CSAPR state trading programs for annual NOX and SO2 emissions for compliance periods in 2017 and later years. The proposed revision would adopt into the SIP the state trading program rules codified in ADEM Administrative Code rules 335-3-8-.07 through 335-3-8-.38 (establishing Alabama's “TR NOX Annual Trading Program”) and 335-3-5-.06 through 335-3-5-.36 (establishing Alabama's “TR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program”).40 These Alabama CSAPR state trading programs would be integrated with the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, respectively, and would be substantively identical to the federal trading programs except with regard to the allowance allocation provisions. Following approval of these portions of the proposed SIP revision, Alabama units therefore would generally be required to meet requirements under Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs equivalent to the requirements the units otherwise would have been required to meet under the corresponding CSAPR federal trading programs, but allocations to Alabama units of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances for compliance periods in 2017 and later years would be determined according to the SIP's allocation provisions at Alabama rule 335-3-8-.14 instead of EPA's default allocation provisions at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.411(b)(1), and 97.412(a), and allocations to Alabama units of CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances would be determined according to the SIP's allocation provisions at Alabama rule 335-3-5-.13 instead of EPA's default allocation provisions at 40 CFR 97.711(a), 97.711(b)(1), and 97.712(a). EPA is proposing to approve these portions of the SIP revision because they meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision replacing a federal trading program with a state trading program that is integrated with and substantively identical to the federal trading program except for permissible differences with respect to emission allowance allocation provisions, as discussed in section IV above.

    40 Consistent with the current CSAPR regulatory text, the Alabama rules use the terms “Transport Rule” and “TR” instead of the updated terms “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” and “CSAPR”.

    EPA promulgated the FIPs requiring Alabama units to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program in order to address Alabama's obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the absence of SIP provisions addressing those requirements. Approval of the portions of Alabama's SIP submittal adopting CSAPR state trading program rules for annual NOX and SO2 substantively identical to the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program regulations (or differing only with respect to the allowance allocation methodology) would correct the same deficiency in the SIP that otherwise would be corrected by those CSAPR FIPs. Under the CSAPR regulations, upon EPA's full and unconditional approval of a SIP revision as correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the basis for a particular CSAPR FIP, the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's jurisdiction (but not for any units located in any Indian country within the state's borders).41 The proposed approval of the portions of Alabama's SIP submittal establishing CSAPR state trading program rules for annual NOX and SO2 emissions therefore would result in automatic termination of the obligations of Alabama units to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program. Approval of these portions of the SIP revision would therefore satisfy Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.

    41 40 CFR 52.38(a)(6); § 52.39(j); see also § 52.54(a)(1); § 52.55(a).

    As noted in section II above, the Phase 2 SO2 budget established for Alabama in the CSAPR rulemaking has been remanded to EPA for reconsideration.42 If EPA finalizes approval of these portions of the SIP revision as proposed, Alabama will have fulfilled its obligations to provide a SIP that address the interstate transport provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA would no longer be under an obligation to (nor would EPA have the authority to) address those transport requirements through implementation of a FIP, and approval of these portions of the SIP revision would eliminate Alabama units' obligations to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program. Elimination of Alabama units' obligations to participate in the federal trading programs would include elimination of the federally-established Phase 2 budgets capping allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances to Alabama units under those federal trading programs. As approval of these portions of the SIP revision would eliminate Alabama's remanded federally-established Phase 2 SO2 budget and eliminate EPA's authority to subject units in Alabama to a FIP, it is EPA's opinion that finalization of approval of this SIP action would address the judicial remand of Alabama's federally-established Phase 2 SO2 budget.43 Large electricity generating units in Alabama are subject to an additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. While Alabama's SIP submittal also seeks to replace the CSAPR FIP requirements addressing Alabama units' ozone-season NOX emissions, EPA is not proposing to act on that portion of the SIP submittal at this time. Approval of this SIP revision concerning other CSAPR trading programs would have no effect on the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program as applied to Alabama units, and the FIP requiring the units to participate in that program would remain in place.

    42EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

    43 Although the court in EME Homer City Generation remanded Alabama's Phase 2 SO2 budget because it determined that the budget was too stringent, nothing in the court's decision affects Alabama's authority to seek incorporation into its SIP of a state-established budget as stringent as the remanded federally-established budget or limits EPA's authority to approve such a SIP revision. See 42 U.S.C. 7416, 7410(k)(3).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal 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 submittals, 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).

    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, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15146 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0302; FRL-9948-14-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of a November 20, 2015, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from Missouri concerning allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emission allowances. Under CSAPR, large electricity generating units in Missouri are subject to Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring the units to participate in CSAPR's Federal trading program for annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and one of CSAPR's two Federal trading programs for annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2). This action would approve Missouri's adoption into its SIP of state regulations establishing state-determined allocations to replace EPA's default allocations to Missouri units of CSAPR allowances for annual NOX emissions and annual SO2 emissions for 2017 and later years. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's regulations for approval of an abbreviated SIP revision replacing EPA's default allocations of CSAPR emission allowances with state-determined allocations. Approval of this SIP revision would not alter any provision of CSAPR's Federal trading programs for annual NOX emissions and annual SO2 emissions as applied to Missouri units other than the allowance allocation provisions, and the FIPs requiring the units to participate in those trading programs (as modified by the SIP revision) would remain in place. EPA is not proposing to act at this time on the portion of Missouri's SIP submittal concerning allocations of CSAPR allowances for ozone-season NOX emissions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0302, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Larry Gonzalez, Air Planning and Development Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7041; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document proposes to take action on a revision to the SIP for Missouri concerning allocations of allowances used in the CSAPR 1 Federal trading program for annual emissions of NOX and annual emission of SO2. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP revision (s) in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    1 Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011), (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39 and subparts AAAAA through DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97).

    Large electricity generating units in Missouri are subject to CSAPR FIPs that require the units to participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program.2 Each of CSAPR's Federal trading programs includes default provisions governing the allocation among participating units of emission allowances used for compliance under that program. CSAPR also provides a process for the submission and approval of SIP revisions to replace EPA's default allocations with state-determined allocations.

    2 EPA has proposed to replace the terms “Transport Rule” and “TR” in the text of the Code of Federal Regulations with the updated terms “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” and “CSAPR.” 80 FR 75706, 75759 (December 3, 2015). EPA uses the updated terms here.

    The SIP revision approved in the direct final rule incorporates into Missouri's SIP state regulations establishing state-determined allowance allocations to replace EPA's default allocations to Missouri units of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 1 allowances issued for the control periods in 2017 and later years. EPA is approving the SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for approval of an abbreviated SIP revision replacing EPA's default allocations of CSAPR emission allowances with state-determined allocations. Approval of the SIP revision does not alter any provision of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program or the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program as applied to Missouri units other than the allowance allocation provisions, and the FIPs requiring the units to participate in those programs (as modified by the SIP revision) remain in place. Large electricity generating units in Missouri are also subject to an additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. While Missouri's SIP submittal also seeks to replace the default allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances to Missouri units, EPA is not proposing to act on that portion of the SIP submittal at this time. Approval of this SIP revision concerning other CSAPR trading programs has no effect on the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program as applied to Missouri units, and the FIP requiring the units to participate in that program remains in place.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 16, 2016. Mark Hague, Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15047 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 228 [FRL-9948-49-Region 1] Ocean Disposal; Proposed Designation of a Dredged Material Disposal Site in Eastern Region of Long Island Sound; Reopening of Public Comment Period AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; reopening of the public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is reopening the public comment period on the proposed rule and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to designate one dredged material disposal site, the Eastern Long Island Sound Disposal Site (ELDS), located offshore from New London, Connecticut, for the disposal of dredged material from harbors and navigation channels in eastern Long Island Sound in the states of Connecticut and New York. The proposed rule published on April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24748). This action is necessary to provide a long-term, open-water dredged material disposal site as an alternative for the possible future disposal of such material.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jean Brochi, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code: OEP06-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone: (617) 918-1536, fax number: (617) 918-0536; email address: [email protected] or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Review of Documents: The file supporting this proposed designation is available for inspection at the following locations:

    In person. The Proposed Rule and the DSEIS, which includes the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the ELDS, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), are available for inspection at the EPA Region 1 Library, Five Post Office Square, Boston, MA, 02109.

    Electronically. You may also review and/or obtain electronic copies of these documents and various other supporting documents from EPA's Web site:https://www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/dredged-material-management-long-island-sound.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1—New England.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15299 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 2, 13, and 19 [FAR Case 2016-004; Correction; Docket No. 2016-0004, Sequence No. 1] RIN 9000-AN18 Federal Acquisition Regulation: Acquisition Threshold for Special Emergency Procurement Authority; Correction AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a correction to FAR Case 2016-004; Acquisition Threshold for Special Emergency Procurement Authority, which was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 39882, June 20, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective: June 28, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Camara Francis, Procurement Analyst, at 202-550-0935 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2016-004; Correction.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction

    In rule FR Doc. 2016-14413, published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 39882, June 20, 2016, make the following correction:

    On page 39883, in the third column, section 13.003, third line, remove “$750,00” and add “$750,000” in its place.

    Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

    Dated: June 23, 2016. William Clark, Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15237 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0001; 50120-1113-000] RIN 1018-AY05 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Eastern Puma (=Cougar) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on our June 17, 2015, proposed rule to remove the eastern puma (=cougar) (Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We are reopening the comment period for 30 days to conduct peer review. Interested parties are also afforded this additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule; comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final listing determination.

    DATES:

    To allow us adequate time to consider comments on the proposed rule, we must receive them on or before July 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments: You may submit comments on the proposed rule by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number for the proposed rule, which is FWS-R5-ES-2015-0001. Then click on the Search button. On the resulting page, you may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.

    By U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0001, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information provided to us (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information).

    Document availability: Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Martin Miller, Northeast Regional Office, telephone 413-253-8615; or Mark McCollough, Maine Field Office, telephone 207-866-3344, extension 115. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 17, 2015, we published a proposed rule (80 FR 34595) to remove the eastern puma (=cougar) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial data, which indicate that this species is extinct and no longer meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We sought comments and information from the public regarding the proposal during a 60-day comment period ending August 17, 2015. We are reopening the comment period on that proposed rule for an additional 30 days (see DATES, above). We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. We are specifically soliciting comments from peer reviewers (see Peer Review, below). Please refer to the proposed rule for more information on our proposed action and the specific comments and information we seek.

    You may submit your comments and information concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. All comments and recommendations, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record.

    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    If you mail or hand deliver a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the Office of Management and Budget's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December 16, 2004, we are soliciting the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding the science in our proposed rule published on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34595). The purpose of such review is to ensure that we base our decisions on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We are sending peer reviewers copies of the proposed rule and inviting them to comment, during this reopened public comment period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed delisting. We will summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the final decision document, and we will consider their input and any additional information we receive as part of our process of making a final decision on the proposal. Such communication may lead to a final decision that differs from the proposal.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Stephen Guertin, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15227 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 226 [Docket No. 150817733-6519-02] RIN 0648-BF32 Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for the Endangered Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS published in the Federal Register of June 3, 2016, a document proposing to designate critical habitat for the endangered Carolina distinct population segment of the Atlantic sturgeon (Carolina DPS of Atlantic sturgeon) and the endangered South Atlantic distinct population segment of the Atlantic sturgeon (South Atlantic DPS of Atlantic sturgeon) pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This correction clarifies what types of man-made structures are not included in the proposed designation.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposal must be received by September 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the docket number NOAA-NMFS-2015-0157, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 0157 click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jason Rueter, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 727-824-5312, [email protected]; Andrew Herndon, Southeast Regional Office, 727-824-5312, [email protected]; Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8466, [email protected]

    Correction

    The proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 36078), contained misleading language regarding what areas were not to be considered part of the proposed designation. The original language inadvertently identified “marinas” and “maintained channels” as examples of areas not included. Because marinas and maintained channels may contain the physical features essential for the conservation of the species, these areas should be included in critical habitat. Further, the original language did not specify a date by which such structures would have to be in place to be considered “existing”. Therefore, we are clarifying what is meant by the term “man-made structures,” and we are inserting an effective date by which such structures would be covered under this provision.

    Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2016-12744 beginning on page 36078 in the issue of June 3, 2016, make the following correction.

    § 226.226 [Corrected]

    On page 36101 in the third column, paragraph (d) of § 226.226 is corrected to read as follows:

    “(d) Areas not Included in Critical Habitat. Pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A)(i), critical habitat does not include areas containing existing (already constructed), as of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], federally authorized or permitted man-made structures where the physical features are not expected to be found, such as aids-to- navigation (ATONs), artificial reefs, boat ramps, docks, or pilings within the legal boundaries.”

    Dated: June 17, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15045 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 124 Tuesday, June 28, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 23, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested re