Federal Register Vol. 81, No.130,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 130 (July 7, 2016)

Page Range44207-44487
FR Document

81_FR_130
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 44485 - United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures To Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of ForcePDF
81 FR 44220 - Ocean Disposal; Amendments to Restrictions on Use of Dredged Material Disposal Sites in the Central and Western Regions of Long Island Sound; ConnecticutPDF
81 FR 44260 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
81 FR 44303 - Production of Confidential Business Information in Pending Enforcement Litigation; Transfer of Information Claimed as Confidential Business Information to the United States Department of Justice and Parties to Certain LitigationPDF
81 FR 44301 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen SuitPDF
81 FR 44274 - Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 44408 - GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility Assessment TestingPDF
81 FR 44309 - Notice of Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 44277 - Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty InvestigationPDF
81 FR 44303 - National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of Public Teleconference and Public CommentPDF
81 FR 44400 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Require Listed Companies to Publicly Disclose Compensation or Other Payments by Third Parties to Board of Director's Members or NomineesPDF
81 FR 44390 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Options Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 44300 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
81 FR 44314 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Fair Housing Initiatives Program Grant Application and Monitoring ReportsPDF
81 FR 44313 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) Systems User Access Authorization Form and Rules of Behavior and User AgreementPDF
81 FR 44315 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) Systems-Debts Owed to Public Housing Agencies and TerminationsPDF
81 FR 44409 - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 44277 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air Force 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron Conducting Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, HawaiiPDF
81 FR 44230 - Policy for Credentialing Officers of Towing VesselsPDF
81 FR 44379 - Security-Based Swap Data Repositories; DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC; Notice of Filing of Application for Registration as a Security-Based Swap Data RepositoryPDF
81 FR 44353 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Add Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 16.1 To Specify the Calculation Methodology for Counting Professional OrdersPDF
81 FR 44372 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 2 to Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Capital Acquisition Broker RulesPDF
81 FR 44359 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 7730 (Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE))PDF
81 FR 44339 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the JPMorgan Diversified Event Driven ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
81 FR 44299 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 44333 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 44335 - Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2PDF
81 FR 44333 - Reno Creek In Situ Uranium Recovery Project in Campbell County, WyomingPDF
81 FR 44328 - Notice of Meeting for Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 44327 - Notice of the September to December 2016 Meeting Schedule for the Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 44406 - Florida Central Railroad Company, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Lake County, Fla.PDF
81 FR 44320 - John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Bay and Gulf Counties, FL; Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, NJ; Availability of Draft Maps and Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 44301 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River SitePDF
81 FR 44406 - Consent Based Social Security Number Verification (CBSV) ServicePDF
81 FR 44331 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Benzene StandardPDF
81 FR 44332 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Trade Activity Participant ReportPDF
81 FR 44330 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Personal Protective Equipment for General IndustryPDF
81 FR 44337 - New Postal ProductsPDF
81 FR 44271 - Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 44260 - Siskiyou County Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 44326 - Filing of Plats of Survey: CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 44325 - Notice of Public Meeting: Resource Advisory Council (RAC) to the Boise District, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the InteriorPDF
81 FR 44322 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plans, Lake, County, FLPDF
81 FR 44324 - Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; Record of DecisionPDF
81 FR 44316 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan, Kauai, HawaiiPDF
81 FR 44337 - Order Extending a Temporary Exemption From Compliance With Rules 13n-1 to 13n-12 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934PDF
81 FR 44300 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New MexicoPDF
81 FR 44335 - Privacy Act of 1974; Revised System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 44305 - Seeking Input on the Public Release of Data Collected Through Transactional Data ReportingPDF
81 FR 44329 - Dioctyl Terephthalate (DOTP) From Korea; Institution of Antidumping Duty Investigation and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase InvestigationPDF
81 FR 44326 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 44272 - Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 44270 - Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Brazil, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
81 FR 44328 - Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India, Italy, and Spain; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 44312 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 44310 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 44275 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, India, the People's Republic of China and Thailand: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
81 FR 44308 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 44259 - Notice of a Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 44258 - Notice of a Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 44212 - Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion EnginesPDF
81 FR 44328 - Alloy Magnesium From China; DeterminationPDF
81 FR 44310 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 44310 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 44309 - Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 44338 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 44356 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 44395 - Lord Abbett Family of Funds and Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 44365 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 44395 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 44366 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Provide a Process for an Expedited Suspension Proceeding and Adopt a Rule To Prohibit Disruptive Quoting and Trading ActivityPDF
81 FR 44338 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Regarding Use of Rule 144A Securities By the Fidelity Corporate Bond ETF, Fidelity Investment Grade Bond ETF, Fidelity Limited Term Bond ETF, and Fidelity Total Bond ETFPDF
81 FR 44388 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Suspend the Interbank Service of the GCF Repo® ServicePDF
81 FR 44357 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the ICC Treasury Operations Policies and ProceduresPDF
81 FR 44393 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Natixis Seeyond International Minimum Volatility ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
81 FR 44404 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 44377 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 44393 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 44349 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Professionals Order CountingPDF
81 FR 44373 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to the Professional DesignationPDF
81 FR 44363 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules 340, 341, and 359 To Extend the Time Within Which a Member or Member Organization or an ATP Holder Must File a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry RegistrationPDF
81 FR 44209 - Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port ZonePDF
81 FR 44249 - Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2016 U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch LimitsPDF
81 FR 44304 - T. Parker Host, Inc. v. Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC, et al.: Notice of Filing of Complaint and AssignmentPDF
81 FR 44304 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
81 FR 44298 - Marine Mammals; Pinniped Removal Authority; Approval of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 44210 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation of the Sullivan County Lead Nonattainment Area to AttainmentPDF
81 FR 44409 - Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds-Non-Renewal: Greenwich Insurance CompanyPDF
81 FR 44306 - Submission for OMB Review; BankruptcyPDF
81 FR 44307 - Information Collection; Termination Settlement Proposal Forms-FAR (SF 1435 Through 1440)PDF
81 FR 44407 - Public HearingPDF
81 FR 44231 - Television Broadcasting Services; Cordele, GeorgiaPDF
81 FR 44409 - Cost-Based and Inter-Agency Billing Rates for Medical Care or Services Provided by the Department of Veterans AffairsPDF
81 FR 44241 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 44246 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 44251 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Observer Coverage Requirements for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area Trawl Catcher VesselsPDF
81 FR 44232 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 44235 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 44238 - Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 44207 - Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 44244 - Airworthiness Directives; REIMS AVIATION S.A. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 44271 - Cyber Security Trade Mission to TurkeyPDF
81 FR 44456 - Medicare Program: Expanding Uses of Medicare Data by Qualified EntitiesPDF
81 FR 44414 - Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, Rural Broadband ExperimentsPDF

Issue

81 130 Thursday, July 7, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Foreign Agricultural Service

See

Forest Service

Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 44299-44300 2016-16107 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Expanding Uses of Medicare Data by Qualified Entities, 44456-44482 2016-15708 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 44308-44309 2016-16050 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Policy for Credentialing Officers of Towing Vessels, 44230-44231 2016-16113 Safety Zones: Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 44209-44210 2016-16014 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bankruptcy, 44306-44307 2016-15997 Termination Settlement Proposal Forms, 44307-44308 2016-15995 Charter Renewals: Federal Advisory Committees, 44300 2016-16119
Energy Department Energy Department NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico, 44300-44301 2016-16072 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site, 44301 2016-16096 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Tennessee; Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; Redesignation of the Sullivan County Lead Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 44210-44212 2016-16002 Ocean Disposal; Amendments to Restrictions on Use of Dredged Material Disposal Sites in the Central and Western Regions of Long Island Sound; CT, 44220-44230 2016-16147 Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, 44212-44220 2016-16045 NOTICES Meetings: National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Teleconferences, 44303-44304 2016-16129 Production of Confidential Business Information in Pending Enforcement Litigation: Transfer of Information Claimed as Confidential Business Information to the United States Department of Justice and Parties to Certain Litigation, 44303 2016-16144 Proposed Consent Decrees: Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 44301-44303 2016-16143 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes, 44207-44209 2016-15866 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 44232-44238, 44241-44244 2016-15907 2016-15910 2016-15928 Embraer S.A. Airplanes, 44238-44240 2016-15871 REIMS AVIATION S.A. Airplanes, 44244-44246 2016-15862 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 44246-44249 2016-15914 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, Rural Broadband Experiments, 44414-44454 2016-14506 Television Broadcasting Services: Cordele, GA, 44231 2016-15970 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations, 44310-44312 2016-16055 Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations, 44312-44313 2016-16056 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 44304 2016-16011 Filings of Complaints and Assignments: T. Parker Host, Inc., v. Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC, et al., 44304-44305 2016-16012 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Greenwich Insurance Co.; Non-Renewal, 44409 2016-15999 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Draft Maps: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Bay and Gulf Counties, FL; Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, NJ, 44320-44322 2016-16100 Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plans, Lake, County, FL, 44322-44324 2016-16079 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Kauai Island Utility Cooperative Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan, Kauai, HI, 44316-44319 2016-16077 Upper Great Plains Wind Energy; Record of Decision, 44324-44325 2016-16078 Foreign Agricultural Foreign Agricultural Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 44258-44260 2016-16047 2016-16048 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee, 44260 2016-16084 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bankruptcy, 44306-44307 2016-15997 Termination Settlement Proposal Forms, 44307-44308 2016-15995 Public Release of Data Collected Through Transactional Data Reporting, 44305-44306 2016-16064 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Enterprise Income Verification Systems User Access Authorization Form and Rules of Behavior and User Agreement, 44313-44314 2016-16117 Enterprise Income Verification Systems—Debts Owed to Public Housing Agencies and Terminations, 44315-44316 2016-16116 Fair Housing Initiatives Program Grant Application and Monitoring Reports, 44314-44315 2016-16118 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service; Correction, 44309 2016-16135 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany, 44274-44275 2016-16137 Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Brazil, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and the People's Republic of China, 44270-44271 2016-16059 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 44272-44274 2016-16060 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, India, the People's Republic of China and Thailand, 44275-44277 2016-16053 May Anniversary Dates, 44260-44270 2016-16145 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the People's Republic of China, 44277 2016-16134 Meetings: Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee, 44271 2016-16087 Trade Missions: Cyber Security Trade Mission to Turkey, 44271-44272 2016-15842 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Dioctyl Terephthalate From Korea, 44329-44330 2016-16062 Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India, Italy, and Spain, 44328-44329 2016-16057 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Alloy Magnesium From China, 44328 2016-16044 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Benzene Standard, 44331-44332 2016-16094 Personal Protective Equipment for General Industry, 44330-44331 2016-16092 Trade Activity Participant Report, 44332-44333 2016-16093 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Filing of Plats of Survey: California, 44326 2016-16081 Meetings: Resource Advisory Council to the Boise District, 44325-44326 2016-16080 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bankruptcy, 44306-44307 2016-15997 Termination Settlement Proposal Forms, 44307-44308 2016-15995 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 44309-44310 2016-16041 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 44310 2016-16042 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 44310 2016-16043 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Observer Coverage Requirements for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area Trawl Catcher Vessels, 44251-44257 2016-15912 Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries: 2016 U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits, 44249-44251 2016-16013 NOTICES Applications: Marine Mammals; Pinniped Removal Authority, 44298-44299 2016-16006 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: U.S. Air Force 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron Conducting Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, HI, 44277-44298 2016-16114 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Advisory Council, 44328 2016-16103 Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory Committee, 44327-44328 2016-16102 National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 44326-44327 2016-16061 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Reno Creek In Situ Uranium Recovery Project, Campbell County, WY, 44333-44334 2016-16104 License Amendment Applications: Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, 44335 2016-16105 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection, 44333 2016-16106 Occupational Safety Health Rev Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 44335-44337 2016-16065 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 44337 2016-16089 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Defense and National Security: U.S. Operations Involving Use of Force; Enhancing Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures To Address Civilian Casualties (EO 13732), 44483-44487 2016-16295 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 44338-44339, 44356-44357, 44365-44366, 44395 2016-16036 2016-16037 2016-16039 2016-16040 Applications for Registration as Security-Based Swap Data Repositories: DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC, 44379-44388 2016-16112 Applications: Lord Abbett Family of Funds and Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC, 44395-44400 2016-16038 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 44353-44356 2016-16111 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 44359-44363, 44372-44373 2016-16109 2016-16110 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 44388-44390 2016-16033 ICE Clear Credit LLC, 44357-44358 2016-16032 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 44404-44406 2016-16030 ISE Gemini, LLC, 44393-44395 2016-16028 ISE Mercury, LLC, 44377-44379 2016-16029 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 44390-44393 2016-16122 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 44373-44377 2016-16026 NYSE Arca, Inc., 44338-44348, 44393 2016-16031 2016-16034 2016-16108 NYSE MKT LLC, 44363-44365 2016-16025 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 44349-44353, 44366-44372, 44400-44404 2016-16035 2016-16123 2016-16027 Temporary Exemption Orders, 44337-44338 2016-16073 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Consent Based Social Security Number Verification Service, 44406 2016-16095 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: Florida Central Railroad Company, Inc., Lake County, FL, 44406 2016-16101 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Public Hearings, 44407-44408 2016-15994 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

NOTICES Global Positioning System Adjacent Band Compatibility Assessment Testing, 44408-44409 2016-16136
Treasury Treasury Department See

Fiscal Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Cost-Based and Inter-Agency Billing Rates for Medical Care or Services Provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 44409-44411 2016-15956 Meetings: Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, 44409 2016-16115 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Communications Commission, 44414-44454 2016-14506 Part III Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 44456-44482 2016-15708 Part IV Presidential Documents, 44483-44487 2016-16295 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.

81 130 Thursday, July 7, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5579; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-010-AD; Amendment 39-18586; AD 2016-14-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-15-06 for certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models 175 and 175A airplanes (type certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company). AD 2008-15-06 required checking the airplane logbook to determine if the original engine mounting brackets had been replaced. If the original engine mounting brackets were still installed, the AD required repetitively inspecting those brackets for cracks and replacing any cracked engine mounting bracket until all four original engine mounting brackets were replaced. Replacing all four original engine mounting brackets terminated the actions required in AD 2008-15-06. Since we issued AD 2008-15-06, we have determined that the applicability needs to be changed to add one serial number and remove another. This new AD retains the actions required in AD 2008-15-06 and changes the Applicability section. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 11, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of September 2, 2008 (73 FR 43845, July 29, 2008).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone: (316) 517-5800; fax: (316) 942-9006; Internet: www.cessna.txtav.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5579.

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-2016-5579; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4123; fax: (316) 946-4107, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2008-15-06, Amendment 39-15618 (73 FR 43845, July 29, 2008), (“AD 2008-15-06”). AD 2008-15-06 applied to certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models 175 and 175A airplanes (type certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2016 (81 FR 21501). The NPRM was prompted by our determination that a serial number had been inadvertently included in the applicability and a serial number had been inadvertently omitted from the applicability. The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2008-15-06, add one serial number to the applicability and remove another. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 21501, April 12, 2016) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 21501, April 12, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 21501, April 12, 2016).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB07-2, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2007. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the upper and lower engine mounting brackets on both the left and right sides for cracks and replacing cracked engine mounting brackets. 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 will affect 1,218 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to do each inspection:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 7.5 work-hours × $80 per hour = $600 Not applicable $600 $730,800

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 3 work-hours per bracket × $80 per hour = $240 per bracket. 4 brackets per airplane × $240 per bracket = $960 $200 per bracket. 4 × $200 = $800 for all 4 brackets $440 per bracket. $1,760 to replace all 4 brackets.

There is no estimated cost of compliance difference between this AD and AD 2008-15-06 since there is no change in the number of affected airplanes or in the required actions. The cost impact on the public will be in the removal of serial number 691 and the addition of serial number 619.

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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-15-06, Amendment 39-15618 (73 FR 43845, July 29, 2008), and adding the following new AD: 2016-14-05 Textron Aviation Inc.: Amendment 39-18586; Docket No. FAA-2016-5579; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-010. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective August 11, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2008-15-06, Amendment 39-15618 (73 FR 43845, July 29, 2008) (“AD 2008-15-06”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the Textron Aviation Inc. airplane models and serial numbers (type certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) that are certificated in any category listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD. The new airplane affected by this AD is model number 175A, serial number 619, manufactured in 1960.

Table 1 to Paragraph (c) of This AD—Airplanes Affected Model Serial Nos. Year
  • manufactured
  • (1) 175 55001 through 55703 1958. (2) 175 55704 through 56238 1959. (3) 175 28700A, 626, and 640 1958 and 1959. (4) 175 A 56239 through 56777 1960. (5) 175 A 619 1960.
    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Power Plant.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the determination that one airplane needs to be added and another airplane needs to be removed from the Applicability section. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the engine mounting brackets, which could result in failure of the engine mounting bracket. This failure could lead to the engine detaching from the firewall.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Airplane Logbook Check

    (1) Check the airplane logbook to determine if all four of the original engine mounting brackets have been replaced. Do the logbook check at the following compliance time, as applicable. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 may do this action.

    (i) For airplanes previously affected by AD 2008-15-06: Within the next 30 days after September 2, 2008 (the effective date retained from AD 2008-15-06).

    (ii) For the new airplane affected by this AD: Within the next 30 days after August 11, 2016 (the effective date of this AD).

    (2) If you can positively determine that all four of the original engine mounting brackets have been replaced, no further action is required. Make an entry into the airplane logbook showing compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 may do this action.

    (3) If you cannot positively determine that all four of the original engine mounting brackets have been replaced, inspect each of the upper and lower engine mounting brackets on both the left and right sides for cracks following Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB07-2, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2007. Do the inspections at the following compliance times, as applicable.

    (i) For airplanes previous affected by AD 2008-15-06: Initially inspect within the next 12 months after September 2, 2008 (the effective date retained from AD 2008-15-06). If no cracks are found, repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours time-in-service (TIS) until all four of the original engine mounting brackets are replaced.

    (ii) For the new airplane affected by this AD: Initially inspect within the next 12 months after August 11, 2016 (the effective date of this AD). If no cracks are found, repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS until all four of the original engine mounting brackets are replaced.

    (h) Engine Mounting Bracket Replacement

    If cracks are found in any of the engine mounting brackets during any inspection required in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, before further flight after the inspection in which cracks are found, replace the cracked engine mounting bracket(s) following Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB07-2, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2007. Replacing the cracked engine mounting bracket terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD only for the replaced engine mounting bracket.

    (i) Terminating Action

    To terminate the repetitive inspections required in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD, you may replace all four original engine mounting brackets following Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB07-2, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2007.

    (j) Engine Mounting Bracket Disposal

    For all airplanes affected by this AD: Before further flight after the engine mounting bracket is removed for replacement, dispose of every replaced bracket following 14 CFR 43.10, paragraph (c)(6), which states the following: “Mutilation. The part may be mutilated to deter its installation in a type certificated product. The mutilation must render the part beyond repair and incapable of being reworked to appear to be airworthy.”

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita 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) of this AD.

    (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) AMOCs approved for AD 2008-15-06 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4123; fax: (316) 946-4107, email: [email protected]

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 2, 2008 (73 FR 43845, July 29, 2008).

    (i) Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB07-2, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2007.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) For Cessna Aircraft Company service information identified in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone: (316) 517-5800; fax: (316) 942-9006; Internet: www.cessna.txtav.com.

    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5579.

    (6) 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on June 28, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15866 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0493] Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the San Diego, CA POPS Fireworks Display on the waters of San Diego Bay, CA on specific evenings from July 1, 2016 to September 4, 2016. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the events, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the southern California annual fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for the events. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m. on July 1 through July 3, July 8 and July 9, July 15 and July 16, July 29 and July 30, August 5 and August 6, August 12 and August 13, August 20, August 26 and August 27 and September 1 through September 4, 2016 for Item 1 in Table 1 of 33 CFR 165.1123.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this publication, call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for a safety zone on the waters of San Diego Bay, CA for the San Diego, CA POPS Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 1 of that section, from 9:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m. on specific evenings from July 1, 2016 to September 4, 2016. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks events. Our regulation for southern California annual fireworks events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities for the events. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1123 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

    If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. E.M. Cooper, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16014 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0323; FRL-9948-68-Region 4] Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation of the Sullivan County Lead Nonattainment Area to Attainment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 15, 2015, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Bristol, Tennessee 2008 lead nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Bristol Area” or the “Area”) to attainment for the 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and an associated State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan and a reasonably available control measures (RACM) determination for the Area. EPA is taking the following separate final actions related to the July 15, 2015, redesignation request and SIP revision: Determining that the Bristol Area is continuing to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS; approving and incorporating into the SIP the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 lead standard; approving and incorporating into the SIP the State's RACM determination; and redesignating the Bristol Area to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0323. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Lakeman of the 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. Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On November 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised primary and secondary lead NAAQS of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). See 73 FR 66964. Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 lead NAAQS are met when the maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-year period, as determined in accordance with appendix R of 40 CFR part 50, is less than or equal to 0.15 μg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.16. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement.

    EPA designated the Bristol Area as a nonattainment area for the 2008 lead NAAQS on November 22, 2010 (effective December 31, 2010), using 2007-2009 ambient air quality data. See 75 FR 71033. This established an attainment date five years after the December 31, 2010, effective date for the 2008 lead nonattainment designations pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A). Therefore, the Bristol Area's attainment date is December 31, 2015. EPA determined that Tennessee had attained the 2008 lead NAAQS prior to the attainment date and issued a Clean Data Determination on August 29, 2012 (77 FR 52232).

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on April 26, 2016 (81 FR 24536), EPA proposed to approve four separate but related actions: (1) To approve Tennessee's RACM determination for the Bristol Area pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 172(c)(1) into the SIP; (2) to determine that the Area is continuing to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS; (3) to approve Tennessee's maintenance plan for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS in the Area into the SIP; and (4) to redesignate the Area. No comments were received on the April 26, 2016, proposed rulemaking. The details of Tennessee's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM. See 81 FR 24536 (April 26, 2016).

    II. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of Tennessee's redesignation request changes the legal designation of the Bristol Area, found at 40 CFR 81.343, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. Approval of Tennessee's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan into the SIP for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS in the Sullivan County (Bristol Area), Tennessee, through 2025 and a RACM determination for the Area.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is taking a number of final actions regarding Tennessee's July 15, 2015, request to redesignate the Bristol Area to attainment and associated SIP revision. First, EPA is determining that the State's Subpart 1 RACM determination for the Area meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and incorporating this RACM determination into the SIP.

    Second, EPA is determining, based upon review of quality-assured and certified ambient monitoring data for the 2012-2014 period and upon review of preliminary data in Air Quality System for 2015, that the Area continues to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS following EPA's August 29, 2012, determination of attainment.

    Third, EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Area and incorporating it into the SIP.

    Fourth, EPA is approving Tennessee's request for redesignation of the Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. As mentioned above, approval of the redesignation request changes the official designation of the Bristol Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, these actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, these proposed actions:

    • Are not significant regulatory actions 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);

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

    • Are 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.);

    • Do 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);

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

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

    • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Are 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

    • Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 6, 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 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart RR—Tennessee 2. In § 52.2220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “2008 Lead Maintenance Plan for the Bristol Area” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2220 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions Name of non-regulatory SIP
  • provision
  • Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State effective date EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2008 Lead Maintenance Plan for the Bristol Area Bristol Area 7/10/2015 7/7/2016 [insert Federal Register citation]
    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment Status Designations 4. In § 81.343, the table entitled “Tennessee—2008 Lead NAAQS” is amended by revising the entry “Bristol, TN:” to read as follows:
    § 81.343 Tennessee. Tennessee—2008 Lead NAAQS Designated area Designation for the 2008 NAAQS a Date 1 Type Bristol, TN: Sullivan County (part) 7/7/2016 Attainment Area is bounded by a 1.25 km radius surrounding the UTM coordinates 4042923 meters E., 386267 meters N., Zone 17, which surrounds the Exide Technologies Facility *         *         *         *         *         *         * a Includes Indian Country in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 December 31, 2011 unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16002 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0866; FRL-9948-65-OAR] RIN 2060-AS43 Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the standards of performance for stationary compression ignition (CI) internal combustion engines to allow manufacturers to design the engines so that operators can temporarily override performance inducements related to the emission control system for stationary CI internal combustion engines. The amendments apply to engines operating during emergency situations where the operation of the engine or equipment is needed to protect human life, and to require compliance with Tier 1 emission standards during such emergencies. The EPA is also amending the standards of performance for certain stationary CI internal combustion engines located in remote areas of Alaska.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on September 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0866. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. The EPA also relies on materials in Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1032, and incorporates those dockets into the record for this final rule.

    Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. Visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets for additional information about the EPA's public docket.

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final rule will be available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Following signature, a copy of this final rule will be posted at the following address: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/icengines.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Melanie King, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2469; facsimile number: (919) 541-5450; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Organization of this document. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

    I. General Background II. Final Amendments A. Temporary Override of Inducements in Emergency Situations B. Remote Areas of Alaska III. Public Comments and Responses A. Temporary Override of Inducements in Emergency Situations B. Remote Areas of Alaska IV. Impacts of the Final Action A. Economic Impacts B. Environmental Impacts V. 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 (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 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: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Background

    On July 11, 2006, the EPA promulgated standards of performance for stationary CI internal combustion engines (71 FR 39154). These standards, known as new source performance standards (NSPS), implement section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, and are issued for categories of sources that cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII. The standards apply to new stationary sources of emissions, i.e., sources whose construction, reconstruction, or modification begins after a standard for those sources is proposed. The NSPS for stationary CI internal combustion engines established limits on emissions of particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO) and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). The emission standards are generally modeled after the EPA's standards for nonroad and marine diesel engines. The nonroad CI engine standards are phased in over several years and have Tiers with increasing levels of stringency. The engine model year in which the Tiers take effect varies for different size ranges of engines. The Tier 4 final standards for new stationary non-emergency and nonroad CI engines generally begin with either the 2014 or 2015 model year.

    In 2011, the EPA finalized revisions to the NSPS for stationary CI engines that amended the standards for engines with a displacement greater than 10 liters per cylinder, and also for engines located in remote areas of Alaska (76 FR 37954, June 28, 2011). In this action, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the NSPS regarding performance inducements for Tier 4 engines and the criteria for defining remote areas of Alaska. The final amendments are discussed below.

    II. Final Amendments A. Temporary Override of Inducements in Emergency Situations

    Many Tier 4 final engines are equipped by the engine manufacturer with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to reduce emissions of NOX. The consumable reactant in an SCR system is typically supplied as a solution of urea in water known as diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). Engines equipped with SCR generally include controls that limit the function of the engines if they are operated without DEF, or if the engine's electronic control module cannot otherwise confirm that the SCR system is properly operating. Such controls are generally called “inducements” because they induce the operator to properly maintain the SCR emission control system. In normal circumstances, if inducements begin, the engine operator is expected to perform any necessary maintenance to avoid shutdown. Manufacturers as well as owners or operators of nonroad and stationary CI Tier 4 certified engines have raised concerns regarding the inducements being triggered and engines shutting down during emergency situations. Additional background on Tier 4 engines and this amendment can be found in the proposal for this rulemaking (80 FR 68808, November 6, 2015). On August 8, 2014, the EPA promulgated provisions allowing manufacturers of nonroad engines certified to the emission standards in 40 CFR part 1039 to give operators the means to temporarily override emission control inducements during qualified emergency situations, such as those where operation of the engine is needed to protect human life (79 FR 46356, August 8, 2014). These provisions, which are codified in 40 CFR 1039.665, allow for auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) that help to ensure proper function of engines in qualified emergency situations. AECDs are any element of design that senses temperature, motive speed, engine revolutions per minute, transmission gear, or any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying, or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system. The provisions of 40 CFR 1039.665 allow the engine manufacturer to include a dormant feature in the engine's control software that could be activated to override emission control inducements. In this action, the EPA is adopting those same provisions for stationary CI engines certified to the standards in 40 CFR part 1039 and used in qualified emergency situations. It is important to emphasize that the EPA is confident that Tier 4 engines will function properly in the vast majority of emergency situations. Thus, the EPA expects that AECDs allowed under this provision will rarely be activated. The EPA is adopting this provision merely as a precaution to ensure that stationary CI engines can continue to operate in emergency situations.

    The final amendments allow engine manufacturers to design into their stationary CI engines a dormant AECD that can be activated for up to 120 engine hours per use during a qualified emergency situation to prevent emission controls from interfering with engine operation. The EPA is finalizing amendments that allow engine manufacturers to offer, and operators to request, re-activations of the AECD for additional time in increments of 120 engine hours in cases of a prolonged emergency situation. During the emergency situation, the engine must meet the Tier 1 emission standard in 40 CFR 89.112 that applies to the engine's rated power. Operators activating the AECD will be required to report the incident to the engine manufacturers, and engine manufacturers will submit an annual report to the EPA summarizing the use of these AECDs during the prior year. These final amendments are discussed in more detail below.

    1. Definition of Qualified Emergency Situation

    The EPA is using the definition of qualified emergency situation established in the August 8, 2014, amendments for nonroad engines. This definition is found in the introductory text to 40 CFR 1039.665 and is cross-referenced in the NSPS for stationary CI internal combustion engines, specifically in 40 CFR 60.4204(f). The definition specifies that a qualified emergency situation is one in which the condition of an engine's emission controls poses a significant direct or indirect risk to human life. An example of a direct risk would be an emission control condition that inhibits the performance of an engine being used to rescue a person from a life-threatening situation (for example, providing power to a medical facility during an emergency situation). An example of an indirect risk would be an emission control condition that inhibits the performance of an engine being used to provide electrical power to a data center that routes “911” emergency response telecommunications.

    2. Basic AECD Criteria

    Section 1039.665 specifies provisions allowing for AECDs that are necessary to ensure proper function of engines and equipment in emergency situations. It also includes specific criteria that the engine manufacturer must meet to ensure that any adverse environmental impacts are minimized. These criteria are cross-referenced in the NSPS for stationary CI engines and are as follows:

    • The AECD must be designed so that it cannot be activated more than once without the specific permission of the certificate holder. Reactivation of the AECD must require the input of a temporary code or equivalent security feature.

    • The AECD must become inactive within 120 engine hours of becoming active. The engine must also include a feature that allows the operator to deactivate the AECD once the emergency is over.

    • The manufacturer must show that the AECD deactivates emission controls (such as inducement strategies) only to the extent necessary to address the expected emergency situation.

    • The engine controls must be configured to record in non-volatile electronic memory the total number of activations of the AECD for each engine.

    • The manufacturer must take appropriate additional steps to induce operators to report AECD activation and request resetting of the AECD. The EPA recommends including one or more persistent visible and/or audible alarms that are active from the point when the AECD is activated to the point when it is reset.

    • The manufacturer must provide purchasers with instructions on how to activate the AECD in emergency situations, as well as information about penalties for overuse.

    3. Emission Standards During Qualified Emergency Situations

    The EPA is requiring stationary CI engines to meet different emission standards for the very narrow period of operation where there is an emergency situation with a risk to human life and the owner or operator is warned that the inducement is about to occur. The emission standards that apply when the AECD is activated during the qualified emergency situation are the Tier 1 standards in 40 CFR 89.112. Engine manufacturers indicated that meeting the Tier 2 or 3 standards in 40 CFR 89.112 is not feasible because the base engine used in Tier 4 configurations does not have exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), which is the engine design technology used to meet the Tier 2 and 3 standards. The EGR is not needed for Tier 4 because NOX is controlled by the SCR.1 The Tier 1 requirement applies only when there is a qualified emergency situation and bypass of inducements is necessary to ensure continued operation of the engine. Once the emergency situation has ended and the AECD is deactivated, the engine must comply with the otherwise applicable emission standard specified in 40 CFR 60.4202. Engine manufacturers must demonstrate that the engine complies with the Tier 1 standard when the AECD is activated when applying for certification of an engine equipped with an AECD.

    1 See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0866-0010.

    4. Approval, Recordkeeping and Reporting for Engine Manufacturers

    Manufacturers may ask for approval of the use of emergency AECDs at any time; however, the EPA encourages manufacturers to obtain preliminary approval before submitting an application for certification. Otherwise, the EPA's review of the AECD, which may include many unique features, may delay the approval of the application for certification.

    The manufacturer is required to keep records to document the use of emergency AECDs until the end of the calendar year 5 years after the onset of the relevant emergency situation. The manufacturer must submit an annual compliance report to the EPA within 90 calendar days of the end of each calendar year in which it authorizes use of an AECD. The annual report must include a description of each AECD activation and copies of the reports submitted by owners or operators (or statements that an owner or operator did not submit a report, to the extent of the manufacturer's knowledge). If an owner or operator fails to report the use of an emergency AECD to the manufacturer, the manufacturer, to the extent it has been made aware of the AECD activation, must send written notification to the operator that failure to meet the submission requirements may subject the operator to penalties.

    5. Engine Owner or Operator Requirements

    Owners or operators who purchase engines with this dormant feature will receive instructions from the engine manufacturer on how to activate the AECD in qualified emergency situations, as well as information about penalties for overuse. The EPA would consider appropriate use of this feature to be during a situation where operation of a stationary CI engine is needed to protect human life (or where impaired operation poses a significant direct or indirect risk to human life), and temporarily overriding emission controls enables full operation of the equipment. The EPA is adopting this provision to give operators the means to obtain short-term relief one time without the need to contact the engine manufacturer or the EPA. In a qualified emergency situation, delaying the activation to obtain approval could put lives at risk, and would be unacceptable. However, the EPA retains the authority to evaluate, after the fact, whether it was reasonable to judge that there was a significant risk to human life to justify the activation of the AECD. Where the EPA determines that it was not reasonable to judge (1) that there was a significant risk to human life; or (2) that the emission control strategy was curtailing the ability of the engine to perform, the owner or operator may be subject to penalties for tampering with emission controls. The owner or operator requirements also include a specific prohibition on operating the engine with the AECD beyond the time reasonably needed for such operation. The owner or operator may also be subject to penalties for tampering if they continue to operate the engine with the AECD once the emergency situation has ended or the problem causing the emission control strategy to interfere with the performance of the engine has been or can reasonably be fixed. Nevertheless, the EPA will consider the totality of the circumstances when assessing penalties, and retain discretion to reduce penalties where the EPA determines that an owner or operator acted in good faith.

    The owner or operator must send a written report to the engine manufacturer within 60 calendar days after activating an emergency AECD. If any consecutive reactivations occur, this report is still due 60 calendar days from the first activation. The report must include:

    • Contact name, mail and email addresses, and telephone number for the responsible company or entity.

    • A description of the emergency situation, the location of the engine during the emergency, and the contact information for an official who can verify the emergency situation (such as a county sheriff, fire marshal, or hospital administrator).

    • The reason for AECD activation during the emergency situation, such as the lack of DEF, or the failure of an emission-related sensor when the engine was needed to respond to an emergency situation.

    • The engine's serial number (or equivalent).

    • A description of the extent and duration of the engine operation while the AECD was active, including a statement describing whether or not the AECD was manually deactivated after the emergency situation ended.

    Paragraph 40 CFR 1039.665(g) specifies that failure to provide this information to the engine manufacturer within the deadline is improper use of the AECD and is prohibited.

    B. Remote Areas of Alaska

    The EPA is finalizing an amendment to the NSPS for stationary CI internal combustion engines that would align the definition of remote areas of Alaska with the definition currently used in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, which can be found at 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The amendment specifies that engines in areas that are accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) can be considered remote if each of the following conditions is met: (1) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska Marine Highway System, or the stationary CI engine operation is within an isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Grid; (2) at least 10 percent of the power generated by the engine on an annual basis is used for residential purposes; and (3) the generating capacity of the facility is less than 12 megawatts, or the engine is used exclusively for backup power for renewable energy. The Alaska Railbelt Grid is defined as the service areas of the six regulated public utilities that extend from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These utilities are Golden Valley Electric Association; Chugach Electric Association; Matanuska Electric Association; Homer Electric Association; Anchorage Municipal Light & Power; and the City of Seward Electric System. Background on the provisions related to remote areas of Alaska can be found in the proposal for this rulemaking (80 FR 68808, November 6, 2015).

    The following NSPS provisions that currently apply to stationary CI internal combustion engines for engines that are located in areas of Alaska that are not accessible by the FAHS will be extended to stationary CI internal combustion engines located in the areas identified above:

    • Exemption for all pre-2014 model year engines from diesel fuel sulfur requirements (see 40 CFR 60.4216(d));

    • Allowance for owners and operators of stationary CI engines to use engines certified to marine engine standards, rather than land-based nonroad engine standards (see 40 CFR 60.4216(b));

    • No requirement to meet emission standards that would necessitate the use of aftertreatment devices for NOX, in particular, SCR (emission standards that are not based on the use of aftertreatment devices for NOX will apply) (see 40 CFR 60.4216(c));

    • No requirement to meet emission standards that would necessitate the use of aftertreatment devices for PM until the 2014 model year (see 40 CFR 60.4216(c)); and

    • Allowance for the blending of used lubricating oil, in volumes of up to 1.75 percent of the total fuel, if the sulfur content of the used lubricating oil is less than 200 parts per million and the used lubricating oil is “on-spec,” i.e., it meets the on-specification levels and properties of 40 CFR 279.11 (see 40 CFR 60.4216(f)).

    III. Public Comments and Responses

    This section presents a summary of the public comments that the EPA received on the proposed amendments and the responses developed. The EPA received 7 public comments on the proposed rule. The comments can be obtained online from the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov.

    A. Temporary Override of Inducements in Emergency Situations

    Comment: Two commenters supported the proposed amendment to allow manufacturers of stationary CI engines certified to the emission standards in 40 CFR part 1039 to give engine operators the means to temporarily override emission control inducements while operating in qualified emergency situations. One commenter noted the critical need for the proposed amendment to ensure that stationary CI engines, when used in emergency situations, may continue to operate to ameliorate the emergency and protect human life. The commenter noted that the EPA had already adopted the proposed provision for nonroad engines, and that it was essential for stationary engines as well. The commenter also supported the proposed amendment so that engines could be dual-certified for both stationary and nonroad use, which reduces the cost and burden of certification.

    Response: No response necessary.

    Comment: One commenter supported the proposed definition of an emergency situation. Another commenter stated that the EPA should not impose any limitations on the operating time of an engine during an emergency situation, and noted that in the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, emergencies are excluded from operating time limitations and should similarly be excluded here. The commenter stated that it is not necessary to newly incorporate a definition of a qualified emergency situation because there are applicable examples of emergency situations already provided in the definition of an emergency stationary internal combustion engine in the NSPS for stationary CI internal combustion engines. The commenter indicated that if the EPA believes it must finalize specific requirements for emergency operations, then the definition of a qualified emergency situation should be revised so that it is more generalized and more applicable to different types of emergency situations which would necessitate the operation of stationary CI engines. According to the commenter, the proposed definition of a qualified emergency situation and the associated examples of indirect and direct risk to human life apply very specifically to nonroad engines that are able to be transported. The commenter urged the EPA to acknowledge that the examples provided in 40 CFR 1039.665 are merely examples, and do not constitute limits on interpreting the definition of a qualified emergency situation for stationary CI engines. The commenter indicated the EPA should clarify that there are other possible emergency situations that might pose a risk to human life, or list additional examples.

    Response: The definition of emergency stationary internal combustion engine in the NSPS for stationary CI internal combustion engines, and the similar definition in the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, defines a subcategory of engines that are subject to different standards, whether operating in an actual emergency or in other limited non-emergency circumstances. The definition of a qualified emergency situation has a different purpose; it defines when the inducement can be overridden for a non-emergency engine. The definition of a qualified emergency situation where an inducement can be overridden is intended to be more limited to emergency situations where there is a significant direct or indirect risk to human life.

    The EPA does not agree with the commenter that the proposed definition is not sufficiently generalized and that the examples provided are not representative of stationary engines. One of the examples is “an engine being used to provide electrical power to a data center that routes ‘911’ emergency response telecommunications,” which would likely be a stationary generator. The possible scenarios provided in the definition are merely examples and are not intended to be the only types of applications and situations that can qualify. The use of the word “example” in the definition is an indication that they are just examples and not limits on interpreting the definition. It would not be possible to provide examples of all of the potential uses of engines in qualified emergency situations.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the initial period for AECD operation should be 15 days (360 hours) rather than the proposed 120 hours, with follow-on increments of 120 hours activated by communications with the engine certificate holder. The commenter stated that the time limit should be designed to address a worst-case situation, such as a region-wide disaster and a remote area, where extended communications and/or supply chain disruptions may impact the engine operator and the certificate holder beyond 120 hours. According to the commenter, the threat of post-emergency analysis and punishment by the EPA will likely be sufficient to minimize overuse of the leeway provided by the proposed amendment.

    Another commenter opposed any hour limit during an emergency situation. According to the commenter, because emergencies are sudden, uncontrollable, and unlikely, there is no need to limit the amount of override time allowable to keep engines running during emergencies. The commenter also expressed concern about the procedures set forth for reactivation of the AECD, and urged the EPA to remove the requirements for resetting of the AECD. The commenter stated that the engine manufacturer is not the appropriately qualified entity to determine a facility's qualified emergency, and that there need not be such stringent requirements for activation of the AECD, since the EPA has the authority to evaluate after the fact whether or not it was reasonable to justify the qualified emergency.

    Response: The proposed definition of a qualified emergency situation specifies emergency situations for which an engine owner or operator may temporarily override emission control inducements. Should the engine owner or operator need to extend the override beyond the initial 120 hour period, it can work with the engine manufacturer to reset the AECD for additional time. Thus, the engine owner/operator will be able to override the emission controls throughout the duration of the qualified emergency situation. The limit on AECD activation periods and procedures for resetting the AECD are necessary to ensure that the time of the override is truly limited to the time necessary to address the emergency situation, and minimize excess emissions, which would lead to adverse environmental impacts. The commenters that suggested an initial 360 hour AECD activation period to address a “worst case scenario” or an unlimited activation period did not provide any specific example of a qualified emergency situation of longer than 120 hours where the procedures for resetting the AECD could not have been followed, or explain why 360 hours represents a “worst case scenario.” The EPA's approach appropriately balances the need to provide regulatory relief in emergency circumstances with the need to deter overuse, and the EPA does not agree that an unlimited period is necessary or that a period of 360 hours or unlimited hours is preferable. In order to reactivate the AECD, the engine manufacturer is only required to have evidence that the emergency situation is continuing and is not required to judge if the situation is a qualifying emergency. As indicated in the proposal, it is expected that AECDs would be activated rarely, if ever, so the provisions are unlikely to impose a significant burden on engine owners/operators.

    Further, the EPA's decision to adopt requirements concerning initial AECD activation periods, reactivation and notification that are identical to such requirements in the nonroad engine rules is influenced by our desire to allow for dual certification of stationary and nonroad engines, which reduces the burden of the rule on engine manufacturers. The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association noted in their public comments 2 that the ability to dual certify nonroad and stationary engines reduces the number of engine families that a manufacturer must certify, reduces the number of engine models that dealers, distributors, and customers must inventory and manage, and reduces the number of engine families that the EPA must certify. According to the commenter, if the EPA were to foreclose the ability of manufacturers to continue to dual certify, significant costs and burdens would result. Given that the NSPS for stationary CI internal combustion engines places a great deal of the compliance demonstration burden on the engine manufacturer, it is reasonable to have the manufacturer's compliance obligations be as consistent as possible for stationary and nonroad engines.

    2 EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0866-0017.

    Comment: One commenter supported the recordkeeping process outlined in the proposed rule. Another commenter disagreed with the proposed requirements for the engine owner/operator to send a written report to the engine manufacturer detailing the activation of the emergency AECD. According to the commenter, the engine manufacturer has no authority to enforce penalties or regulations promulgated by the EPA, and, therefore, the commenter did not think it made logical sense for owners/operators to be required to submit reports to the engine manufacturers, nor are the engine manufacturers qualified to determine what constitutes a qualified emergency situation at the affected facility. The commenter stated that using the engine manufacturers to collect reports and then report this information to the EPA is unprecedented and creates an unnecessary middleman. The commenter recommended that the proposed provisions be revised so that owners/operators are required to report the information directly to the EPA, or to the appropriate permitting authority.

    Response: Similar to the limit on AECD activation periods and the procedures for resetting the AECD, the recordkeeping process is necessary to ensure the AECD is used in true emergencies only and prevent adverse environmental impacts. The proposed reporting provisions do not require engine manufacturers to enforce penalties or EPA regulations. Rather, they require that, in cases where the manufacturer is aware of use of the AECD, the manufacturer must make the engine owner/operator aware that they may be subject to penalties from the EPA for failing to report the use of the AECD. There are other situations in the regulations where an engine manufacturer is required to indicate that an owner/operator may be subject to penalties, such as the labeling requirement in 40 CFR 1039.20. The commenter did not provide any information to show that it would be unreasonable for engine manufacturers to compile information on the use of AECDs, and the engine manufacturers have not objected to the requirement. As stated previously, it is expected that AECDs will be activated rarely, if ever, so the reporting provisions are unlikely to impose a significant burden on engine owners/operators or engine manufacturers.

    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA clarify that manufacturers are not required to submit actual certification test-based data to demonstrate that engines equipped with an AECD that helps to ensure proper function of engines in qualified emergency situations will meet the Tier 1 emission standards in 40 CFR 89.112 when the AECD is activated. According to the commenter, submittal of certification test-based data would be unduly expensive and burdensome for engine manufacturers and the EPA. The commenter recommended that engine manufacturers be allowed to demonstrate that an engine complies with the Tier 1 emission standards when the AECD is activated by submitting the conversion efficiencies for the Tier 4 engine's emission control systems and using good engineering judgement to demonstrate that the engine complies with the Tier 1 standard. Specifically, according to the commenter, manufacturers could compare the conversion efficiency with the Tier 4 emission standard for the engine to demonstrate that the engine would meet the Tier 1 emission standard if the emission control system is disabled. The commenter noted that the EPA allows the demonstration of compliance through means other than the generation of actual certification data for the not-to-exceed standards in part 1039. The commenter suggested specific edits to 40 CFR 60.4210(j) to help clarify the required demonstration.

    Response: The proposed rule was not intended to require certification test-based data to be submitted to demonstrate that the engines will meet the Tier 1 emission standards. The final rule includes language in 40 CFR 60.4210(j) to clarify that certification test-based data are not required for such demonstration. The intent of the provision is that engine manufacturers would demonstrate achievement of the Tier 1 emission standards at the time that the manufacturer applies for certification of the engine equipped with an AECD. Manufacturers must document that the engine complies with the Tier 1 emission standards when the AECD is activated and provide any relevant testing, engineering analysis, or other information in sufficient detail to support such statement when applying for certification (or amending an existing certificate) of an engine equipped with an AECD.

    B. Remote Areas of Alaska

    Comment: Four commenters supported the proposed amendment to align the definition of remote areas of Alaska in the NSPS for stationary CI engines with the definition currently used in the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. Commenters indicated that the proposed amendment would address the unique circumstances of engines located in remote areas of Alaska. No commenters opposed the proposed amendment.

    Response: No response necessary.

    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA reconsider the effectiveness of, and need for, PM emission control equipment on new Tier 3 marine engines providing prime power in remote areas of Alaska. The commenter questioned the benefit of installing PM emission controls on engines certified to the Tier 3 marine engine standards, which have lower PM emissions than engines certified to the Tier 3 standards for nonroad engines. The commenter stated that it believes that the capital and operating cost, questionable reliability, and additional complexity resulting from the PM emission control requirement do not appear to be warranted or economically viable.

    Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposal, which did not seek comment on the appropriateness of the PM emission control requirement in 40 CFR 61.4216(c) for remote areas of Alaska.

    IV. Impacts of the Final Action A. Economic Impacts

    The EPA does not expect any significant economic impacts as a result of this final rule. A significant economic impact for the amendment allowing the temporary override of inducements in emergency situations is not anticipated because AECDs are expected to be activated rarely (if ever), and, thus, the impacts to affected sources and consumers of affected output will be minimal.

    The economic impact from the change to the criteria for remote areas of Alaska will be a cost savings for owners or operators of engines that are located in the additional areas that will now be considered remote. The precise savings depends on the number and size of engines that will be installed each year. Information provided by the Alaska Energy Authority indicated that one to two new engines are expected to be installed each year. Information provided by the state of Alaska indicated that the expected initial capital cost savings per engine ranges from $28,000 to $163,000, depending on the size of the engine. There will also be annual operating and maintenance cost savings due to avoidance of the need to obtain and store DEF.

    B. Environmental Impacts

    The EPA does not expect any significant environmental impacts as a result of the amendment to allow a temporary override of inducements in emergency situations. The AECDs are expected to be activated rarely (if ever) and will only affect emissions for a very short period.

    The EPA also does not expect significant environmental impacts as a result of the amendments to the criteria for remote areas of Alaska. As an example, allowing the use of a Tier 3 engine instead of a Tier 4 engine would result in less reductions for a 250 horsepower (HP) stationary CI engine of 5.4 tons per year (tpy) of NOX, 0.1 tpy of NMHC, 1.6 tpy of CO, and 0.3 tpy of PM, assuming the engine operates full time (8,760 hours per year).3 As stated previously, the state of Alaska estimates that only one to two new engines will be installed each year in the additional remote areas.

    3 Estimates are based on Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission factors for a 175-300 HP engine provided in Table A4 of Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling—Compression-Ignition. NR-009d. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-10-018. July 2010. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2010/420r10018.pdf.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.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 (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2196.05. The only new information collection activity in this rule is the reporting by engine owners and operators and engine manufacturers that would occur if the AECD is activated during a qualified emergency situation. The EPA expects that it is unlikely that these AECDs will ever need to be activated. Therefore, the EPA estimates that there will be no additional burden from this reporting requirement.

    An agency 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. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. The OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0590.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. 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. As mentioned earlier in this preamble, the EPA is harmonizing the NSPS for stationary CI engines in this action with an existing rule issued by the EPA for nonroad CI engines. Thus, this action is reducing regulatory impacts to small entities as well as other affected entities. The EPA is also including additional remote areas of Alaska in the regulatory flexibility provisions already in the rule for remote areas of Alaska, which further reduces the burden of the existing rule on small entities and other affected entities. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    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 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 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.

    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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule would impose compliance costs primarily on engine manufacturers, depending on the extent to which they take advantage of the flexibilities offered. The final amendments to expand the areas that are considered remote areas of Alaska would reduce the compliance costs for owners and operators of stationary engines in those areas. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    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 (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The provisions being finalized in this action are designed to eliminate risks to human life and are expected to be used rarely, if at all, and will only affect emissions for a very short period. Other changes the EPA is finalizing have minimal effect on emissions.

    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 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart IIII—Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines 2. Amend § 60.4201 by revising paragraph (f)(1) and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 60.4201 What emission standards must I meet for non-emergency engines if I am a stationary CI internal combustion engine manufacturer?

    (f) * * *

    (1) Remote areas of Alaska; and

    (h) Stationary CI ICE certified to the standards in 40 CFR part 1039 and equipped with auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) as specified in 40 CFR 1039.665 must meet the Tier 1 certification emission standards for new nonroad CI engines in 40 CFR 89.112 while the AECD is activated during a qualified emergency situation. A qualified emergency situation is defined in 40 CFR 1039.665. When the qualified emergency situation has ended and the AECD is deactivated, the engine must resume meeting the otherwise applicable emission standard specified in this section.

    3. Amend § 60.4202 by revising paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:
    § 60.4202 What emission standards must I meet for emergency engines if I am a stationary CI internal combustion engine manufacturer?

    (g) * * *

    (1) Remote areas of Alaska; and

    4. Amend § 60.4204 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 60.4204 What emission standards must I meet for non-emergency engines if I am an owner or operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine?

    (f) Owners and operators of stationary CI ICE certified to the standards in 40 CFR part 1039 and equipped with AECDs as specified in 40 CFR 1039.665 must meet the Tier 1 certification emission standards for new nonroad CI engines in 40 CFR 89.112 while the AECD is activated during a qualified emergency situation. A qualified emergency situation is defined in 40 CFR 1039.665. When the qualified emergency situation has ended and the AECD is deactivated, the engine must resume meeting the otherwise applicable emission standard specified in this section.

    5. Amend § 60.4210 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
    § 60.4210 What are my compliance requirements if I am a stationary CI internal combustion engine manufacturer?

    (j) Stationary CI ICE manufacturers may equip their stationary CI internal combustion engines certified to the emission standards in 40 CFR part 1039 with AECDs for qualified emergency situations according to the requirements of 40 CFR 1039.665. Manufacturers of stationary CI ICE equipped with AECDs as allowed by 40 CFR 1039.665 must meet all of the requirements in 40 CFR 1039.665 that apply to manufacturers. Manufacturers must document that the engine complies with the Tier 1 standard in 40 CFR 89.112 when the AECD is activated. Manufacturers must provide any relevant testing, engineering analysis, or other information in sufficient detail to support such statement when applying for certification (including amending an existing certificate) of an engine equipped with an AECD as allowed by 40 CFR 1039.665.

    6. Amend § 60.4211 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 60.4211 What are my compliance requirements if I am an owner or operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine?

    (h) The requirements for operators and prohibited acts specified in 40 CFR 1039.665 apply to owners or operators of stationary CI ICE equipped with AECDs for qualified emergency situations as allowed by 40 CFR 1039.665.

    7. Amend § 60.4214 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 60.4214 What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements if I am an owner or operator of a stationary CI internal combustion engine?

    (e) Owners or operators of stationary CI ICE equipped with AECDs pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 1039.665 must report the use of AECDs as required by 40 CFR 1039.665(e).

    8. Amend § 60.4216 by revising paragraphs (b) through (d) and (f) to read as follows:
    § 60.4216 What requirements must I meet for engines used in Alaska?

    (b) Except as indicated in paragraph (c) of this section, manufacturers, owners and operators of stationary CI ICE with a displacement of less than 10 liters per cylinder located in remote areas of Alaska may meet the requirements of this subpart by manufacturing and installing engines meeting the requirements of 40 CFR parts 94 or 1042, as appropriate, rather than the otherwise applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 89 and 1039, as indicated in §§ 60.4201(f) and 60.4202(g).

    (c) Manufacturers, owners and operators of stationary CI ICE that are located in remote areas of Alaska may choose to meet the applicable emission standards for emergency engines in §§ 60.4202 and 60.4205, and not those for non-emergency engines in §§ 60.4201 and § 60.4204, except that for 2014 model year and later non-emergency CI ICE, the owner or operator of any such engine that was not certified as meeting Tier 4 PM standards, must meet the applicable requirements for PM in §§ 60.4201 and 60.4204 or install a PM emission control device that achieves PM emission reductions of 85 percent, or 60 percent for engines with a displacement of greater than or equal to 30 liters per cylinder, compared to engine-out emissions.

    (d) The provisions of § 60.4207 do not apply to owners and operators of pre-2014 model year stationary CI ICE subject to this subpart that are located in remote areas of Alaska.

    (f) The provisions of this section and § 60.4207 do not prevent owners and operators of stationary CI ICE subject to this subpart that are located in remote areas of Alaska from using fuels mixed with used lubricating oil, in volumes of up to 1.75 percent of the total fuel. The sulfur content of the used lubricating oil must be less than 200 parts per million. The used lubricating oil must meet the on-specification levels and properties for used oil in 40 CFR 279.11.

    9. Amend § 60.4219 by adding in alphabetical order the definitions for “Alaska Railbelt Grid” and “Remote areas of Alaska” to read as follows:
    § 60.4219 What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Alaska Railbelt Grid means the service areas of the six regulated public utilities that extend from Fairbanks to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. These utilities are Golden Valley Electric Association; Chugach Electric Association; Matanuska Electric Association; Homer Electric Association; Anchorage Municipal Light & Power; and the City of Seward Electric System.

    Remote areas of Alaska means areas of Alaska that meet either paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition.

    (1) Areas of Alaska that are not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS).

    (2) Areas of Alaska that meet all of the following criteria:

    (i) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska Marine Highway System, or the stationary CI ICE operation is within an isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Grid.

    (ii) At least 10 percent of the power generated by the stationary CI ICE on an annual basis is used for residential purposes.

    (iii) The generating capacity of the source is less than 12 megawatts, or the stationary CI ICE is used exclusively for backup power for renewable energy.

    [FR Doc. 2016-16045 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 228 [EPA-R01-OW-2016-0068; FRL-9948-61-Region 1] Ocean Disposal; Amendments to Restrictions on Use of Dredged Material Disposal Sites in the Central and Western Regions of Long Island Sound; Connecticut AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is amending federal regulations that designated, and placed restrictions on the use of, the Central Long Island Sound and Western Long Island Sound dredged material disposal sites, located offshore from New Haven and Stamford, Connecticut, respectively. The amended regulations incorporate standards and procedures for the use of those sites consistent with those recommended in the Long Island Sound Dredged Material Management Plan, which was completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on January 11, 2016. The Dredged Material Management Plan identifies a wide range of alternatives to open-water disposal and recommends standards and procedures for determining which alternatives to pursue for different dredging projects, so as to reduce or eliminate the open-water disposal of dredged material.

    DATES:

    This final regulation is effective on August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OW-2016-0068. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Publically available docket materials are also available from EPA's Web site https://www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/dredged-material-management-long-island-sound.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Perkins, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code: OEP06-3, Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone (617) 918-1501, electronic mail: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

    I. Background II. Response to Comments III. Changes From the Proposed Rule IV. Compliance With Statutory and Regulatory Requirements V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On February 10, 2016, EPA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 7055) a proposed rule (the Proposed Rule) amending federal regulations that designated, and placed restrictions on the use of, the Central Long Island Sound (CLDS) and Western Long Island Sound (WLDS) dredged material disposal sites, located offshore from New Haven and Stamford, Connecticut, respectively. The existing restrictions on the sites were imposed when EPA designated CLDS and WLDS (70 FR 32498) (the 2005 Rule), to ensure appropriate use and management of the designated disposal sites and to support the common goal of New York and Connecticut to reduce or eliminate the disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound.

    To support this goal, the restrictions in the 2005 Rule contemplated that there would be a regional dredged material management plan (DMMP) for Long Island Sound that would help to guide the management of dredged material from projects which occur after completion of the DMMP. The amended restrictions in this Final Rule incorporate standards and procedures for the use of those sites consistent with those recommended in the Long Island Sound DMMP, which was completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on January 11, 2016.

    The restrictions imposed on the sites in the 2005 Rule also included conditions that specified that use of the sites would be suspended if, within 120 days of completion of the DMMP, and subject to EPA's consideration of public comments, EPA does not issue legally binding final amendments adopting such procedures and standards. Any such suspension in the use of the sites would be lifted if and when EPA issues the required final rule.

    II. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments on the Proposed Rule from 119 individuals, groups or entities. Comments were received from the Connecticut Congressional Delegation, USACE, the states of Connecticut and New York, a number of municipalities, environmental groups, harbor and marine trade groups, and many private citizens. Approximately eighty percent of the commenters supported the Proposed Rule, with some offering suggested improvements. The remainder expressed opposition in part or in whole to the Proposed Rule. A document containing copies of all of the public comments received by EPA and a document containing EPA's response to each of the comments have been placed in the public docket and on the Web site identified in the ADDRESSES section of this document. There was significant overlap among the comments received. Below, EPA summarizes the main points of the commenters and provides responses.

    Comment #1. A number of commenters, including the states of Connecticut and New York, asked that EPA be explicit in retaining the common goal of the 2005 Rule—to reduce or eliminate open-water disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound.

    Response #1. EPA did not intend to signal any change to the goal of the 2005 Rule. In fact, the goal was so stated in the first paragraph of the Background section of the Proposed Rule. EPA did not include the goal statement in the proposed regulations because it was previously included in a provision addressing development of the DMMP and EPA deleted that provision because the DMMP had been completed. Again, EPA did not by this deletion intend to signal a change in the goal. Therefore, to address this comment, EPA has added a sentence, restating the common goal, in the introductory paragraph (b)(4)(vi) in the Final Rule.

    Comment #2. The states of Connecticut and New York proposed similar ideas for revisions to the Proposed Rule intended to spur increased beneficial use and result in staged reductions in open water disposal of dredge material over time. The suggested revisions include creation of a Steering Committee, consisting of high level representatives from the states, EPA and USACE. The comments propose that the charge to the Steering Committee would be to develop a baseline for the amount of dredged material being placed in open water and the amount being beneficially used, and to establish a reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives (with timeframes) for reducing the amount of open-water placement and increasing the amount of beneficially used material, while also recognizing that there will be fluctuations in annual volumes of dredged material generated due to the very nature of the dredging program. The comments also call for the stepped objectives to incorporate an adaptive management approach toward continuous improvement, and for the charge to the Steering Committee also to include developing accurate methods to track reductions, with due consideration for annual fluctuations in the amount of dredging, and reporting on progress. The comments suggest that when tracking progress, it would be recognized that exceptional circumstances may result in delays in meeting an objective. Exceptional circumstances should be infrequent, irregular and unforeseeable. Certain other commenters also supported the inclusion of a staged reduction in open-water disposal.

    Response #2. EPA agrees with Connecticut and New York that it would be useful to formally establish the Long Island Sound Steering Committee (Steering Committee), consisting of high level representatives from the two states, EPA, USACE, and, as appropriate, other federal and state agencies. A Steering Committee, consisting of the same parties, was established previously to guide the development of the DMMP and has provided a useful forum for interagency collaboration on dredged material management in the Long Island Sound region. Other participants could include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which had a seat on the previous Steering Committee, and the state of Rhode Island, which had a seat on the previous Long Island Sound Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT), and may have more interest now that the LIS RDT's geographic scope includes eastern Long Island Sound. Consistent with the comments, the Final Rule includes a provision establishing a Steering Committee to provide policy-level direction to the LIS RDT and facilitate high-level collaboration among the agencies critical to accelerating the development and use of beneficial alternatives for dredged material.

    The charge to the Steering Committee includes: Developing a baseline for the volume and percentage of dredged material being placed in open water and the volume and percentage being beneficially used; establishing a reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives (with timeframes) for reducing the amount of dredged material placed in open-water sites and increasing the amount of material that is beneficially used, while also recognizing that there will be fluctuations in annual volumes of dredged material generated due to the very nature of the dredging program; and developing methods for accurately tracking reductions with due consideration for annual fluctuations. EPA agrees, and has provided, that the stepped objectives should incorporate an adaptive management approach toward continuous improvement. The Final Rule also provides that, when tracking progress, the Steering Committee will recognize that exceptional circumstances may result in delays in meeting an objective, and that exceptional circumstances should be infrequent, irregular and unpredictable. In carrying out its tasks, the Steering Committee will guide and utilize the LIS RDT, as appropriate.

    To be clear, neither the 2005 Rule nor the new amendments to the Rule require or command either Connecticut or New York (or Rhode Island) to participate on the Steering Committee or the LIS RDT. Participation by the states is voluntary. That said, EPA expects that the states will choose to participate on the Steering Committee and the LIS RDT. This expectation is based on several factors: (1) Connecticut and New York both commented in favor of constituting a Steering Committee and LIS RDT as discussed above; (2) the Steering Committee and LIS RDT will provide a dedicated venue for federal/state inter-agency communication and collaboration on dredging and dredged material disposal projects of interest and these sorts of discussions already take place and are often necessary due to the legal and programmatic responsibilities of the various agencies; and (3) New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island participated on the LIS RDT created under the 2005 Rule and New York and Connecticut participated on the Steering Committee associated with development of the DMMP. Given that EPA anticipates that Connecticut and New York, and possibly Rhode Island, will voluntarily participate on the Steering Committee and the LIS RDT, EPA also expects that each of the agencies will commit the necessary resources to make that participation on the Steering Committee and LIS RDT meaningful, including resources needed to support collection of data for establishing the baseline and tracking and reporting on the future disposition of dredged materials.

    Comment #3. Some commenters encouraged giving increased attention to implementation, as distinguished from simply identification, of feasible alternatives, and encouraged funding demonstration/pilot programs for alternative methods of beneficial use. They noted the importance of the states and all stakeholders working together to find and promote alternative uses for dredged material and encouraged the states to amend regulations to facilitate beneficial, environmentally sound use of suitable materials upland. The states of Connecticut and New York expressed their commitment to working with federal and state partners to develop and promote the use of innovative and practicable alternatives to open water disposal. Activities that may facilitate and establish a path forward include committing to jointly implement two pilot projects, identifying possible resources, and removing regulatory hurdles.

    Response #3. EPA agrees with the commenters that a concerted, collaborative effort among state and federal partners will be needed to spur greater use of beneficial alternatives, including piloting alternatives, identifying possible resources, and eliminating regulatory barriers, when appropriate. EPA believes the Steering Committee should guide these efforts, with the support of the LIS RDT, and has included this among the responsibilities of the Steering Committee and LIS RDT in the Final Rule.

    Comment #4. The states of Connecticut and New York expressed support for EPA's proposal to charge the LIS RDT to review each project and require beneficial use of dredged material, where practicable, utilizing the EPA definition of practicable. They felt it was important to note that the LIS RDT should be consulted starting in the early stages of project planning for consideration of beneficial use opportunities.

    Response #4. EPA agrees that the LIS RDT will be most effective in its role reviewing dredging projects if it is actively encouraging beneficial use alternatives and if there is an expectation that dredging project proponents should consult with the LIS RDT early in the process of planning a project to have a full view of possible alternatives for their project. The Final Rule contains language clarifying this aspect of the LIS RDT review process. It also should be noted that the LIS RDT makes recommendations to the USACE; the LIS RDT does not directly “require” that dredged material be managed in any particular way.

    In response to this comment and Comment #5 below, the Final Rule clarifies certain of the roles and expectations of the LIS RDT. It establishes the relationship between the Steering Committee, which provides policy-level direction to the LIS RDT, and the LIS RDT, which has the responsibility for execution. It also provides additional detail on the organization and procedures for the LIS RDT. EPA views the charter under which the LIS RDT has operated during the development of the DMMP as a useful starting point for a new charter that encompasses the new roles, responsibilities, and makeup of the LIS RDT. The current LIS RDT charter will serve as the interim guide for the LIS RDT's process until a new charter is developed.

    Comment #5. USACE believes the role of the LIS RDT should be one of an informational resource and collaborator rather than a body charged with providing “recommendations” to the Corps. They raised concerns regarding whether the role of the LIS RDT is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) since it is required to provide “recommendations” to the USACE.

    Response #5. EPA notes that the 2005 Rule established the LIS RDT and charged it with making “recommendations” until the completion of the DMMP. The Proposed Rule incorporated the same language in providing for the LIS RDT to continue into the future. The “recommendations” of the LIS RDT are not formal decisions subject to appeal, but, rather, are advice to the USACE as to how the LIS RDT thinks particular dredged material should be managed. The LIS RDT will attempt to make consensus recommendations to the USACE, but if consensus cannot be achieved, individual LIS RDT member agencies may offer their own comments through the standard regulatory process. Presumably, recommendations will be based upon whether or not the LIS RDT (or an individual agency) believes it has identified one or more practicable alternatives to open-water disposal for a particular project.

    Recommendations from the LIS RDT or its members are not binding upon the USACE, EPA or any other state or federal agency. While the USACE must fully consider the recommendations, EPA does not intend for the LIS RDT to in any way usurp the USACE's authority to make independent decisions regarding the placement of dredged material. At the same time, the USACE's decisions regarding whether to authorize dredged material disposal under the MPRSA continue to be subject to EPA review and concurrence under Section 103(c) of the MPRSA, 33 U.S.C. 1413(c), and 40 CFR 225.2. While EPA will also consider recommendations of the LIS RDT or its members, EPA also does not intend for the LIS RDT to in any way usurp EPA's authority to make independent decisions in its review of USACE decisions regarding whether to authorize the open-water disposal of dredged material.

    EPA does not intend for the LIS RDT, in the exercise of its responsibility to review projects, to unduly delay the USACE's decision-making. EPA expects that the LIS RDT will report to the USACE on its review of specific projects within 30 days of receipt of project information. If the LIS RDT fails to report to the USACE in this timeframe, the USACE may proceed with its permit decision process. The Final Rule contains language clarifying this point.

    Regarding USACE's concerns about the FACA, EPA has carefully reviewed the roles of the LIS RDT and Steering Committee as contained in the Final Rule and finds that the LIS RDT and Steering Committee are exempt from the FACA under 2 U.S.C. 1534(b). See also Memorandum by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) entitled, “SUBJECT: Guidelines and Instructions for Implementing Section 204, `State, Local, and Tribal Government Input,' of Title II of P.L. 104-4” (Sept. 21, 1995). At the same time, creating federal/state committees such as the LIS RDT and Steering Committee to share information and advice and recommendations is also consistent with the FACA and relevant implementing guidance from OMB.

    Comment #6. New York State requested that, to provide additional “surety” that the goal of reducing or eliminating open water disposal is met, an additional provision be included in the rule to provide that if there is an initial failure to maintain or reduce the amount of disposal over the next ten years, as measured at year 10, then the rule can be re-opened upon a petition to EPA.

    Response #6. EPA is confident that the restrictions contained in today's Final Rule will be sufficient to make progress toward the goal of reducing or eliminating open-water disposal. However, if the volume of dredged material disposed of at the sites, as measured ten years from now, has increased, it may be an indication that the standards and procedures contained in the Final Rule have not succeeded as intended. Alternatively, it may indicate that despite successful efforts to maximize dredged material management by methods other than open-water disposal, it is even more difficult to identify or develop such alternative methods of dredged material management than is currently anticipated. In either case, EPA agrees that it is reasonable to include an explicit provision in the Final Rule that provides any party with the opportunity under these circumstances to petition EPA to amend the regulations. EPA has added paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(H) to the Final Rule, to provide for this. EPA has not, however, prejudged whether it will find any regulatory amendments to be appropriate. EPA will assess and decide upon any such petition based on the facts and law prevailing at the time of the petition.

    Comment #7. Several commenters noted that cost should not be the overwhelming factor in the decision-making process. In their view, cost seems only assigned to beneficial use. They believe cost and potential funding mechanisms for greater use of alternatives should be included.

    Response #7. Cost is a very important component of the decision-making process. USACE is constrained by statute, regulation, and policies that govern what they can use federal funds for. The Federal Base Plan for any particular project is defined as the least cost, environmentally acceptable alternative for constructing the project that is consistent with sound engineering practices. Thus, projects are planned, designed and constructed in a manner that efficiently uses very limited federal fiscal resources and that meets applicable environmental standards. The term Federal Standard is often used synonymously with Federal Base Plan, and is defined in USACE regulations as the least costly dredged material placement alternative identified by the USACE that is consistent with sound engineering practices and meets the environmental standards established by EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) § 404(b)(1) guidelines evaluation process or EPA's ocean dumping criteria under the MPRSA. [33 CFR 335.7] See also 33 CFR 336.1(c)(1).

    If a beneficial use is selected for a project and that beneficial use happens to be (or be part of) the Federal Base Plan option for the project, the costs of that beneficial use are assigned to the navigational purpose of the project. Beneficial use project costs exceeding the cost of the Federal Base Plan (Federal Standard) option become either a shared federal and non-federal responsibility, or entirely a non-federal responsibility, depending on the type of beneficial use and the applicability of federal funding authority.

    The DMMP makes clear the USACE's willingness to use the authorities available to it to pay for what it lawfully can. The authorities that allow USACE to pursue alternatives beyond the Base Plan all require some prescribed percentage of non-federal cost-sharing. Identifying future sources of non-federal cost sharing is one of the important challenges for the Steering Committee and LIS RDT.

    Beyond trying to find funding sources for costs above the Federal Standard, another important role for the LIS RDT is to identify incentives and remove barriers to beneficial use such that the cost of alternatives becomes more competitive with open-water disposal. It has become clear in recent years that sandy dredged material is a valuable commodity, especially along New England's beachfronts. Thus there are economic as well as environmental factors that result in most suitable sandy dredge material being used beneficially, principally for beach and nearshore bar nourishment. The next challenge is to find economic and beneficial environmental uses for suitable silty material. As coastal resiliency becomes an increasingly important priority, EPA is hopeful that, and thinks that there is a good chance that, opportunities for beneficial uses of silty material will emerge and expand.

    Comment #8. USACE expressed concern that the Proposed Rule could have a significant adverse impact on federal navigation by potentially adding significant costs to USACE projects. Specifically, the USACE is concerned that a scenario could arise where a practicable alternative is identified that exceeds the Federal Standard and therefore would require a non-federal sponsor to fund the difference in cost. If a non-federal sponsor could not do so or refused to do so, disposal at the CLDS or WLDS would then be prohibited and the project could not go forward because of the existence of a practicable alternative to open-water disposal. As such, this provision of the Proposed Rule would impact the USACE's application of the Federal Standard and negatively impact maintenance of Federal Navigation Projects in Long Island Sound. The USACE also expressed a related concern that the requirement that any practicable alternative be fully utilized for the maximum volume of material practicable could require USACE to dispose of material at more than one location, potentially adding significant cost.

    The concern about the possibility that a project might not go forward was echoed by the Connecticut Congressional Delegation. In order to effectively maintain the balance between environmental and economic benefits of Long Island Sound, they urged that some certainty regarding the potential cost of maintenance projects must be included in the final language. Knowing the makeup of dredged material from each navigation project is different, they understand that placement alternatives need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. They noted that EPA itself recognizes in the Proposed Rule that the lack of clarity on future project costs “could result in deferral of maintenance or improvement projects that could impact navigation.” The delegation expressed hope that the Final Rule will more clearly address this issue.

    Response #8. The term “practicable alternative” is defined in 40 CFR 227.16(b) of EPA's MPRSA regulations as an alternative that is “available at reasonable incremental cost and energy expenditures, [and] which need not be competitive with the costs of ocean dumping, taking into account the environmental benefits derived from such activity, including the relative adverse environmental impacts associated with the use of alternatives to ocean dumping.” The definition has been part of the restrictions on the CLDS and WLDS since the 2005 Rule (compare (b)(4)(vi)(I)(1) and (2) in the 2005 Rule with (b)(4)(vi)(C)(1) and (2) in the Proposed Rule). The accompanying discussions in the preamble of the 2005 Rule and the Proposed Rule are essentially the same. In the nearly eleven years that the restrictions have been in place there have been no instances where a dredging project could not go forward on this basis. Furthermore, neither the 2005 Rule nor the current amendments create a new definition of practicable; they simply cross-reference and rely upon the pre-existing definition in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 227.16(b), which was promulgated in 1977. 42 FR 2476, 2479 (Jan. 11, 1977). Meanwhile, the USACE defines “practicable” as follows: “Practicable means available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.” 33 CFR 335.7.

    The possibility that EPA and USACE might disagree whether or not an alternative is “practicable” is rooted, in part, in the fact that the two agencies have different regulatory definitions of the term “practicable.” That difference has existed since at least 1988, when the USACE's current regulatory definition was promulgated. At the same time, although the two definitions are different, they are similar and have important commonalities. Under both definitions, a practicable alternative must be available taking cost and other factors into consideration. As a result, EPA expects that it would be an unusual case in which the two definitions would lead to different conclusions about an alternative's practicability. Indeed, EPA is unaware of any project in New England that has been stopped due to the difference in definitions.

    In any event, EPA's definition of “practicable” and its application do not directly affect the USACE's definition of the Federal Standard. If EPA determines that an alternative is “practicable,” then non-federal sponsors will need to be found to pay for the incremental cost above what the USACE can legally participate in. One of the important roles of the Steering Committee and LIS RDT described earlier, is the identification and piloting of beneficial use alternatives, identifying possible resources, and eliminating regulatory barriers. EPA expects that the Steering Committee and LIS RDT will, generally and on a project specific basis, facilitate the process of matching projects, beneficial use alternatives, and the resources necessary to implement them, thus mitigating the risk that a project cannot proceed.

    EPA's definition of “practicable” requires that the alternative be “available at reasonable incremental cost.” Said differently, by definition, a “practicable alternative” will not impose unreasonable incremental cost. This would apply as well to the consideration of multiple potential management alternatives for dredged material from a single project, a scenario that the USACE in concerned might add significant costs. Again, incremental costs could not be unreasonable without also rendering the alternative impracticable. As noted in the preamble to the Proposed Rule, the language retained from the 2005 Rule does not attempt to specify in advance how the “reasonable incremental cost” standard will be applied in any particular case. The regulation contemplates a balancing test and EPA believes that the determination is best made on a case-by-case basis. The language of the 2005 Rule also does not attempt to specify who will need to pay for any reasonable incremental costs. Rather, the share of such costs (if any) to be borne by private parties, state government, local government, or the federal government also will need to be worked out in response to actual situations.

    EPA cannot eliminate in advance the possibility that no entity will have the means to pay the non-federal share of an alternative EPA has determined is practicable, whether in Long Island Sound or anywhere else in the country. However, in Long Island Sound, with the states and federal agencies working in partnership to implement beneficial use alternatives, EPA believes that the likelihood of a project not going forward because of a lack of funding for the reasonable incremental cost of a practicable alternative has been made as remote as possible.

    Comment #9. Many commenters noted that dredging is necessary to ensure recreational and commercial access to Long Island Sound. Marinas, boatyards, and boat clubs are the main access for the public to get out onto the Sound and they need to dredge periodically to maintain sufficient depth for safe navigation. Dredging is necessary to ensure the existence of commercial and recreational industries that generate billions of dollars and support thousands of jobs around the Sound. An important element of state coastal zone management programs—to retain, promote, and enhance access to waterways—will be harmed if the public and marine industry cannot access the Sound.

    Response #9. EPA agrees that dredging to provide for safe navigation to and from Long Island Sound is a necessary activity and acknowledges that the marine trade industry is an important contributor to the economy of both states in the Long Island Sound region. The policy goals of the Coastal Zone Management Act are to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone.” This includes achieving wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic development. EPA agrees that providing public access to the coasts for recreation purposes is an important goal of coastal zone management programs. EPA notes that the protection of natural resources, including wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish and wildlife and their habitat, within the coastal zone is also an important goal. EPA, USACE, NOAA, and the state coastal zone management programs seek to harmonize these goals.

    Comment #10. Numerous commenters believe there needs to be an open-water placement option for dredged material. They express concern that without an open-water option, dredging will become prohibitively expensive.

    Response #10. EPA agrees that there is a need for open-water disposal sites in Central and Western Long Island Sound as was demonstrated when EPA designated the sites in 2005 and has been reaffirmed by the DMMP. EPA is retaining these sites as open-water placement options for the long term. However, the Final Rule also reaffirms that the overarching goal is to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable the open-water disposal of dredged material. The amendments make clear that unsuitable material shall not be disposed of at the sites, that sandy material should be used beneficially in almost all cases, and that alternatives to open-water placement of silty material should be thoroughly considered, and used whenever practicable, before open-water placement is allowed.

    Comment #11. Commenters had mixed views concerning the Long Island Sound DMMP. Some feel the DMMP provides useful information on what should be done with dredged material and how these projects should be managed. Others feel the DMMP is insufficient and will perpetuate the status quo and EPA cannot rely solely on the DMMP in amending the rule. Rather they assert that EPA must amend the rule to establish additional procedures and standards that will result in clear, staged reductions in open-water disposal of dredged material over time.

    Response #11. EPA believes the DMMP provides very useful information for managing toward the goal of reducing or eliminating the open-water disposal of dredged materials in the Sound. The DMMP provides recommended standards and procedures as well as identifying potential alternatives to open water disposal for each of the 52 federal navigation projects in Long Island Sound. The Final Rule builds on the procedures recommended in the DMMP and provides a strong management framework for achieving the goal of reducing or eliminating open-water disposal with the addition of the Steering Committee and its responsibilities, as described in Response #2.

    Comment #12. Some commenters believe disposal of any dredged material in the Sound should not be allowed to continue. They believe open water disposal does not make environmental sense, will have a negative impact on the ecosystem of Long Island Sound, and that toxic or contaminated sediment should not be dumped in the Sound.

    Response #12. As noted above, EPA thinks, many commenters acknowledge, and the DMMP helps to document, that dredging is and will continue to be needed to allow for safe navigation in the harbors, marinas and channels of Long Island Sound. This is important for public safety, marine commerce and recreation, and national security. In order to handle this dredged material, EPA believes it is neither possible nor practical to simply end open water disposal at this time. The goal set in 2005 and retained in the Final Rule is to reduce or eliminate open-water disposal. The Final Rule establishes standards and procedures toward that end.

    EPA strongly disagrees with the suggestion that toxic sediments might be disposed of at the sites. EPA's MPRSA regulations require rigorous physical, chemical, and biological testing and analysis of sediments is conducted prior to issuance of any permit to place material at the sites. See 40 CFR part 227. As the Proposed and Final Rule make clear, sediments that do not pass these tests are considered “unsuitable” and shall not be disposed of at the sites.

    The USACE's Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) has gathered information on dredged material placement sites in the Sound since the late 1970s. The program has generated over 200 detailed reports addressing questions and concerns related to placement of dredged material in the Sound. Sequential surveys of biological conditions at sites following the placement of dredged material consistently show a rapid recovery of the benthic community to that of the surrounding habitat outside the disposal sites and within the sites. The USACE and EPA monitor benthic health and recovery and the results support the conclusion that there is no evidence of long-term effects on the marine environment.

    With the nearly 40-year record of surveys, there have been multiple opportunities to evaluate the effects of large storms (both hurricanes and nor'easters) on the dredged material mounds on the seafloor. These investigations have demonstrated long-term stability of the mounds even at the most exposed sites.

    Comment #13. Other commenters believe dredged material can be placed in open-water sites without significant harm and that the Proposed Rule provides adequate safeguards for open-water placement. They note that permitting for dredging and relocation of dredged material is rigorous, thorough, and costly, with multiple agency reviews. They point to years of studies and documentation demonstrating the lack of harm and stability of the dredged materials placed at these sites. They believe scientific evidence does not support the claim that toxic material is dumped into the Sound. They also note that without dredging, the sediments remain in the relative shallows of the bays and harbors, where more fish live and where more people swim, fish, and enjoy the water. Storms in the relative shallows of the bays and harbors create more siltation, turbidity, and disturbance than dredging.

    Response #13. EPA agrees that the permitting process for dredging projects is rigorous and thorough and involves coordination with multiple agencies. As discussed in Response #12, EPA agrees that there is a substantial body of scientific evidence that indicates that suitable dredged material can be disposed of at the sites with minimal harm to the marine environment. To the extent the commenters are addressing possible concerns about exposure to materials that might be dredged in the future, it is possible that they are dispersed across a greater surface area and at depths more readily re-suspended by the natural forces of winds, waves, and tides compared to the more compact placement at the CLDS and WLDS at depths much less influenced by winds and waves.

    Comment #14. Some commenters said that EPA's analysis should consider the nitrogen loading associated with open-water disposal and reconcile it with EPA's nitrogen strategy for Long Island Sound.

    Response #14. As discussed in the DMMP, the annual placement of dredged material at the open-water sites is estimated to add less than one-tenth of one percent of the overall annual nitrogen loading to Long Island Sound. The dredging process scrapes a relatively thin layer of surficial sediment from a wide area, and aquatic placement consolidates that volume of sediment into a much smaller footprint. Hence, much of the nitrogen that was available for potential future release from surficial sediment (due to biological reworking or physical disturbance in the shallower environment) is sequestered out of contact with the water column in deposits that have been shown to be stable features on the seafloor.

    Comment #15. Some commenters believe dredged material should be used beneficially. Others note that moving away from open-water disposal is feasible in the long run, but the costs associated with these alternatives are far greater than funding available today.

    Response #15. EPA agrees that suitable dredged material should be used beneficially whenever and wherever practicable. The standards and procedures contained in the Final Rule and the menu of alternatives contained in the DMMP provide the structure and means to follow a path that should result in reducing open-water disposal while increasing beneficial use of dredged materials. EPA and the USACE believe that sandy materials can be beneficially used in many cases currently and with even greater frequency in the future. The next challenge is to find economic and beneficial environmental uses for suitable silty material. As coastal resiliency becomes an increasingly important priority, EPA is hopeful and expects that opportunities for beneficial uses of silty material will emerge and expand.

    Comment #16. The USACE noted that the Proposed Rule maintains the current language of 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi) which provides, “All references to `permittees' shall be deemed to include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) when it is authorizing its own dredged material disposal from a USACE dredging project.” The USACE explains that it does not permit its own projects and is therefore not a permittee. USACE requested the language be stricken.

    Response #16. As noted by USACE, the language in question was included in the restrictions in the 2005 Rule. The intention of the 2005 Rule was to apply the restrictions to all persons who may seek to dispose of dredged material at the sites under MPRSA. As discussed in the preamble to the 2005 Rule, the restrictions were intended to apply both to all MPRSA permittees (i.e., private parties and governmental agencies other than the USACE), and to the USACE itself which disposes of dredged material pursuant to the “authorizations” that it grants to itself rather than permits. See 70 FR 32511 (June 3, 2005). See also 33 U.S.C. 1413(e); 40 CFR 220.2(h); 33 CFR 336.1(a). The USACE was “deemed” to be a permittee in the 2005 Rule only to make it clear that it was subject to the site Restrictions where the term “permittee” was used, but not to mean that the Corps was actually a permittee. Thus, the USACE was not considered to be a permittee but would be treated like one in this context.

    EPA understands the USACE's comment as objecting to being considered a “permittee,” rather than an indication that the USACE is not subject to the restrictions. Since the other proposed revisions to the 2005 Rule eliminated the use of the word “permittee,” there is no longer a need to specifically qualify what “permittee” refers to. Consistent with the USACE's comment and EPA's intention that the restrictions apply to all persons who may dispose of dredged material at the sites, but not that the USACE would be an actual permittee, EPA has revised the sentence in question in 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi) to read (in pertinent part): “The restrictions apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) when it is authorizing its own dredged material disposal from a USACE dredging project . . . .”

    Comment #17. The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) requested that EPA consult with the Shinnecock Indian Nation concerning the amendments to the 2005 Rule.

    Response #17. EPA coordinated with Tribal nations in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, including the Shinnecock Indian Nation, throughout the site designation process. None of the tribes that were contacted expressed interest in EPA consulting with them. Upon receipt of the letter from BIA, EPA contacted the Shinnecock Indian Nation to gauge its interest in participating in the formal consultation process, but the tribe did not express an interest in participating. EPA will continue to coordinate with the Shinnecock Indian Nation, as appropriate, in the future.

    Comment #18. One commenter asserted that the eastern boundary of Long Island Sound should run from Little Gull Island, through Bartlett's Reef to the Connecticut mainland. They assert that Block Island Sound, Gardiners Bay, the Race, Fishers Island Sound and the New London Disposal Site are not part of Long Island Sound.

    Response #18. In 2009, after due consideration of the issue, EPA advised the USACE that the boundary suggested by the commenter should not be used as the eastern boundary of the Sound under MPRSA Section 106(f). EPA's analysis concluded that the boundary, instead, runs northeasterly from Orient Point, through Plum Island, Great Gull and Little Gull Islands, Fishers Island, and Napatree Point, RI, which is sometimes referred to as the “Old Base Line.” This boundary has been used consistently by EPA and USACE in all discussions and documents concerning dredged material disposal sites in Long Island Sound.

    Comment #19: One commenter claimed that EPA has incorrectly concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Response #19: EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding the conclusion that the proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As EPA noted in the Proposed Rule, the restrictions apply only to projects subject to MPRSA (i.e., all federal projects and non-federal projects greater than 25,000 cubic yards). Small entities are most likely to be involved with projects below the 25,000 cubic yard threshold. Therefore, they are not subject to these restrictions and are subject to Clean Water Act requirements instead. If anything, EPA's action to amend the regulations and maintain the CLDS and WLDS designations will assist small entities by maintaining the CLDS and WLDS as clear options for open-water disposal of dredged material, when appropriate.

    III. Changes From the Proposed Rule

    The Final Rule incorporates the standards and procedures contained in the Proposed Rule and, pursuant to the comments discussed above, revises them as follows.

    A sentence, restating the common goal to reduce or eliminate open water disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound, has been added to the introductory paragraph (b)(4)(vi) in the Final Rule. Another sentence in the same paragraph has been revised to clarify that although the USACE is not a permittee, the restrictions also apply to the USACE when it is authorizing its own dredged material disposal from a USACE dredging project.

    The Final Rule establishes a Long Island Sound Dredging Steering Committee consisting of high level representatives from the states, EPA, the USACE, and, as appropriate, other federal and state agencies. The Steering Committee will provide policy-level direction to the LIS RDT and facilitate high-level collaboration among the agencies critical to accelerating the development and use of alternatives to open-water disposal of dredged material. The charge to the Steering Committee includes: developing a baseline for the volume and percentage of dredged material being placed in open water and the amount and percentage being beneficially used; establishing a reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives (with timeframes) for reducing the amount of open water placement and increasing the amount of beneficially used material, while also recognizing that there will be fluctuations in annual volumes of dredged material generated due to the very nature of the dredging program; and developing accurate methods for tracking reductions with due consideration for annual fluctuations. The Final Rule specifies that the stepped objectives should incorporate an adaptive management approach toward continuous improvement. When tracking progress, the Steering Committee will recognize that exceptional circumstances may result in delays meeting an objective. Exceptional circumstances should be infrequent, irregular, and unpredictable. In carrying out its tasks, the Steering Committee shall guide and utilize the LIS RDT, as appropriate.

    Participation of Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island on the Steering Committee and LIS RDT is voluntary; it is not legally mandated by the new regulations. That said, EPA expects, as discussed earlier, that Connecticut and New York (and possibly Rhode Island) will participate and that each of the member agencies will commit the necessary resources to support the work of the Steering Committee and the LIS RDT, including collecting the data necessary to support the establishment of the baseline and tracking and reporting the future disposition of dredged materials. EPA expects the Steering Committee, with the support of the LIS RDT, to guide a concerted effort to spur greater use of beneficial use alternatives, including piloting alternatives, identifying possible resources, and eliminating regulatory barriers. The Final Rule contains provisions establishing the Steering Committee and setting out the responsibilities described above. [(b)(4)(vi)(E)]

    The Final Rule clarifies certain of the roles and responsibilities of the LIS RDT. Again, participation by the states on the LIS RDT is voluntary, but EPA expects the states to participate and to provide the resources necessary for meaningful participation. The Final Rule establishes the relationship between the Steering Committee, which provides policy-level direction for the LIS RDT, and the LIS RDT, which has the responsibility for execution. It more explicitly calls for project proponents to consult with the LIS RDT at the earliest possible stage to expand consideration of beneficial use alternatives. The Final Rule sets a clear expectation that the LIS RDT will report to USACE on its review of final projects within 30 days of receipt of project information. It also provides additional detail on the organization and procedures for the LIS RDT. EPA views the charter under which the LIS RDT has operated during the development of the DMMP as a useful starting point for a new charter that encompasses the revised roles, responsibilities and makeup of the LIS RDT. The current LIS RDT charter should serve as the interim guide for the LIS RDT's process until a new charter is developed. [(b)(4)(vi)(F)]

    Lastly, the Final Rule provides the potential for reconsidering the rule, upon petition, if in ten years the amount of dredged material disposed of at the sites has not been maintained or reduced. [(b)(4)(vi)(H)]

    IV. Compliance With Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    The preamble to the 2005 Rule described how the dredged material disposal site designation process that culminated in the designation of the CLDS and WLDS was consistent with the requirements of the MPRSA, the CWA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). See 70 FR 32502-32508 (June 3, 2005). While the CWA does not apply specifically to an EPA designation of a long-term dredged material disposal site under the MPRSA, future federal and non-federal projects involving dredged material disposal in Long Island Sound will require both a section 404 permit as well as a State Water Quality Certification pursuant to section 401 of the CWA.

    In the preamble to the Proposed Rule, EPA determined that the proposed amendments to the 2005 Rule, and the process by which they were developed, also are consistent with the laws noted above. 81 FR 7060-7061. One of the important factors in this determination was that the amended Rule would provide the same or greater protection of water quality and the marine environment as the 2005 Rule. 81 FR 7060. EPA's conclusions regarding compliance with those laws has not changed following consideration of public comments.

    As the preamble to the Proposed Rule explained, the proposed amendments to the 2005 Rule do not make decisions about the suitability of any particular dredged material for open-water disposal or about any other type of management of the material. Such decisions will be made for specific dredging projects on the basis of project-specific permitting evaluations. The amendments to the regulations, instead, provide specific standards and procedures designed to further the goal of reducing or eliminating open-water disposal of dredged material at the CLDS and WLDS. These amendments are consistent with provisions of the 2005 Rule that called for possible revisions to the Rule based on the standards and procedures recommended in the Long Island Sound Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP). The preamble to the Proposed Rule also provided additional statute-specific discussion. 81 FR 7060-7061.

    At the time of the Proposed Rule, consultation and coordination with state and federal agencies regarding the CZMA, ESA, MSFCMA, respectively, were underway. Those consultations have been completed, as discussed below.

    1. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)

    In the preamble to the 2005 Rule, EPA explained in detail how its designation of the CLDS and WLDS complied with the MPRSA. 70 FR 32502-32508. In the preamble for the Proposed Rule, EPA explained how the proposed amendments to the 2005 Rule also complied with the MPRSA. As part of such compliance, EPA has finalized updates to the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for both the CLDS and the WLDS.

    2. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

    Under the CZMA, EPA, like any other federal agency, is required to provide relevant states with a determination that any activity it proposes that could affect the uses or natural resources of a state's coastal zone is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the state's coastal zone management program. EPA determined that the amendments to the 2005 Rule are consistent with the enforceable policies of the coastal zone management programs of both Connecticut and New York and provided each state with a written determination to that effect. EPA consulted with each state's coastal zone management program prior to this final rulemaking. In a letter dated April 8, 2016, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection concurred with EPA's determination with regard to Connecticut's coastal zone management program. The New York State Department of State (NY DOS) provided its concurrence on April 25, 2016. NY DOS's concurrence was conditioned on the Final Rule including provisions that address NY DOS's comments on the Proposed Rule. EPA believes the changes to the Proposed Rule described above are consistent with NY DOS's condition(s) and, thus, considers NY DOS to have concurred with the Final Rule.1

    1 NY DOS's conditional concurrence stated its conclusion that EPA's rule would not comply with the enforceable provisions of New York's coastal zone management program unless EPA adopted provisions consistent with the conditions proposed by NY DOS. While EPA has, indeed, adopted such provisions that assure NY DOS's concurrence, EPA does not agree with NY DOS's assessment of proposed regulatory amendments. EPA, instead, determined that the terms of its Proposed and Final Rules fully comply or, in the alternative, comply to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable provisions of New York's coastal zone management program. EPA's assessment is documented in the record, including, but not limited to, its CZMA consistency determination.

    3. Endangered Species Act

    Since the 2005 Rule, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Atlantic sturgeon as an endangered species under the ESA. Parts of Long Island Sound are among the distinct population segments listed as endangered by NMFS in 2012. EPA's analysis considered the Atlantic sturgeon as well as sea turtles and listed marine mammals. Consistent with the ESA, EPA consulted with NMFS and USFWS on this rulemaking action and the updating of the SMMPs for the two disposal sites. NMFS has concurred with EPA's determination that any adverse effects on listed species from this action would be insignificant or discountable, and that this action is not likely to adversely affect any listed species or critical habitat of such species under NMFS jurisdiction. EPA sent a “no effects” determination for species under USFWS jurisdiction to the USFWS and did not receive any response, so EPA assumed concurrence. No additional consultation or coordination is required.

    4. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA)

    EPA coordinated with NMFS on this rulemaking action and the updating of SMMPs for the two disposal sites, consistent with the Essential Fish Habitat provisions of the MSFCMA. NMFS has concurred with our determination that it is unlikely that this action will result in adverse effects to any essential fish habitat. Therefore, no additional coordination is required.

    V. Final Action

    EPA is publishing this Final Rule to amend the restrictions on the use of the CLDS and WLDS. This action is consistent with, and retains a number of, the restrictions contained in the original designation of these sites in 2005. Certain of those restrictions required completion of a DMMP that would identify procedures and standards for reducing or eliminating the disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound. Since the DMMP has been completed EPA's Final Rule removes the restrictions related to its development. The 2005 restrictions further require EPA, within 120 days of completion of the DMMP, to issue final amendments to the restrictions to incorporate procedures and standards consistent with those recommended in the DMMP for reducing or eliminating the disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound. While the Final Rule was not issued within 120 days of completion of the DMMP (which would have been May 10), and use of the CLDS and WLDS was temporarily suspended, issuance of today's Final Rule satisfies that requirement such that the suspension of the sites has been lifted and they are now available for use. See 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(C) (footnote 1) and (G).

    The Final Rule incorporates the standards and procedures recommended in the DMMP and augments them by establishing a Steering Committee to provide policy guidance and direction to the LIS RDT and to: Develop a baseline for the volume and percentage of dredged material being placed in open water and the amount and percentage being beneficially used; establish a reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives (with timeframes) for reducing the amount of open water placement and increasing the amount of beneficially used material, while also recognizing that there will be fluctuations in annual volumes of dredged material generated due to the very nature of the dredging program; and develop accurate methods for tracking reductions with due consideration for annual fluctuations. The stepped objectives will incorporate an adaptive management approach toward continuous improvement. The Rule provides that when tracking progress, the Steering Committee will recognize that exceptional circumstances may result in delays meeting an objective. Exceptional circumstances should be infrequent, irregular, and unpredictable. The Final Rule also provides that in carrying out its tasks, the Steering Committee shall guide and utilize the LIS RDT, as appropriate.

    The Final Rule also expressly allows any person to submit a petition seeking changes to the rule if, in ten years, the amount of dredged material disposed of at the sites has not been maintained or reduced.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action, as defined in the Executive Order, and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    2. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it would not require persons to obtain, maintain, retain, report or publicly disclose information to or for a federal agency.

    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The amended restrictions in this rule are only relevant for dredged material disposal projects subject to the MPRSA. Non-federal projects involving 25,000 cubic yards or less of material are not subject to the MPRSA and, instead, are regulated under CWA section 404. This action will, therefore, have no effect on such projects. “Small entities” under the RFA are most likely to be involved with smaller projects not covered by the MPRSA. Therefore, EPA does not believe a substantial number of small entities will be affected by today's rule. Furthermore, the amendments to the restrictions also will not have significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities because they primarily will create requirements to be followed by regulatory agencies rather than small entities, and will create requirements (i.e., the standards and procedures) intended to help ensure satisfaction of the existing regulatory requirement that practicable alternatives to the ocean dumping of dredged material be utilized (see 40 CFR 227.16).

    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    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 enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications within the meaning of the Executive Order. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 because the restrictions will not have substantial direct effects on Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian Tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian Tribes. EPA consulted with the affected Indian tribes in making this determination.

    7. 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 EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

    8. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

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

    9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.

    11. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas

    Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, May 31, 2000) requires EPA to “expeditiously propose new science-based regulations, as necessary, to ensure appropriate levels of protection for the marine environment.” EPA may take action to enhance or expand protection of existing marine protected areas and to establish or recommend, as appropriate, new marine protected areas. The purpose of the Executive Order is to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment, which means, ”those areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged lands thereunder, over which the United States exercises jurisdiction, consistent with international law.”

    EPA expects that this rule will afford additional protection to the waters of Long Island Sound and organisms that inhabit them. Building on the existing protections of the MPRSA, the ocean dumping regulations, the 2005 Rule, the CWA, and other relevant statutes and regulations, the final regulatory amendments are designed to promote and support reductions in open-water disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound.

    12. Executive Order 13547: Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes

    Section 6(a)(i) of Executive Order 13547, (75 FR 43023, July 19, 2010) requires, among other things, that EPA and certain other agencies “. . . to the fullest extent consistent with applicable law . . . take such action as necessary to implement the policy set forth in section 2 of this order and the stewardship principles and national priority objectives as set forth in the Final Recommendations and subsequent guidance from the Council.” The policies in section 2 of Executive Order 13547 include, among other things, the following: “. . . it is the policy of the United States to: (i) protect, maintain, and restore the health and biological diversity of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources; (ii) improve the resiliency of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, communities, and economies. . . .” As with Executive Order 13158 (Marine Protected Areas), the overall purpose of the Executive Order is to promote protection of ocean and coastal environmental resources.

    EPA expects that this Final Rule will afford additional protection to the waters of Long Island Sound and organisms that inhabit them. Building on the existing protections of the MPRSA, the ocean dumping regulations, the 2005 Rule, the CWA and other relevant statutes and regulations, the regulatory amendments are designed to promote the reduction or elimination of open-water disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound.

    13. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A “major rule” cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective August 8, 2016.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Dated: June 24, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1-New England.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.

    PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN DUMPING 1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

    2. Section 228.15 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) introductory text and (b)(4)(i) and (v) and (b)(4)(vi) introductory text; b. Removing paragraphs (b)(4)(vi)(C) through (F); c. Adding new paragraphs (b)(4)(vi)(D) through (F); d. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(G); e. Removing paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(H); f. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(I) as (b)(4)(vi)(C) and revising it; g. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(J) through (L) as (b)(4)(vi)(H) through (J), respectively; h. Removing paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(M); i. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(N) as (b)(4)(vi)(K); and j. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory text and (b)(5)(v).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Central Long Island Sound Dredged Material Disposal Site (CLDS).

    (i) Location: Corner Coordinates (NAD 1983) 41°9.5′ N., 72°54.4′ W.; 41°9.5′ N., 72°51.5′ W.; 41°08.4′ N., 72°54.4′ W.; 41°08.4′ N., 72°51.5′ W.

    (v) Period of use: Continuing use.

    (vi) Restrictions: The designation in this paragraph (b)(4) sets forth conditions for the use of Central Long Island Sound and Western Long Island Sound Dredged Material Disposal Sites (CLDS and WLDS, respectively). These conditions apply to all disposal subject to the MPRSA, namely, non-federal projects greater than 25,000 cubic yards and all federal projects. With regard to federal projects, the restrictions apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) when it is authorizing its own dredged material disposal from a USACE dredging project, as well as to federal dredged material disposal projects that require authorization from a permit issued by the USACE. The goal of these conditions is to reduce or eliminate open-water disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound. The conditions for this designation are as follows:

    (C) Disposal of dredged material at the designated sites pursuant to the designation in this paragraph (b)(4) shall be allowed if, after full consideration of recommendations provided by the Long Island Sound Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT) if the members of the LIS RDT reach consensus, or provided by the LIS RDT's member agencies if no consensus is achieved, the USACE finds (and EPA does not object to such finding), based on a fully documented analysis, that for a given dredging project:

    (1) There are no practicable alternatives (as defined in 40 CFR 227.16(b)) to open-water disposal in Long Island Sound. Any available practicable alternative to open-water disposal will be fully utilized for the maximum volume of dredged material practicable;

    (2) Determinations relating to paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(C)(1) of this section will recognize that, consistent with 40 CFR 227.16(b), a practicable alternative to open-water disposal may add reasonable incremental costs. Disposal of dredged material at the designated sites pursuant to this paragraph (b)(4) shall not be allowed to the extent that a practicable alternative is available.

    (3) The following standards for different dredged material types have been appropriately considered:

    (i) Unsuitable material. Disposal shall be limited to dredged sediments that comply with the Ocean Dumping Regulations.

    (ii) Suitable sandy material. Suitable coarse-grained material, which generally may include up to 20 percent fines when used for direct beach placement, or up to 40 percent fines when used for nearshore bar/berm nourishment, should be used for beach or nearshore bar/berm nourishment or other beneficial use whenever practicable. If no other alternative is determined to be practicable, suitable course-grained material may be placed at the designated sites.

    (iii) Suitable fine-grained material. This material has typically greater than 20 to 40 percent fine content and, therefore, is not typically considered appropriate for beach or nearshore placement, but has been determined to be suitable for open-water placement by testing and analysis. Materials dredged from upper river channels in the Connecticut, Housatonic and Thames Rivers should, whenever possible, be disposed of at existing Confined Open Water sites, on-shore, or through in-river placement. Other beneficial uses such as marsh creation, should be examined and used whenever practicable. If no other alternative is determined to be practicable, suitable fine-grained material may be placed at the designated sites.

    (D) Source reduction. Efforts to control sediment entering waterways can reduce the need for maintenance dredging of harbor features and facilities by reducing shoaling rates. Federal, state and local agencies tasked with regulating discharges into the watershed should continue to exercise their authorities under various statues and regulations in a continuing effort to reduce the flow of sediments into state waterways and harbors.

    (E) There is established a Long Island Sound Dredging Steering Committee (Steering Committee), consisting of high-level representatives from the states of Connecticut and New York, EPA, USACE, and, as appropriate, other federal and state agencies. The Steering Committee will provide policy-level direction to the Long Island Sound Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT) and facilitate high-level collaboration among the agencies critical to promoting the development and use of beneficial alternatives for dredged material. State participation on the LIS RDT and Steering Committee is voluntary. The Steering Committee is charged with: Establishing a baseline for the volume and percentage of dredged material being beneficially used and placed at the open-water sites; establishing a reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives, including timeframes, to increase the percentage of beneficially used material while reducing the percentage and amount being disposed in open water, and while recognizing that the amounts of dredged material generated by the dredging program will naturally fluctuate from year to year; and developing accurate methods to track the placement of dredged material, with due consideration for annual fluctuations. The stepped objectives should incorporate an adaptive management approach while aiming for continuous improvement. When tracking progress the Steering Committee should recognize that exceptional circumstances may result in delays in meeting an objective. Exceptional circumstances should be infrequent, irregular, and unpredictable. It is expected that each of the member agencies will commit the necessary resources to support the LIS RDT and Steering Committee's work, including the collection of data necessary to support establishing the baseline and tracking and reporting on the future disposition of dredged material. The Steering Committee may utilize the LIS RDT, as appropriate, to carry out the tasks assigned to it. The Steering Committee, with the support of the LIS RDT, will guide a concerted effort to encourage greater use of beneficial use alternatives, including piloting alternatives, identifying possible resources, and eliminating regulatory barriers, as appropriate.

    (F) The goal of the Long Island Sound Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT), working in cooperation with, and support of, the Steering Committee, is to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable the open-water disposal of dredged material. The LIS RDT's purpose, geographic scope, membership, organization, and procedures are provided as follows:

    (1) Purpose. The LIS RDT will:

    (i) Review dredging projects and make recommendations as described in paragraph (vi)(C) above. The LIS RDT will report to the USACE on its review of dredging projects within 30 days of receipt of project information. Project proponents should consult with the LIS RDT early in the development of those projects to ensure that alternatives to open-water placement are fully considered.

    (ii) Assist the Steering Committee in: Establishing a baseline for the volume and percentage of dredged material being beneficially used and placed at the open water sites; establishing a reasonable and practicable series of stepped objectives, including timeframes, to increase the percentage of beneficially used material while reducing the percentage and amount being disposed in open water, recognizing that the volume of dredged material generated by the dredging program will naturally fluctuate from year to year; and developing accurate methods to track and report on the placement of dredged material, with due consideration for annual fluctuations.

    (iii) In coordination with the Steering Committee, serve as a forum for: Continuing exploration of new beneficial use alternatives to open-water disposal; matching the availability of beneficial use alternatives with dredging projects; exploring cost-sharing opportunities; and promoting opportunities for beneficial use of clean, parent marine sediments often generated in the development of CAD cells.

    (iv) Assist the USACE and EPA in continuing long-term efforts to monitor dredging impacts in Long Island Sound, including supporting the USACE's DAMOS (Disposal Area Monitoring System) program and related efforts to study the long-term effects of open-water placement of dredged material.

    (2) Geographic scope. The geographic scope of the LIS RDT includes all of Long Island Sound and adjacent waters landward of the seaward boundary of the territorial sea (three-mile limit) or, in other words, from Throgs Neck to a line three miles seaward of the baseline across western Block Island Sound.

    (3) Membership. The LIS RDT shall be comprised of representatives from the states of Connecticut and New York, EPA, USACE, and, as appropriate, other federal and state agencies. As previously noted, state participation on the LIS RDT is voluntary.

    (4) Organization and procedures. Specific details regarding structure (e.g., chair, committees, working groups) and process shall be determined by the LIS RDT and may be revised as necessary to best accomplish the team's purpose.

    (G) If the volume of open-water disposal of dredged material, as measured in 2026, has not declined or been maintained over the prior ten years, then any party may petition EPA to conduct a rulemaking to amend the restrictions on the use of the sites.

    (5) Western Long Island Sound Dredged Material Disposal Site (WLDS).

    (v) Period of use: Continuing use.

    [FR Doc. 2016-16147 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Parts 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0611] Policy for Credentialing Officers of Towing Vessels AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces the availability of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 03-16, Guidelines for Credentialing Officers of Towing Vessels. This NVIC provides guidance to mariners concerning regulations governing endorsements to Merchant Mariner Credentials for service on towing vessels.

    DATES:

    The policy announced in NVIC 03-16 is effective on July 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about NVIC 03-16, call or email Luke B. Harden, Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division (CG-CVC-4), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2357, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Viewing Documents

    Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 03-16, Guidelines for Credentialing Officers of Towing Vessels is available in the docket for this notice of availability and can also be viewed by going to http://www.uscg.mil/nmc and clicking on “STCW,” then click on “2014 NVIC Updates.” To view NVIC 03-16 in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0611 in the “Search” box and click “Search.”

    Discussion

    On December 24, 2014, the Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register (78 FR 77796) amending Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, to implement the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, as amended 1978 (STCW Convention), including the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention, and the Seafarers' Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code. The rule also made changes to reorganize, clarify, and update regulations for credentialing merchant mariners.

    NVIC 03-16 describes policy for merchant mariners to qualify for and renew endorsements to Merchant Mariner Credentials for service on towing vessels. Notable provisions of this NVIC include:

    1. Providing guidance on grandfathering provisions contained in the rule published December 24, 2014 (78 FR 77796).

    2. Revising the “Frequently Asked Questions” to include discussion of the provisions of the new rule, and to include questions that have arisen with regularity since publication of the predecessor NVIC 04-01.

    3. Revising the Towing Officer Assessment Records (TOARs) to include guidance to Designated Examiners on how to perform assessment of the tasks in the TOARs and to add certain tasks necessary to fully assess the competence of candidates for endorsements. For example, the task “Maneuver through a bridge” was added to the Near Coastal/Oceans TOAR as this TOAR is for an endorsement that will be valid where bridges are common.

    4. Providing additional guidance on TOARs restricted to Local Limited Areas.

    5. Providing guidance on endorsements that will be restricted to routes without locks and to service upon harbor-assist vessels or Integrated Tug Barge (ITB) and Articulated Tug Barge (ATB) vessels.

    Authority

    This notice of availability is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: June 30, 2016. V.B. Gifford, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director, Inspection and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16113 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 16-123; RM-11766; DA 16-711] Television Broadcasting Services; Cordele, Georgia AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    A petition for rulemaking was filed by Sunbelt-South Tele-Communications, Ltd. (Sunbelt), the licensee of WSST-TV, channel 51, Cordele, Georgia, requesting the substitution of channel 22 for channel 51 at Cordele. Sunbelt filed comments reaffirming its interest in the proposed channel substitution and stating that if the proposal is granted, it will promptly file an application for the facilities specified in the rulemaking petition and construct the station. Sunbelt asserts that adopting the proposal would serve the public interest because it would remove any potential interference with authorized wireless operations in the Lower 700 MHz A Block adjacent to channel 51 in Cordele. In addition, Sunbelt agrees that WSST-TV will be protected in the incentive auction at its channel 51 operating parameters even after its move to channel 22, and recognizes that as a result of repacking during the incentive auction, it may be required to move from channel 22.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joyce Bernstein, [email protected], Media Bureau, (202) 418-1647.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 16-123, adopted June 28, 2016, and released June 28, 2016. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/). To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.

    The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television.

    Federal Communications Commission. Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Final Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.

    § 73.622 [Amended]
    2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Georgia is amended by removing channel 51 and adding channel 22 at Cordele.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15970 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    81 130 Thursday, July 7, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7425; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-244-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-17-05, for certain Airbus Model A300 B2-1C, A300 B2-203, A300 B2K-3C, A300-B4-103, A300 B4-203, and A300 B4-2C airplanes. AD 2011-17-05 currently requires repetitive inspections in sections 13 through 18 of the fuselage between rivets of the longitudinal lap joints between frames (FR) 18 and 80 for cracking, and repair or modification if necessary. Since we issued AD 2011-17-05, we have determined that a revised inspection program is necessary. This proposed AD would include a revised repetitive inspection program of all longitudinal lap joints and repairs between frames 18 and 80 to address this widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the longitudinal lap joints of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments 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 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-2016-7425; 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-2016-7425; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-244-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

    On September 23, 2011, we issued AD 2011-17-05, Amendment 39-16769 (76 FR 63177, October 12, 2011) (“AD 2011-17-05”). AD 2011-17-05 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A300 B2-1C, A300 B2-203, A300 B2K-3C, A300-B4-103, A300 B4-203, and A300 B4-2C airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 2011-17-05, we have determined it is necessary to require a revised inspection program for the longitudinal lap joints and repairs between FR 18 and FR 80 because additional cracking was found in an expanded area.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0265, dated December 9, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Cracks were found on in-service aeroplanes in sections 13 to 18 of the fuselage between rivets of longitudinal lap joints between frames (FR) 18 and FR80.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus developed an inspection programme for the longitudinal lap joints and repairs between FR18 and FR80, and EASA issued AD 2007-0091 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-17-05] to require the implementation of that programme.

    Since EASA AD 2007-0091 was issued, [a] new Widespread Fatigue Damage regulation has been issued. This new regulation led to the revision of the maintenance programme for the longitudinal lap joints and repairs between FR18 and FR80.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2007-0091, which is superseded, and requires implementation of the revised inspection programme.

    Required actions include repetitive inspections of the bonded inner doublers of the longitudinal lap joints in sections 13 through 18 for disbonding or corrosion, and repairing any disbonding and corrosion; a follow-on rototest or ultrasonic inspection to verify cracking, and repair of any cracking. The repetitive inspection interval ranges from 3,000 flight cycles up to 8,000 flight cycles, depending on airplane configuration. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2016-7425.

    Widespread Fatigue Damage

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the longitudinal lap joints of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    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.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Unlike the procedures described in the service information, this proposed AD would not permit further flight if cracks are detected. We have determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with that cracking, any cracked upper shell structure must be repaired before further flight.

    The MCAI refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0211, Revision 08, dated November 26, 2013, for compliance times and for the new inspections. However, paragraph (l) of this proposed AD would require operators to do the initial inspections within 180 days after the effective date of this AD, in 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); and thereafter at intervals approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. We find that 180 days is an appropriate amount of time to accomplish the initial inspections and address the unsafe condition.

    These differences have been coordinated with the EASA and Airbus.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Retained actions from AD 2011-17-05 (5 airplanes) 3,735 work-hours × $85 per hour = $317,475 $317,475 $1,587,375 New proposed inspections (4 airplanes) 140 work-hours × $85 per hour = $11,900 11,900 47,600

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-17-05, Amendment 39-16769 (76 FR 63177, October 12, 2011), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-7425; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-244-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 22, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-17-05, Amendment 39-16769 (76 FR 63177, October 12, 2011) (“AD 2011-17-05”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1C, A300 B2-203, A300 B2K-3C, A300-B4-103, A300 B4-203, and A300 B4-2C airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 2611 has been embodied in production.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation done by the design approval holder indicating that certain sections of the longitudinal lap joints are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the longitudinal lap joints of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Fuselage Inner Doubler Inspections and Repair, With Revised Formatting

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2011-17-05, with revised formatting. For airplanes on which any inspections of the fuselage bonded inner doublers of the longitudinal lap joints in Sections 13 through 18 (except Sections 16 and 17 at Stringer 31 left-hand and right-hand) for disbonding and cracking have not been done as of November 16, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-17-05), as specified by Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229: Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles or within 15 years since new, whichever occurs first; or within 60 days after November 16, 2011; whichever occurs later; do a detailed inspection of the fuselage bonded inner doublers of the longitudinal lap joints in Sections 13 through 18 (except Sections 16 and 17 at Stringer 31 left-hand and right-hand) for disbonding and cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997. If no disbonding and no cracking are found, repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (1) If no cracking is found, and “minor” disbonding, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997, is found: Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1 year for areas below stringer 22, and at intervals not to exceed 2 years for areas above and including stringer 22.

    (2) If no cracking is found, and “major” disbonding, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997, is found: Within 1,000 flight cycles after doing the inspection, repair, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997.

    (3) If any cracking is found, repair prior to further flight, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997.

    (h) Retained Repetitive Intervals for Inspections for Disbonding and Cracking

    This paragraph restates the repetitive intervals specified in table 1 of AD 2011-17-05. At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) For Sections 13 and 14 as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997: Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 7 years or 12,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For Sections 15 through 18 as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997: Repeat the inspection within 8.5 years or 12,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first.

    (i) Retained Fuselage Inner Doubler Inspections and Repair

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2011-17-05. For airplanes on which any inspections of the fuselage bonded inner doublers of the longitudinal lap joints in Sections 13 through 18 (except Sections 16 and 17 at Stringer 31 left-hand and right-hand) for disbonding and cracking have been done as of November 16, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-17-05), as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229; except for airplanes on which a repair of that area has been done as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229: Within 7 years or 12,000 flight cycles (for Sections 13 and 14), or within 8.5 years or 12,000 flight cycles (for Sections 15 and 18), after doing the inspection, whichever occurs first; or within 60 days after November 16, 2011, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection of the fuselage bonded inner doublers of the longitudinal lap joints in Sections 13 through 18 (except Sections 16 and 17 at Stringer 31 left-hand and right-hand) for disbonding and cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997. If no disbonding and no cracking are found, repeat the inspection at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (1) If no cracking is found, and “minor” disbonding, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997, is found: Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1 year for areas below stringer 22, and at intervals not to exceed 2 years for areas above and including stringer 22.

    (2) If no cracking is found, and “major” disbonding, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997, is found: Within 1,000 flight cycles after doing the inspection, repair, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997.

    (3) If any cracking is found, repair prior to further flight, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997.

    (j) Retained Fuselage Inner Doubler Inspections and Repair, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD 2011-17-05, with no changes. For airplanes on which any inspections of the fuselage bonded inner doublers of the longitudinal lap joints in Sections 16 and 17 at Stringer 31 left-hand and right-hand for disbonding and cracking have not been done as of November 16, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-17-05), as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229: Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles or within 12 years since new, whichever occurs first; or within 60 days after November 16, 2011, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection of the fuselage bonded inner doubles of the longitudinal lap joints in Sections 16 and 17 at Stringer 31 left-hand and right-hand for disbonding and cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997. If no disbonding and no cracking are found, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years or 12,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first.

    (1) If no cracking is found, and “minor” disbonding, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997, is found: Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1 year for areas below stringer 22, and at intervals not to exceed 2 years for areas above and including stringer 22. Doing a repair in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997, terminates the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph for that area.

    (2) If no cracking is found, and “major” disbonding, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997, is found: Within 1,000 flight cycles after doing the inspection, repair, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997.

    (3) If any cracking is found, repair prior to further flight, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997.

    (k) Retained Fuselage Inner Doubler Inspections and Repair, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2011-17-05, with no changes. For airplanes on which any inspections of the fuselage bonded inner doublers of the longitudinal lap joints in Sections 16 and 17 at Stringer 31 left-hand and right-hand for disbonding and cracking have been done as of November 16, 2011, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229; except airplanes on which a repair of that area has been done as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229: Within 7 years or 12,000 flight cycles after doing the inspection, whichever occurs first; or within 60 days after November 16, 2011; whichever occurs later; do a detailed inspection of the fuselage bonded inner doubles of the longitudinal lap joints in Sections 16 and 17 at Stringer 31 left-hand and right-hand for disbonding and cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997. If no disbonding and no corrosion are found, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years or 12,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first.

    (1) If no cracking is found, and “minor” disbonding, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997, is found: Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1 year for areas below stringer 22, and at intervals not to exceed 2 years for areas above and including stringer 22. Doing a repair, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997, terminates the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph for that area.

    (2) If no cracking is found, and “major” disbonding, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997, is found: Within 1,000 flight cycles after doing the inspection, repair, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997.

    (3) If any cracking is found, repair prior to further flight, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-229, Revision 5, dated April 8, 1997.

    (l) New Repetitive Inspections and Repair

    Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD, do rototest and ultrasonic inspections, as applicable, for cracking of all longitudinal lap joints and repairs between frames 18 and 80; and repair any cracking before further flight; 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). Repeat the applicable inspection, including post-repair inspections, thereafter at intervals approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Accomplishing the initial inspection and applicable repairs required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) through (k) 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: 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: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQ[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: As of the effective date of this AD, 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 DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0265, dated December 9, 2014, 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-2016-7425.

    (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 23, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15910 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7424; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-173-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 all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that, due to significant differences among all airspeed sources, the flight controls will revert to alternate law, the autopilot (AP) and the auto-thrust (A/THR) will automatically disconnect, and the flight director (FD) bars will be automatically removed. Then, if two airspeed sources become similar while still erroneous, the flight guidance computers will display the FD bars again, and enable the re-engagement of the AP and A/THR. In some cases, however, the AP orders may be inappropriate, such as possible abrupt pitch command. This proposed AD would require a software standard upgrade (modification or replacement) of the three flight control primary computers (FCPCs). We are proposing this AD to prevent autopilot engagement under unreliable airspeed conditions, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 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—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; 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-2016-7424; 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:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; 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-2016-7424; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-173-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 2015-0124R1, dated February 2, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was determined that, when there are significant differences between all airspeed sources, the flight controls of an Airbus A330 or A340 aeroplane will revert to alternate law, the autopilot (AP) and the auto-thrust (A/THR) automatically disconnect, and the Flight Directors (FD) bars are automatically removed. Further analyses have shown that, after such an event, if two airspeed sources become similar while still erroneous, the flight guidance computers will display the FD bars again, and enable the re-engagement of AP and A/THR. However, in some cases, the AP orders may be inappropriate, such as possible abrupt pitch command. In order to prevent such events which may, under specific circumstances, constitute an unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2010-0271 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-02-09, Amendment 39-16583 (76 FR 4219, January 25, 2011)] to require an amendment of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to ensure that flight crews apply the appropriate operational procedure.

    Since EASA AD 2010-0271 was issued, new Flight Control Primary Computer (FCPC) software standards were developed that inhibit autopilot engagement under unreliable airspeed conditions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2011-0199 (later revised) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-19-14, Amendment 39-17596 (78 FR 68347, November 14, 2013)] for A330 and A340-200/300 aeroplanes, and AD 2013-0107 [which also corresponds to FAA AD 2013-19-14], for A340-500/600 aeroplanes to require a software standard upgrade of the three FCPCs by either modification or replacement.

    Since EASA AD 2011-0199R1 and AD 2013-0107 were issued, new FCPC software standards, as specified in Appendix 1 of this [EASA] AD, were developed to correct aeroplane behaviour in case of undetected erroneous (Radio Altimeter) RA information and to introduce other improvements. In addition, the new FCPC software standards implement enhanced Angle of Attack (AOA) monitoring in order to better detect cases of AOA blockage, including multiple AOA blockage.

    For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2015-0124 to require the latest software standard upgrade of the three FCPCs, by either modification or replacement.

    At the time [EASA] AD 2015-0124 was issued, some of the Airbus SBs listed in Appendix 1 were not available. Since, some have been published, and for this reason, this [EASA] AD is revised to introduce the date of publication of these SBs.

    There are still two SBs that remain unavailable at this time. It is expected that this [EASA] AD will be revised again when these SBs are published.

    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-2016-7424.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:

    • Service Bulletin A330-27-3205, Revision 02, dated March 23, 2016.

    • Service Bulletin A320-27-3207, dated June 30, 2015.

    • Service Bulletin A340-27-4195, dated November 24, 2015.

    • Service Bulletin A340-27-4196, dated November 24, 2015.

    The service information describes procedures for upgrading (replacing or modifying) the software standards for the FCPCs. The 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.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2015-0124R1, dated February 2, 2016, is specific to Model A330 airplanes that were modified in service to a multi-role transport tanker (MRTT) configuration using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3156. This Model A330 is not type-validated by the FAA. Therefore, we have not included the provisions for the Model A330 MRTT airplanes in this proposed AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 92 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
    Modification/replacement 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 Not available $255 $23,460

    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 available 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): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-7424; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-173-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 22, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects the ADs identified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) of this AD:

    (1) AD 2012-08-02, Amendment 39-17018 (77 FR 24829, April 26, 2012) (“AD 2012-08-02”).

    (2) AD 2013-03-06, Amendment 39-17341 (78 FR 15279, March 11, 2013) (“AD 2013-03-06”).

    (3) AD 2013-05-08, Amendment 39-17380 (78 FR 27015, May 9, 2013; corrected August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53237)) (“AD 2013-05-08”).

    (4) AD 2013-19-14, Amendment 39-17596 (78 FR 68347, November 14, 2013) (“AD 2013-19-14”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Model A330 -223F and -243F airplanes.

    (2) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (4) Model A340-211,—212, and -213 airplanes.

    (5) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

    (6) Model A340-541 airplanes.

    (7) Model A340-642 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that, due to significant differences among all airspeed sources, the flight controls will revert to alternate law, the autopilot (AP) and the auto-thrust (A/THR) will automatically disconnect, and the flight director (FD) bars will be automatically removed. Then, if two airspeed sources become similar while still erroneous, the flight guidance computers will display the FD bars again, and enable the re-engagement of the AP and A/THR. In some cases, however, the AP orders may be inappropriate, such as possible abrupt pitch command. We are issuing this AD to prevent autopilot engagement under unreliable airspeed conditions, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) New Software Standard Upgrade for Model A330 Series Airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes

    At the applicable time specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Upgrade (by modification or replacement, as applicable) the three flight control primary computers (FCPCs), as specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD, except for Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes with hardware standard FCPC 2K2, do the upgrade in accordance with 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).

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Software Standard Updates and Compliance Times Software standard Hardware standard Compliance time after effective date of this AD P13/M22 FCPC 2K2 Within 9 months. P14/M23 FCPC 2K1 Within 9 months. M23 FCPC 2K0 Within 9 months. L24 FCPC 2K1 or 2K0 Within 15 months. L23 FCPC 2K2 Within 15 months. W13 FCPC 2K2 Within 15 months. (h) Service Information

    For the upgrade required by paragraph (g) of this AD, applicable service information is identified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD.

    (1) For Model A330 airplanes with hardware standard FCPC 2K2: Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3205, Revision 02, dated March 23, 2016.

    (2) For Model A330 airplanes with hardware standard FCPC 2K1 or FCPC 2K0: Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3207, dated June 30, 2015.

    (3) For Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes with hardware standard FCPC 2K0 or FCPC 2K1: Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4195, dated November 24, 2015.

    (4) For Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes with hardware standard FCPC 2K2: Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4196, dated November 24, 2015.

    (i) Removal of Certain Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Requirements

    After accomplishing the FCPC upgrade required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the AFM operational procedures required by the AFM revisions identified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD are no longer required and can be removed from the AFM for that airplane only.

    (1) The AFM revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2013-03-06.

    (2) The AFM revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2013-19-14.

    (3) The AFM revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2013-19-14.

    (j) Removal of Certain Other AFM Requirements

    Accomplishing the FCPC upgrade required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the dispatch limitations required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of AD 2012-08-02 for that airplane only, and after accomplishing the FCPC upgrade, those dispatch limitations can be removed from the AFM for that airplane only.

    (k) Certain Actions Required by AD 2013-05-08 Affected by This AD

    Accomplishing the FCPC upgrade required by paragraph (g) this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of paragraph (l) and paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(4) of AD 2013-05-08.

    (l) Certain Actions Required by AD 2013-19-14 Affected by This AD

    Accomplishing the FCPC upgrade required by paragraph (g) this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (j) of AD 2013-19-14.

    (m) Airplanes Excluded From Certain Requirements

    For Airbus Model A330 series airplanes having Airbus Modification 202680 (installation of FCPC 2K2 with software standard P13/M22) incorporated in production: The actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD are not required, provided it can be positively determined that since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness, no FCPC has been replaced on that airplane with an FCPC having an earlier standard.

    (n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the applicable actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3205, dated March 9, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3205, Revision 01, dated July 3, 2015; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (o) 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: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; 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 DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) 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.

    (p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0124R1, dated February 2, 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-2016-7424.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; 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 23, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15907 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8160; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-019-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Embraer S.A. Models EMB-500 and EMB-505 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrect installation of passenger seat attachment fittings. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments 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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Embraer—S.A., Phenom Maintenance Support, Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, São José dos Campos—SP—12227-901, P.O. Box 36/2, Brasil; phone: +55 12 3927 1000; fax: +55 12 3927-2619; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.embraer.com.br/en-US/Pages/home.aspx. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    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-2016-8160; 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:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    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-2016-8160; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-019-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://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 Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued AD No.: 2016-05-01, dated May 27, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Embraer S.A. Models EMB-500 and EMB-505 airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    There is the possibility that certain attachment fittings of passenger seats have been incorrectly installed. This AD results from a determination that the passenger seat on which the attachment fittings were improperly installed may not meet certain static strength, and dynamic strength criteria. Failure to meet static and dynamic strength criteria could result in injuries to the occupants during an emergency landing condition.

    This AD requires the inspection of each passenger seat for the correct installation of the attachment fittings and correction, if necessary.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8160. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Embraer S.A. has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No.: 500-25-0016; and Embraer S.A. SB No.: 505-25-0020, both dated December 8, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the passenger seat attachment fittings and correction to the fittings 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 of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the 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 will affect 203 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $69,020, or $340 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 6 work-hours for a cost of $510 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

    According to the manufacturer, all 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 AD: Embraer S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2016-8160; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-019-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 22, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model EMB-500 airplanes, serial numbers 50000322, 50000324 through 50000328, 50000330 through 50000344, 50000346 through 50000350, and 50000353, certificated in any category; and Embraer S.A. Model EMB-505 airplanes, serial numbers 50500004 through 50500215, 50500217 through 50500245, 50500247 through 50500255, 50500257 through 50500259, 50500261 through 50500263, 50500265, and 50500267, certificated in any category.

    (2) The airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD had passenger seats installed at manufacturer as listed in Embraer S.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No.: 500-25-0016, dated December 8, 2015; or Embraer S.A. SB No.: 505-25-0020, dated December 8, 2015. Since these are line replaceable units and the unsafe condition of this AD was originated during manufacturing, any passenger seat replaced during routine maintenance is not affected by the actions of this AD.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 25: Equipment/Furnishing.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrect installation of passenger seat attachment fittings. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct improperly installed seat attachment fittings, which could result in seat damage causing injury to occupants during an emergency landing condition.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions in Embraer S.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No.: 500-25-0016, dated December 8, 2015; or Embraer S.A. SB No.: 505-25-0020, dated December 8, 2015, as applicable:

    (1) Within the next 30 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect each applicable passenger seat for the correct installation of attachment fittings.

    (2) If any discrepancy is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, correct the discrepancy.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:

    [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are 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.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC) AD No.: 2016-05-01, dated May 27, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8160. For service information related to this AD, contact Embraer—S.A., Phenom Maintenance Support, Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, São José dos Campos—SP—12227-901, P.O. Box 36/2, Brasil; phone: +55 12 3927 1000; fax: +55 12 3927-2619; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.embraer.com.br/en-US/Pages/home.aspx. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 28, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15871 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0143; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-113-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 A300 B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R variant F airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections of the lower frame fittings, related investigative actions, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in the frame base fittings connecting the frame lower positions to the center wing box. This action revises the NPRM by replacing the proposed requirements with new repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the lower frame fittings of the frame foot, and replacement with a new frame foot if cracking is found. This action also provides optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to detect and correct cracking of the lower frame fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. 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 22, 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 proposed 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 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-2014-0143; 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:

    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-2014-0143; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-113-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 A300 B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R variant F airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2014 (79 FR 15266) (“the NPRM”).

    The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in the frame base fittings connecting the frame lower positions to the center wing box. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections of the lower frame fittings, related investigative actions, and corrective actions if necessary.

    Actions Since NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that repairs to address cracking in the frame foot area found during accomplishment of the detailed inspection of the lower frame fittings specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6111, Revision 05, including Appendix 01, dated January 28, 2013, are not adequate to prevent further cracking. The European Aviation Safety Agency, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0217, dated October 30, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R variant F airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-6111 (EASA AD 2012-0103), addressing detailed visual inspections of the lower frame fittings between Frame (FR) 41 and FR46, a crack was detected on one A300-600 aeroplane in the area 2 of the foot of FR46 at junction radius level.

    This frame, previously repaired due to a crack finding in the frame foot area 1, was not due to be inspected before reaching the post-repair inspection threshold, i.e. 45,400 flight cycles since repair embodiment.

    Further investigation determined that the repairs specified in Airbus SB A300-53-6111 were of limited effect to prevent cracking in the frame foot area 2.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the fuselage of all aeroplanes operated up to the extended service goal (ESG).

    As a temporary action and until an improvement of the existing repairs was made available, EASA issued AD 2012-0229 [AD * * *] to require a one-time detailed inspection (DET) of the frame feet that were repaired in accordance with Airbus SB A300-53-6111, and the reporting of findings to Airbus.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, a detailed study was performed resulting in the development of a new inspection programme.

    Consequently, Airbus cancelled SB A300-53-6111 and replaced it with SB A300-53-6177, introducing repetitive DET of the lower frame fittings between FR41 and FR46 for the entire fleet. In addition to this new inspection programme, Airbus designed a new frame foot which can be installed on aeroplanes through Airbus SB A300-53-6176.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD supersedes EASA AD 2012-0103, not retaining its requirements, and instead requires the new inspection programme for the lower frame fittings. This [EASA] AD also introduces an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the [EASA] AD.

    Corrective actions include replacing any cracked lower frame fittings with a new frame foot. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating FAA-2014-0143.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May 20, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the lower frame fittings between FR41 and FR46. Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6176, dated May 20, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing all lower frame feet between frame FR41 and FR46 with new, improved frame feet. 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 Method Used To Determine Compliance Times

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the compliance times in the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised to be less complex. UPS stated that the proposed compliance times contain a method known as “Average Flight Time” (AFT) which results in a variable flight hour limit and adds an unnecessary complexity to the threshold table and subsequent inspection actions. UPS added that use of the AFT method, along with a lack of standard procedures for implementing the AFT method would create uncertainty for operators and inspectors trying to determine the correct compliance time. UPS stated that a defined threshold and repetitive inspection interval would adequately provide for timely detection of possible damage.

    We disagree with the commenter's request to revise the compliance times in this proposed AD. The compliance times in this proposed AD correspond with those in the MCAI AD, which refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May 20, 2015. In Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May 20, 2015, the inspection thresholds and intervals are based on the accumulation of both flight cycles and flight hours, and are listed in tables appropriately grouping airplanes with average flight time utilization above 1.5 hours, and airplanes with average flight time utilization at or below 1.5 hours. We have determined these compliance times acceptable for this proposed AD.

    However, we do acknowledge that a fixed compliance time for a fleet could be easier for operators to schedule and record compliance. Therefore, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if a proposal is submitted that is supported by technical data that includes fatigue and damage tolerance analysis. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.

    Request To Remove Reporting Requirement

    FedEx objected to the reporting requirement in the proposed AD (in the NPRM).

    We infer that FedEx wants the reporting requirement removed. We disagree that the reporting requirement should be removed from this proposed AD. We have determined that reporting the inspection findings will enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the extent of the cracking. We have made no change to this proposed AD in this regard.

    Request To Remove Requirement To Refer to This AD in Repair Approvals

    UPS requested that we revise the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to remove the requirement to include the AD reference in repair approvals. UPS noted its concerns that the NPRM will increase requests for approval of alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) and result in delays to other services and actions addressed by the FAA on a daily basis.

    We agree with the commenter's request to remove from this proposed AD the requirement that repair approvals must specifically refer to this AD. Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

    In the proposed AD (in the NPRM) we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include “the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval (DOA)” to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the AD.

    In its comments to the proposed AD (in the NPRM), UPS stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages or other approved EASA documents are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of a[n AD] mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an AMOC to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    The “Contacting the Manufacturer” paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

    This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the AD Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an AMOC.

    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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate that it would take about 541 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this SNPRM, and 1 work-hour per product for reporting. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this SNPRM on U.S. operators to be $5,666,610, or $46,070 per product.

    We estimate that the optional terminating modification would take about 529 work-hours and require parts costing $131,500, for a cost of $176,465.

    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-2014-0143; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-113-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 22, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R variant F airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the frame base fittings connecting the frame lower positions to the center wing box. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the lower frame fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Replacement If Necessary

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May 20, 2015, except where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May 20, 2015, specifies a compliance time “from issuance of Revision 04 of Service Bulletin A300-53-6111,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection for cracking of the lower frame fittings between frame (FR) 41 and FR46 of the frame foot, and if any crack is found, before further flight, replace with a new frame foot, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May 20, 2015. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6177, dated May 20, 2015.

    (h) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of each inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Send the report to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com).

    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.

    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Optional Terminating Action

    Replacement of all lower frame feet between FR41 and FR46, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6176, dated May 20, 2015, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) 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 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-2125. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are 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.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0217, dated October 30, 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-2014-0143.

    (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 referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. 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 23, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15928 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8161; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-018-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; REIMS AVIATION S.A. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain REIMS AVIATION S.A. Model F406 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks found in the horizontal stabilizer rear attach structure and the vertical fin rear spar attach structure. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments 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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact ASI Aviation, Aérodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360 Prunay, France; telephone: +33 3 26 48 46 84; fax: +33 3 26 49 18 57; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://asi-aviation.fr/page-Accueil.html. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    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-2016-8161; 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:

    Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4119; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    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-2016-8161; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-018-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://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 Community, has issued AD No.: 2016-0101, dated May 25, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Fatigue cracks and holes elongation were found on horizontal stabilizer fittings on F406 aeroplanes having accumulated more than 2 500 flight hours (FH).

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in loss of structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer fittings.

    To initially address this issue, DGAC France published AD 2001-161 to require repetitive visual inspections of the fittings, and, dependings on findings, replacement with a serviceable part.

    Since that AD was issued, during maintenance, cracks were found on a slice plate of horizontal stabilizer fittings. Consequently, ASI Aviation issued Service Bulletin (SB) CAB01-5 Revision 2 to provide instructions for additional eddy-current non-destructive test (NDT) inspections.

    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 2001-161, which is superseded, and requires the additional NDT inspections.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8161.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    ASI Aviation has issued Service Bulletin CAB01-5 Rev 2, dated December 3, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the horizontal stabilizer rear attach structure and the vertical fin rear spar attach structure for cracks and oversized bolt holes and making all necessary repairs and replacements. 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 of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the 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 will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 20.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic inspections requirements of this proposed AD (18 work-hours to remove the horizontal stabilizer to gain access for the inspection and 2.5 work-hours to do the inspection). The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed inspection on U.S. operators to be $12,197.50, or $1,742.50 per product.

    We estimate that it would take about 25 work-hours per product to reinstall the horizontal stabilizer after doing the proposed inspection and any proposed necessary repairs or replacements. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed action on U.S. operators to be $14,875, or $2,125 per product.

    In addition, we estimate any proposed necessary corrective actions as follows:

    —Installing Service Kit SKRA406-11—Rev. 2 would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $65, for a cost of $320 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need this action. —Installing Service Kit SK406-137 (which superseded Service Kit SKRA406-12—Rev. 2) would take about 20 work-hours and require parts costing $2,000, for a cost of $3,800 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need this action. —Installing Service Kit SKRA406-13—Rev. 2 would take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $1,800, for a cost of $2,480 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need this action. 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 AD: REIMS AVIATION S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2016-8161; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-018-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 22, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to REIMS AVIATION S.A. F406 airplanes, serial numbers F406-0001 through F406-0098, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks found in the horizontal stabilizer rear attach structure and the vertical fin rear spar attach structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the horizontal stabilizer and/or the vertical fin rear spar attach structure, which could result in damage to the airplane and loss of control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:

    (1) At whichever of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD that occurs the latest after the effective date of this AD, and repetitively thereafter every 2,400 hours time-in-service (TIS), do a visual and non-destructive test (NDT) inspection of the horizontal stabilizer splice plate assembly, part number (P/N) 6032183-1 or P/N 406-5518-32183-100 (as applicable), and the attach structure assembly P/N 6031210-1. Do the inspections following the Accomplishment Instructions in ASI Aviation Service Bulletin CAB01-5 Rev 2, dated December 3, 2015.

    (i) Before accumulating 2,500 hours TIS; or

    (ii) Within the next 100 hours TIS; or

    (iii) At the next 600-hour inspection.

    (2) If, during any inspection as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, any oversized bolt hole or crack is detected on the horizontal stabilizer splice plate assembly or attach structure assembly, before further flight, repair or replace the affected part with a serviceable part following the Accomplishment Instructions in ASI Aviation Service Bulletin CAB01-5 Rev 2, dated December 3, 2015. After taking the necessary corrective action, continue with the repetitive inspection specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4119; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are 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.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016-0101, dated 25 May 25, 2016, and ASI Aviation Service Kit SKRA40611-Rev. 2, dated December 3, 2015, ASI Service Kit SK406-137, dated December 3, 2015 (which superseded ASI Aviation Service Kit SKRA406-12-Rev. 2, dated December 3, 2015), and ASI Aviation Service Kit SKRA406-13-Rev. 2, dated December 3, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8161. For service information related to this AD, contact ASI Aviation, Aérodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360 Prunay, France; telephone: +33 3 26 48 46 84; fax: +33 3 26 49 18 57; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://asi-aviation.fr/page-Accueil.html. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 28, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15862 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7423; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-034-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 all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the frame-to-floor-beam joints and frames common to shear ties at certain locations of fuselage structure are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the frame inner chords and webs common to the floor beam joint and at frames common to the shear ties at certain sections on the left and right fuselage sides, and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the frame inner chords and webs common to the floor beam joint and at frames common to the shear ties at certain sections on the left and right fuselage sides, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7423.

    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-2016-7423; 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:

    Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057 3356; phone: 425-917-6447; 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-2016-7423; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-034-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

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    An evaluation by the DAH indicates that the frame to floor beam joints and frames common to shear ties at certain locations of fuselage structure are subject to WFD. This condition, if not corrected, could result in cracking of the frame inner chords and webs common to the floor beam joint and at frames common to the shear ties at certain sections on the left and right fuselage sides, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0265, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2016. The service information describes procedures for doing a detailed inspection and a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the frame inner chord and web common to the floor beam joint in section 41 and 43 on the left and right sides, a detailed inspection and a surface HFEC inspection for cracking of the section 43 and 46 frames common to the shear ties on the left and right sides, and repair. 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. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7423.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 306 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
  • Inspections Up to 350 work-hours × $85 per hour = $29,750 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $29,750 per inspection cycle Up to $9,103,500 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    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-2016-7423; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-034-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 22, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the frame-to-floor-beam joints and frames common to shear ties at certain locations of fuselage structure are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the frame inner chords and webs common to the floor beam joint and at frames common to the shear ties at certain sections on the left and right fuselage sides, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0265, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2016: Do the actions required in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0265, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2016. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0265, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2016.

    (1) Do a detailed inspection and a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the frame inner chord and web common to the floor beam joint in section 41 and 43 on the left and right sides.

    (2) Do a detailed inspection and a surface HFEC inspection for cracking of the section 43 and 46 frames common to the shear ties on the left and right sides.

    (h) Service Information Exception

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0265, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0265, dated March 18, 2015. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(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. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) 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.

    (k) Related Information

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

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 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 23, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15914 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 151023986-6557-01] RIN 0648-XE284 Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2016 U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed specifications; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes a 2016 limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific territory (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). NMFS would allow each territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt each year to U.S. longline fishing vessels in a specified fishing agreement that meets established criteria. As an accountability measure, NMFS would monitor, attribute, and restrict (if necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna, including catches made under a specified fishing agreement. The proposed catch limits and accountability measures would support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.

    DATES:

    NMFS must receive comments by July 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0140, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0140, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter“N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    NMFS prepared environmental analyses that describe the potential impacts on the human environment that would result from the proposed catch limits and accountability measures. The environmental analyses are available at www.regulations.gov. The information contained in the environmental analyses is not repeated here.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5176.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS proposes to specify a catch limit of 2,000 mt of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. participating territory in 2016. NMFS would also authorize each U.S. Pacific territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its 2,000-mt bigeye tuna limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels that are permitted to fish under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). Those vessels must be identified in a specified fishing agreement with the applicable territory. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended these specifications.

    NMFS will monitor catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna by the longline fisheries of each U.S Pacific territory, including catches made by U.S. longline vessels operating under specified fishing agreements. The criteria that a specified fishing agreement must meet, and the process for attributing longline-caught bigeye tuna, will follow the procedures in 50 CFR 665.819 (Territorial catch and fishing effort limits). When NMFS projects that a territorial catch or allocation limit will be reached, NMFS would, as an accountability measure, prohibit the catch and retention of longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels in the applicable territory (if the territorial catch limit is projected to be reached), and/or vessels in a specified fishing agreement (if the allocation limit is projected to be reached).

    NMFS will consider public comments on the proposed action and will announce the final specifications in the Federal Register. NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES heading. NMFS may not consider any comments not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. Regardless of the final specifications, all other management measures will continue to apply in the longline fishery.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the applicable FEPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed specification.

    The proposed action would specify a 2016 limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) (4,409,240 lb) of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific territory (American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)). Without this catch limit, these U.S territories would not be subject to a limit because they, as Participating Territories to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), do not have a bigeye tuna limit under international measures adopted by the WCPFC. NMFS would also allow each territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt (2,204,620 lb) of its 2,000 mt bigeye tuna limit each year to U.S. longline fishing vessels in a specified fishing agreement that meets established criteria set forth in 50 CFR 665.819. As an accountability measure, NMFS would monitor, attribute, and restrict (if necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels in the applicable U.S. territory (if the territorial catch limit is projected to be reached), or by vessels operating under the applicable specified fishing agreement (if the allocation limit is projected to be reached). Payments under the specified fishing agreements support fisheries development in the U.S. Pacific territories and the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.

    This proposed action would directly apply to longline vessels federally permitted under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (Pelagic FEP), specifically Hawaii longline limited entry, American Samoa longline limited entry, and Western Pacific general longline permit holders. As of June 2016, 139 vessels possessed Hawaii longline limited entry permits (out of 164 total permits), 40 possessed American Samoa longline limited entry permits (out of 60 total permits), and one vessel held a Western Pacific general longline permit.

    According to landings information provided in the environmental assessment prepared in support of this action and logbook information, Hawaii-based longline vessels landed approximately 25,791,000 lb of pelagic fish valued at $93,963,000 in 2012 and 27,053,000 lb of pelagic fish valued at $88,552,000 in 2013. With 129 vessels making either a deep- or shallow-set trip in 2012, and 135 vessels in 2013, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by Hawaii-based longline fisheries averaged about $728,000 and $656,000 per vessel in 2012 and 2013 respectively. In 2014, 140 vessels made approximately 1,431 trips, with 19,115 sets, and 47,130,556 hooks. In 2015, 142 vessels made approximately 1,448 trips, with 18,469 sets, and 47,489,544 hooks. Final catch, landings, and revenue information for the Hawaii-based longline fleet in 2014 and 2015 are not yet available.

    In 2013, 22 American Samoa longline vessels turned in logbooks reporting the landing of 162,444 pelagic fish (approximately 6 million lb) valued at $6,772,386. Albacore made up the largest proportion of pelagic landings in American Samoa at 4,525,453 lb and bigeye tuna comprised of 187,954 lb. With 22 active longline vessels, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by the American Samoa longline fishery averaged about $307,836 per vessel in 2013. With regard to Guam and CNMI, no longline fishing has occurred since 2011.

    On December 29, 2015, NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and is to be used in place of the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry in all NMFS rules subject to the RFA after July 1, 2016. Id. at 81194.

    Based on this information, NMFS has determined that all vessels permitted federally under the Pelagic FEP are small entities, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting (NAICS 114111), are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, the implementation of this action would not result in significant adverse economic impact to individual vessels. The proposed action would potentially benefit Hawaii-based longline fishery participants by allowing them to fish under specified fishing agreements with a territory, which could extend fishing effort for bigeye tuna in the Western Pacific Ocean and provide more bigeye tuna for markets in Hawaii.

    Amendment 7 to the Pelagic FEP established a process by which NMFS could specify catch and/or effort limits for pelagic fisheries in American Samoa, Guam and CNMI, regardless of whether the WCPFC adopts a limit for those entities or not. Amendment 7 also allows NMFS to authorize the government of each territory to allocate a portion of their catch and/or effort limits through territorial fishing agreements. Specifically, bigeye tuna landed by vessels included in a fishing agreement are attributed to the U.S territory to which the agreement applies, and not counted towards the U.S. bigeye tuna limit established by NMFS under a separate authority in 50 CFR part 300, subpart O.

    In accordance with Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart O, vessels that possess both an American Samoa and Hawaii longline permit are not subject to the U.S bigeye tuna limit. Therefore, these vessels may retain bigeye tuna and land fish in Hawaii after the date that NMFS projects the fishery would reach that limit. Further, catches of bigeye tuna made by such vessels are attributed to American Samoa, provided the fish was not caught in the U.S. EEZ around Hawaii. In 2015, all dual American Samoa/Hawaii longline permitted vessels were included in the fishing agreement with CNMI. Therefore, NMFS attributed bigeye catches by those vessels to the CNMI.

    The 2016 U.S. bigeye tuna catch limit established in 50 CFR 300, Subpart O is 3,554 mt, which is about 1.5% higher than the 2015 limit. In 2015, the U.S. longline fishery was subject to a catch limit of 3,502 mt (WCPFC limit of 3,554 mt less the 2014 catch overage of 52 mt). NMFS closed the fishery on August 5, 2015, because the fishery reached the limit (80 FR 46515, July 28, 2015). However, effective October 9, 2015, NMFS specified the 2015 catch and allocation limits for the CNMI and all vessels in the Hawaii longline fleet immediately entered into a specified fishing agreement with the CNMI. NMFS forecasted vessels listed in the CNMI specified fishing agreement would reach the 1,000-mt allocation limit on November 30, 2015 and issued a notice that it would restrict retention of bigeye tuna by vessels identified in that agreement on that date (80 FR 74002, November 27, 2015). Effective November 25, 2015, NMFS specified the 2015 catch and allocation limit for Guam and all Hawaii longline vessels immediately entered into a second specified fishing agreement with Guam on that date. Preliminary data from PIFSC indicate that Hawaii longline vessels caught the entire 1,000-mt bigeye tuna allocation provided by the CNMI specified fishing agreement, but did not reach the 1,000 mt allocation limit provided by the Guam specified fishing agreement before the 2015 fishing year ended on December 31, 2015 (NMFS PIFSC unpublished data; Preliminary 2015 U.S. Part 1 annual report to the WCPFC).

    Through this action, Hawaii-based longline vessels could again potentially enter into one or more fishing agreements with participating territories. This would enhance the ability of these vessels to extend fishing effort in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and provide more bigeye tuna for markets in Hawaii. Providing opportunity to land bigeye tuna in Hawaii in the last quarter of the year when market demand is high will result in positive economic benefits for fishery participants and net benefits to the nation. Allowing participating territories to enter into specified fishing agreements under this action, provides benefits to the territories by providing funds for territorial fisheries development projects. In terms of the impacts of reducing the limits of bigeye tuna catch by longline vessels based in the territories from an unlimited amount to 2,000 mt, this is not likely to adversely affect vessels based in the territories.

    Historical catch of bigeye tuna by the American Samoa longline fleet has been less than 2,000 mt, even including the catch of vessels based in American Samoa, catch by dual permitted vessels that land their catch in Hawaii, and catch attributed to American Samoa from U.S. vessels under specified fishing agreements (which occurred in 2011 and 2012). With regard to Guam and CNMI, no longline fishing has occurred since 2011.

    Under the proposed action, longline fisheries managed under the Pelagic FEP are not expected to expand substantially nor change the manner in which they are currently conducted, (i.e., area fished, number of vessels longline fishing, number of trips taken per year, number of hooks set per vessel during a trip, depth of hooks, or deployment techniques in setting longline gear), due to existing operational constraints in the fleet, the limited entry permit programs, and protected species mitigation requirements. The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small organizations or government jurisdictions. Furthermore, there would be little, if any, disproportionate adverse economic impacts from the proposed rule based on gear type, or relative vessel size. The proposed rule also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities.

    For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    This action is exempt from review under the procedures of E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16013 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No.: 160225146-6146-01] RIN 0648-BF80 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Observer Coverage Requirements for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area Trawl Catcher Vessels AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is proposing regulations to modify observer coverage requirements for catcher vessels participating in the trawl limited access fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). If approved, this proposed rule would allow the owner of a trawl catcher vessel to request, on an annual basis, that NMFS place the vessel in the full observer coverage category for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI in the following calendar year. This action is necessary to relieve vessel owners who request full observer coverage of the reporting requirements and observer fee liability associated with the partial observer coverage category. In addition, this proposed rule makes minor technical corrections to observer program regulations. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP), and other applicable laws.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0020, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0020, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address; by email to [email protected]; or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alicia M Miller, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for Action

    NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the BSAI FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.). Regulations implementing the BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679.

    This proposed rule is consistent with Section 3.2.4.1 of the BSAI FMP. Section 3.2.4.1 requires observer coverage for trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI groundfish fisheries and describes which vessels and processors are in the full observer coverage category and which are in the partial observer coverage category. Section 3.2.4.1 also authorizes that exceptions to these classifications may be implemented through regulations. The Council recommended and NMFS concurs that this proposed rule would authorize an exception to allow the owner of a trawl catcher vessel in the partial observer coverage category to request placement in the full observer coverage category, and that this exception could be implemented through a regulatory amendment without the need to amend the BSAI FMP.

    Background

    If approved, this proposed rule would amend North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program (Observer Program) regulations to allow the owner of a trawl catcher vessel to request, on an annual basis, that NMFS place the vessel in the full observer coverage category for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI in the following calendar year. This proposed rule would relieve trawl catcher vessel owners who request full observer coverage of the observer fee liability and reporting requirements associated with the partial observer coverage category. This proposed rule would establish a regulatory process to allow a trawl catcher vessel owner, on an annual basis, to request that NMFS place the vessel in the full observer coverage category for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI in the following calendar year. This proposed rule is intended to provide flexibility to the owner of a trawl catcher vessel by allowing a vessel owner to request, on an annual basis, placement in the full observer coverage category; doing so would provide additional observer data. Implementation of this proposed rule would benefit the owners and operators of trawl catcher vessels that participate in the BSAI limited access fisheries while continuing to allow NMFS to collect the data necessary to conserve and manage the BSAI groundfish fisheries.

    The following sections describe (1) the Observer Program, (2) the need for the proposed action, and (3) this proposed rule.

    The Observer Program

    Regulations implementing the Observer Program require observer coverage on fishing vessels and at processing plants to allow NMFS-certified observers (observers) to obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the BSAI and Gulf of Alaska groundfish and halibut fisheries. Observers collect biological samples and fishery-dependent information on total catch and fishing vessel interactions with protected species. Managers use data collected by observers to monitor quotas, manage groundfish catch and bycatch, and document and reduce fishery interactions with protected resources. Scientists use observer-collected data for stock assessments and marine ecosystem research.

    The Observer Program was implemented in 1990 (55 FR 4839, February 12, 1990). In 2013, NMFS restructured the funding and deployment systems of the Observer Program (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). Under the restructured Observer Program, all vessels and processors in the groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska are placed into one of two categories: (1) The full observer coverage category, where vessels and processors obtain observer coverage by contracting directly with observer providers; and (2) the partial observer coverage category, where NMFS has the flexibility to deploy observers when and where they are needed, as described in the annual deployment plan that is developed by NMFS in consultation with the Council. As explained below, the deployment of observers in the partial observer coverage category is funded through a fee.

    NMFS funds observer deployment in the partial observer coverage category by assessing a 1.25 percent fee on the ex-vessel value of retained groundfish and halibut from vessels that are not in the full observer coverage category. This observer fee is based on the total ex-vessel value of landed catch and calculated using a standardized price from the prior year's landings. NMFS intends that the fee be split equally between the processor receiving landed catch and the vessel harvesting the catch. The processor collects the vessel owner's portion of the observer fee and submits full payment to NMFS after the end of the year. More information about the observer fee for the partial observer coverage category is provided in the most recent annual notice of the standard ex-vessel prices for the observer fee (80 FR 77606; December 15, 2015), and in the final rule implementing the restructured observer program (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012).

    When the Observer Program was restructured, the Council and NMFS decided, based on data needs and costs, which vessels and processors to place in the full and partial observer coverage categories. Regulations implementing the restructured observer program in 2013 placed all trawl catcher vessels in the full observer coverage category when participating in a catch share program with transferable prohibited species catch (PSC) limits (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). For trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI, the catch share programs with transferable PSC limits are the American Fisheries Act (AFA) pollock fisheries in the Bering Sea and the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) groundfish fisheries. All other trawl catcher vessels subject to observer coverage requirements in the BSAI are in the partial observer coverage category and participate in the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries.

    Throughout this proposed rule, the trawl fisheries in the BSAI that are not part of a catch share program mentioned in the previous paragraph are referred to collectively as “the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries”. Vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries primarily target Pacific cod or yellowfin sole. NMFS does not allocate transferable PSC limits to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries; therefore, trawl catcher vessels are placed in the partial observer coverage category when participating in these fisheries. The BSAI trawl limited access fisheries are managed with halibut and crab PSC limits that apply to the directed fishery as a whole or to operational category and gear type. Section 3.5 in the Analysis provides additional information about the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries, the Observer Program, and observer coverage categories.

    Need for the Proposed Action

    The Council initiated this proposed action in response to comments on the proposed rule to restructure the Observer Program (77 FR 23326, April 18, 2012), and testimony to the Council. As detailed in the final rule for the restructured program, (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012), some participants in the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries commented that their catcher vessels needed full (100 percent) observer coverage while directed fishing for Pacific cod. Full observer coverage, according to the participants, was necessary to comply with private contractual arrangements contained in their voluntary AFA agreements to manage halibut PSC at the vessel and cooperative level. Specifically, trawl catcher vessel owners expressed concern that if their vessels were placed in the partial observer coverage category and not randomly selected for observer coverage, a vessel owner would have to use halibut PSC rates extrapolated from other observed vessels for its halibut PSC accounting within the cooperative. Some vessel owners wanted the option to carry an observer on all fishing trips (i.e., full observer coverage) so that observer data from the vessel could be used to provide vessel-specific halibut PSC accounting.

    Participants in the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries also testified that allowing trawl catcher vessels to continue to carry an observer on all trips, as they had prior to Observer Program restructuring in 2013, would allow them to shift seamlessly between the AFA pollock trawl fishery where full observer coverage is required and other fisheries such as the BSAI Pacific cod limited access trawl fishery where only partial observer coverage is required. Participants in the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries testified that under the full observer coverage category requirements, a trawl catcher vessel owner could contract with the same observer provider in both the AFA pollock trawl and other BSAI trawl limited access fisheries. This operational efficiency would allow vessel owners and operators to coordinate with a single observer provider when moving between the AFA pollock fishery and the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries.

    In a response to these comments on the restructured program, NMFS stated that neither the Council's motion nor the proposed rule for restructuring the Observer Program addressed an allowance for voluntary participation in the full observer coverage category (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). Therefore, this type of change could not be made in the final rule for the Observer Program restructuring. NMFS described that further analysis and a subsequent rulemaking would be needed to revise regulations to authorize vessel owners to request placement in the full observer coverage category and to relieve these vessel owners and associated processors from the observer fee liability for landings by trawl catcher vessels in the partial observer coverage category. NMFS highlighted the need to analyze the placement of vessels in a particular coverage category not only in terms of the economic impacts on a vessel owner, but also in terms of impacts on the fee base for the partial observer coverage category.

    Since 2013, and with the concurrence of the Council, NMFS has allowed the owner of a BSAI trawl catcher vessels to request, on an annual basis, full observer coverage by submitting a letter of request to NMFS. Under this interim policy, a vessel owner could request, by December 1, to have a trawl catcher vessel comply with full observer coverage requirements in the following calendar year. Vessel owners then contract with a full coverage observer provider for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI in the following year.

    By regulation, catcher vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries are in the partial observer coverage category, and those landings are subject to the partial observer coverage fee liability as well as the requirement to log fishing trips in the Observer Declare and Deploy System (ODDS). ODDS is the internet-based communication platform that NMFS uses to receive information about fishing plans by vessels in the partial observer coverage category and to notify vessel owners if a fishing trip has been randomly selected for observer coverage. The owner and operator of a catcher vessel placed in the full observer coverage category are not required to log fishing trips in ODDS.

    Under the interim policy, the owner of a trawl catcher vessel complies with full observer coverage requirements, but is not placed in the full observer coverage category by regulation and therefore, is required to comply with the partial observer coverage category reporting requirements and associated observer fee liability. This results in duplicative observer coverage costs and additional reporting requirements for those vessel owners that requested full observer coverage under the interim policy.

    In February 2016, the Council unanimously recommended that NMFS revise regulations to allow the owner of a BSAI trawl catcher vessel in the partial observer coverage category to request, on an annual basis, that NMFS place the catcher vessel in the full observer coverage category for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI for the following year. Any trawl catcher vessel that NMFS did not place in the full observer coverage category would remain in the partial observer coverage category under existing regulations at §§ 679.50 and 679.51. Once NMFS notifies a catcher vessel owner that the catcher vessel has been placed in the full observer coverage category, the catcher vessel operator would then be subject to full observer coverage requirements described at § 679.51(a)(2) for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI in the following year.

    The rationale for the two major provisions of the proposed rule follows below. Alternatives, options, and suboptions considered but not selected by the Council are explained in more detail in the “Classification” section of this preamble.

    1. Annual Request for Full Observer Coverage

    This proposed rule would allow the owner of a trawl catcher vessel to annually request full observer coverage in lieu of partial observer coverage for directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI in the following year. This closely aligns with the interim policy, in place since 2013, under which NMFS allows the owner of a BSAI trawl catcher vessel to annually request full observer coverage for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI in the following year. This proposed rule would establish a regulatory process to allow the owner of a trawl catcher vessel to submit a request for full observer coverage to NMFS by October 15 of the year prior to the year in which the catcher vessel would be placed in the full observer coverage category. NMFS would then place the vessel in the full observer coverage category for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the following year. This annual request is consistent with the Council's and NMFS' previous decision to require full observer coverage on catcher vessels only in fisheries with transferable PSC limits. The owner of a trawl catcher vessel could request the appropriate observer coverage category that would meet their private contractual agreements.

    This proposed rule would not restrict which trawl catcher vessel owners could request full observer coverage, allowing the owner of any trawl catcher vessel to request full observer coverage for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI in the following year. The Council considered restricting the option to AFA trawl catcher vessels because those are the vessels that have, thus far, requested full observer coverage under the interim policy. However, the Analysis did not identify any reason to restrict which BSAI trawl catcher vessel owners may request to increase their observer coverage requirements (see Section 3.7.3 and Section 3.7.4 of the Analysis for additional detail).

    Section 3.7 of the Analysis describes the potential impact of the proposed rule on the costs of observer coverage, fee receipts, and observer deployment rates in the partial observer coverage category if NMFS approves trawl catcher vessel owners' requests and places the vessels in the full observer coverage category. Section 3.7 of the Analysis describes that this proposed rule could result in some cost savings and reduced administrative burden for trawl catcher vessel owners and operators, some slightly reduced fee receipts for the partial observer coverage category, and some potential for a limited decrease in observer deployment rates in the partial observer coverage category relative to current management. Observer deployment for vessels and processors in the partial observer coverage category will continue to be analyzed and evaluated in the Observer Program annual deployment plan and the Observer Program Annual Report.

    This proposed rule would not alter existing observer coverage requirements for trawl catcher vessels delivering unsorted codends to a mothership in the BSAI. A trawl catcher vessel delivering unsorted codends to a mothership is not required to carry an observer because the catch is not brought onboard the catcher vessel, but is sorted aboard the mothership with full observer coverage.

    2. Annual Deadline

    This proposed rule would establish an annual deadline of October 15 for a trawl catcher vessel owner to request placement in the full observer coverage category for the following year. This deadline is earlier than the current deadline of December 1 under the interim policy. The October 15 deadline is necessary to balance the need to improve information available to analysts during the final preparations of the partial observer coverage annual deployment plan with the need to allow vessel owners the time to make business decisions for the following year. The October 15 deadline also provides full coverage observer providers adequate time to coordinate observer availability for the following year. Sections 3.6 and 3.7.1.2 of the Analysis provide additional detail on the rationale for the October 15 deadline and describe alternative deadlines that were considered but not proposed.

    This Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would revise regulations at 50 CFR part 679 to establish a process to allow the owner of a trawl catcher vessel to request, on an annual basis, that NMFS place the vessel in the full observer coverage category for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI in the following calendar year. This proposed rule would add a paragraph at § 679.51(a)(2)(i)(C)(4) describing a new vessel type under the list of catcher vessels in the full observer coverage category to allow this annual request for placement in the full observer coverage category for one year. This proposed rule adds a new paragraph at § 679.51(a)(4) to describe the requirements for this annual process.

    The owner of a trawl catcher vessel that requests full observer coverage in lieu of partial observer coverage for all directed fishing for groundfish in the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries in the following year would submit a request to NMFS using ODDS, which is described at § 679.51(a)(1)(ii). Once a request is received, NMFS would consider the request and would notify the vessel owner whether the request has been approved or denied. This notification would occur through ODDS. Once NMFS has notified the vessel owner that a request to be placed in the full observer coverage category for the following year has been approved, the owner and operator of the trawl catcher vessel would be subject to full observer coverage requirements as described at § 679.51(a)(2) for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI in the following year. Once approved by NMFS for placement in the full observer coverage category, a trawl catcher vessel could not be placed in the partial observer coverage category until the next year. Until NMFS provides notification of approval, a catcher vessel would remain in the partial observer coverage category as described at § 679.51(a)(1)(i).

    The owner of a trawl catcher vessel placed in the full observer coverage category would contract directly with a permitted full coverage observer provider to procure observer services as described at § 679.51(d). The owner of a trawl catcher vessel in the full observer coverage category would not be required to log fishing trips in ODDS under § 679.51(a)(1), and landings made by a vessel in the full observer coverage category would not be subject to the 1.25 percent partial observer coverage fee under § 679.55.

    This proposed rule would establish an annual deadline of October 15 for a trawl catcher vessel owner to request that a trawl catcher vessel operating in the BSAI be placed in the full observer coverage category for the following year as described in proposed regulations at § 679.51(a)(4)(iii). A vessel owner would be required to submit a request for full observer coverage by the October 15 annual deadline. NMFS would approve all requests that contained the information required by ODDS and were submitted on or before October 15. If NMFS disapproves a request to place a catcher vessel in the full observer coverage category, the catcher vessel would remain in the partial observer coverage category as described at § 679.51(a)(1)(i).

    The proposed rule specifies at proposed § 679.51(a)(4)(v) that if NMFS denies a request for placement in the full observer coverage category, NMFS would issue an Initial Administrative Determination, which would explain in writing the reasons for the denial. Under proposed § 679.51(a)(3)(vi), the vessel owner could appeal a denial to the National Appeals Office according to the procedures in 15 CFR part 906.

    This proposed rule would make minor technical corrections to Observer Program regulations. This proposed rule would correct inaccurate cross references in §§ 679.84 and 679.93 to observer coverage requirements in § 679.51. This proposed rule would also standardize references to the observer sampling station and the Observer Sampling Manual throughout part 679, and update check-in/check-out report submission methods by removing a discontinued email address in § 679.5.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the BSAI FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A further description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are explained earlier in the preamble to this proposed rule. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows.

    This proposed rule would directly regulate the owners of trawl catcher vessels that participate in the BSAI groundfish limited access fisheries. The Small Business Administration has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the United States.

    For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

    This proposed rule would provide the owners of BSAI trawl catcher vessels that currently are placed in the partial observer coverage category the opportunity for placement in the full observer coverage category. One-hundred catcher vessels used trawl gear in the BSAI in 2014. NMFS estimates that 13 of these trawl catcher vessels would be directly regulated small entities. The owners of three of these catcher vessels requested to be placed in the full observer coverage category for all their BSAI groundfish fishing during at least one year from 2013 through 2015.

    This proposed rule proposes one new reporting requirement and eliminates one reporting requirement for a vessel owner who requests placement of their vessel in the full observer coverage category for a year. Any trawl catcher vessel owner who requests placement of their trawl catcher vessel in the full observer coverage category would be required to submit a request to NMFS. This request would be a new reporting requirement, and would only apply to those catcher vessel owners who request placement of their vessel in the full observer coverage category. The reporting requirement to log fishing trips in ODDS does not apply to vessels in the full observer coverage category; therefore, this proposed rule would remove a reporting requirement for these directly regulated small entities to log fishing trips in ODDS.

    The RFA requires identification of any significant alternatives to this proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives, consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. As noted in the IRFA, this proposed rule is expected to create a net benefit for the directly regulated small entities because it offers trawl catcher vessel owners an opportunity to change their observer coverage category. The benefits of this proposed rule to trawl catcher vessel owners are expected to outweigh the costs of paying for an observer to be on board the vessel during all groundfish fishing in the BSAI, and the cost of the annual request to NMFS. If the benefits to a catcher vessel owner do not outweigh the costs, a catcher vessel owner can choose not to request that their vessel be placed in the full observer coverage category, and so would not be impacted by this proposed rule.

    The Council considered the status quo (Alternative 1), and two action alternatives (Alternative 2 and Alternative 3). Alternative 3 included one option and three suboptions. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3 with Suboption 3) described in this proposed rule would provide the owners of BSAI trawl catcher vessels an option of requesting, on an annual basis, placement in the full observer coverage category rather than remaining in the partial observer coverage category. No new requirements would be imposed under the preferred alternative unless the catcher vessel owner requested the full observer coverage category. Of the action alternatives analyzed, the preferred alternative provides the most flexibility for the owner of a trawl catcher vessel to request full observer coverage in lieu of partial observer coverage.

    Alternative 1 (status quo) would have continued to offer catcher vessel owners the option of carrying full observer coverage under the interim policy, but would not remove the requirement in regulations for continued payment of the partial observer coverage fee in addition to the cost of full observer coverage. Alternative 2 is more restrictive than the preferred alternative because it would have permanently placed AFA trawl catcher vessels in the full observer coverage category rather than offering the vessel owners an option to request full observer coverage on an annual basis. Alternative 3 Option 1 would have allowed only the owners of AFA trawl catcher vessels to request placement in the full observer coverage category, rather than providing the opportunity to the owners of all BSAI trawl catcher vessels. Alternative 3 Suboption 1 would have established an earlier deadline to submit the request for full observer coverage than under the preferred alternative. Directly regulated small entities opposed the earlier deadline because they wanted more time to make business decisions about observer coverage in the following year. Alternative 3 Suboption 2 would have established a one-time request to be placed in the full observer coverage category rather than an annual request as is the case under the preferred alternative. In summary, the preferred alternative of Alternative 3, Suboption 3 (this proposed rule) offers the widest range of options to the widest range of directly regulated small entities, as compared to all other alternatives.

    No relevant Federal rules have been identified that would duplicate or overlap with the proposed action.

    Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval under OMB Control No. 0648-0318. The public reporting burden for Request for Full Observer Coverage Category is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

    Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES above, by email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

    2. In § 679.51: a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(C)(2) and (3); and b. Add paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(C)(4) and (a)(4).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 679.51 Observer requirements for vessels and plants.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (C) * * *

    (2) Using trawl gear or hook-and-line gear while groundfish CDQ fishing (see § 679.2), except for catcher vessels less than or equal to 46 ft LOA using hook-and-line gear while groundfish CDQ fishing under § 679.32(c)(3)(iii);

    (3) Participating in the Rockfish Program; or

    (4) Using trawl gear in the BSAI if the vessel has been placed in the full observer coverage category under paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

    (4) BSAI trawl catcher vessel placement in the full observer coverage category for one year—(i) Applicability. The owner of a catcher vessel in the partial observer coverage category under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section may request to be placed in the full observer coverage category for all directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear in the BSAI for a calendar year.

    (ii) How to request full observer coverage for one year. A trawl catcher vessel owner must complete a full observer coverage request and submit it to NMFS using ODDS. ODDS is described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

    (iii) Deadline. A full observer coverage request must be submitted by October 15 of the year prior to the calendar year in which the catcher vessel would be placed in the full observer coverage category.

    (iv) Notification. NMFS will notify the vessel owner through ODDS of approval or denial to place a trawl catcher vessel in the full observer coverage category. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a trawl catcher vessel remains in the partial observer coverage category under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section until a request to place a trawl catcher vessel in the full observer coverage category has been approved by NMFS. Once placement in the full observer coverage category is approved by NMFS, a trawl catcher vessel cannot be placed in the partial observer coverage category until the following year.

    (v) Initial Administrative Determination (IAD). If NMFS denies a request to place a trawl catcher vessel in the full observer coverage category, NMFS will provide an IAD, which will explain the basis for the denial.

    (vi) Appeal. If the owner of a trawl catcher vessel wishes to appeal NMFS' denial of a request to place a trawl catcher vessel in the full observer coverage category, the owner may appeal the determination under the appeals procedure set out at 15 CFR part 906.

    §§ 679.5, 679.21, 679.28, 679.52, 679.53, 679.84, and 679.93 [Amended]
    3. At each of the locations shown in the “Location” column, remove the phrase indicated in the “Remove” column and add in its place the phrase indicated in the “Add” column. Location Remove Add § 679.5(h)(1) , or by e-mail to [email protected] . § 679.21(c)(2)(i)(D) observer sample station observer sampling station § 679.28(d)(9)(ii) observer sample station observer sampling station § 679.52(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2) observer manual Observer Sampling Manual § 679.52(b)(2)(i) Observer Manual Observer Sampling Manual § 679.52(b)(11)(x)(A)(4) observer manual Observer Sampling Manual § 679.53(b)(2)(i) Observer Manual Observer Sampling Manual § 679.84(c)(3) § 679.50(c)(7)(i) § 679.51(a)(2) § 679.84(e) § 679.50(c)(7)(ii) § 679.51(a)(2) § 679.84(f)(1) § 679.50(c)(7)(ii) § 679.51(a)(2) § 679.84(f)(2) § 679.50(c)(7)(ii) § 679.51(a)(2) § 679.93(c)(3) § 679.50(c)(6) § 679.51(a)(2) § 679.93(c)(6) observer sample station observer sampling station § 679.93(d)(2) § 679.50(c)(6)(ii) § 679.51(a)(2)
    [FR Doc. 2016-15912 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 130 Thursday, July 7, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreign Agricultural Service Notice of a Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this notice announces the Foreign Agricultural Service's intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the regulation providing for the issuance of certificates of quota eligibility (CQEs) required to enter sugar and sugar-containing products under the tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) into the United States.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by no later than September 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments as requested in this document. In your comment, include the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) and volume, date, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail, hand delivery, or courier: William Janis, International Economist, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1021, STOP 1021; or by email at [email protected]; or by telephone at (202) 720-2194; or fax to (202) 720-0876.

    Comments will be available for inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov and at the mail address listed above between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.

    Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Janis, International Economist, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, AgStop 1021, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1021 or telephone (202) 720-2194, fax to (202) 720-0876, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Certificates for Quota Eligibility.

    OMB Number: 0551-0014.

    Expiration Date of Approval: March 31, 2017.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Additional U.S. note 5 to Chapter 17 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), established by Presidential Proclamation 6763 of December 1994, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish for each fiscal year the quantity of sugars and syrups that may be entered at the lower tariff rates of TRQs. This authority was proclaimed by the President to implement the results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations as reflected in the provisions of Schedule XX (United States), annexed to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under various free trade agreements (FTAs), the United States has agreed to require CQEs for the entry into U.S. customs territory of sugar and sugar-containing products. The authority for requiring these certificates is the Implementation Acts for the U.S.-Colombia and U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreements set forth under 19 U.S.C. 3805.

    The terms under which Certificates for Quota Eligibility (CQEs) will be issued to foreign countries that have been allocated a share of the WTO or have an allocation under a FTA TRQ are set forth in 15 CFR part 2011, Allocation of Tariff-Rate Quota on Imported Sugars, Syrups, and Molasses, Subpart A—Certificates of Quota. This regulation provides for the issuance of CQEs by the Secretary of Agriculture and in general prohibits sugar subject to the above-mentioned TRQs from being imported into the United States or withdrawn from a warehouse for consumption at the in-quota duty rates unless such sugar is accompanied by a valid CQE.

    CQEs are distributed to foreign countries by the Director of the Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agriculture Service, or his or her designee. The distribution of CQEs is in such amounts and at such times as the Director determines are appropriate to enable the foreign country to fill its quota allocation for such quota period in a reasonable manner, taking into account harvesting periods, U.S. import requirements, and other relevant factors. The information required to be collected on the CQE is used to monitor and control the imports of products subject to the WTO and FTA sugar TRQs. A valid CQE, duly executed and issued by the Certifying Authority of the foreign country, is required for eligibility to enter the products into U.S. customs territory under the TRQs.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for the collection directly varies with the number of CQEs issued.

    Respondents: Foreign governments.

    Estimated number of WTO respondents: 40.

    Estimated number of FTA respondents: 2.

    Estimated number of responses per respondent: 30 per fiscal year.

    Estimated total annual reporting burden: 210 hours.

    Requests for comments: Send comments regarding (a) Whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Copies of this information collection may be obtained from Connie Ehrhart, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 690-1578.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments also will become a matter of public record.

    FAS is committed to complying with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act which requires Government agencies, to the maximum extent feasible, to provide the public the option of electronically submitting information collection. CQEs permit exporters to ship raw cane sugar to the United States at the U.S. sugar price, which is ordinarily higher than the world sugar price. Therefore, in contrast to most information collection documents, CQEs have a monetary value equivalent to the substantial benefits to exporters. CQEs have always been carefully handled as secure documents and distributed only to foreign government-approved Certifying Authorities.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 21, 2016. Philip C. Karsting, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16047 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreign Agricultural Service Notice of a Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this notice announces the Department's intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the Export Sales Reporting program.

    DATES:

    Comments should be submitted no later than September 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments as requested in this document. In your comment, include the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) and volume, date, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail, hand delivery, or courier: Peter W. Burr, Branch Chief, Export Sales Reporting Branch, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1021, STOP 1021; or by email at [email protected]; or by telephone at (202) 720-3274; or fax to (202) 720-0876.

    Comments will be available for inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov and at the mail address listed above between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.

    Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Confidentiality: All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or that is inappropriate for public disclosure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter W. Burr, Branch Chief, Export Sales Reporting, STOP 1025, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1025; or by telephone (202) 720-9209; or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Export Sales (Reporting Program) of U.S. Agricultural Commodities.

    OMB Number: 0551-0007.

    Expiration Date of Approval: June 20, 2017.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Section 602 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 5712) requires the reporting of information pertaining to contracts for export sale of certain specified agricultural commodities and other commodities that may be designated by the Secretary. In accordance with Sec. 602, individual weekly reports submitted shall remain confidential and shall be compiled and published in compilation form each week following the week of reporting. Any person who knowingly fails to report shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both. Regulations at 7 CFR part 20 implement the reporting requirements, and prescribe a system for reporting information pertaining to contracts for export sales.

    USDA's Export Sales Reporting System was created after the large unexpected purchase of U.S. wheat and corn by the Soviet Union in 1972. To make sure that all parties involved in the production and export of U.S. grain have access to up-to-date export information, the U.S. Congress mandated an export sales reporting requirement in 1973. Prior to the establishment of the Export Sales Reporting System, it was difficult for the public to obtain information on export sales activity until the actual shipments had taken place. This frequently resulted in considerable delay in the availability of information.

    Under the Export Sales Reporting System, U.S. exporters are required to report all large sales of certain designated commodities by 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the next business day after the sale is made. The designated commodities for these daily reports are wheat (by class), barley, corn, grain sorghum, oats, soybeans, soybean cake and meal, and soybean oil. Large sales for all reportable commodities except soybean oil are defined as 100,000 metric tons or more of one commodity in 1 day to a single destination or 200,000 tons or more of one commodity during the weekly reporting period. Large sales for soybean oil are 20,000 tons and 40,000 tons, respectively.

    Weekly reports are also required, regardless of the size of the sales transaction, for all of these commodities, as well as wheat products, rye, flaxseed, linseed oil, sunflowerseed oil, cotton (by staple length), cottonseed, cottonseed cake and meal, cottonseed oil, rice (by class), cattle hides and skins (cattle, calf, and kip), beef and pork. The reporting week for the export sales reporting system is Friday-Thursday. The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to add other commodities to this list.

    U.S. exporters provide information on the quantity of their sales transactions, the type and class of commodity, the marketing year of shipment, and the destination. They also report any changes in previously reported information, such as cancellations and changes in destinations.

    The estimated total annual burden of 47,907 hours in the OMB inventory for the currently approved information collection remains unchanged.

    Estimate of Burden: The average burden, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering data needed, completing forms, and record keeping is estimated to be 30 minutes.

    Respondents: All exporters of wheat and wheat flour, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, cattle hides and skins, beef, pork, and any products thereof, and other commodities that the Secretary may designate as produced in the United States.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 380.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 252.

    Requests for Comments: Send comments regarding (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Government Paperwork Elimination Act: FAS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 21, 2016. Philip C. Karsting, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16048 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Yreka, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Meeting_Page?id=a2zt00000004CyPAAU.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held July 18, 2016, at 5:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Klamath National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, Conference Room, 1711 South Main Street, Yreka, California.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Klamath NF Supervior's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Natalie Stovall, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 530-841-4411 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Approve prior meeting notes,

    2. Update on ongoing projects,

    3. Public comment period,

    4. Review meeting schedule,

    5. Proposal reviews,

    6. Vote on proposals, and

    7. Schedule meeting for August.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments may be sent to Natalie Stovall, RAC Coordinator, 1711 S. Main Street, Yreka, California 96097; by email to [email protected] or via facsimile to 530-841-4571.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: June 27, 2016. Patricia A. Gratham, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16084 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with May anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with May anniversary dates.

    All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

    Notice of No Sales

    If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

    1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Respondent Selection—Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), the Department intends to select respondents based on volume data contained in responses to Q&V questionnaires. Further, the Department intends to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued in the review based on CBP data for U.S. imports of aluminum extrusions from the PRC. The extremely wide variety of individual types of aluminum extrusion products included in the scope of the order on aluminum extrusions would preclude meaningful results in attempting to determine the largest PRC exporters of subject merchandise by volume. Therefore, the Department will limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued based on the import values in CBP data which will serve as a proxy for imported quantities. Parties subject to the review to which the Department does not send a Q&V questionnaire may file a response to the Q&V questionnaire by the applicable deadline if they desire to be included in the pool of companies from which the Department will select mandatory respondents. The Q&V questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The responses to the Q&V questionnaire must be received by the Department within 14 days of publication of this notice. Please be advised that due to the time constraints imposed by the statutory and regulatory deadlines for antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Department does not intend to grant any extensions for the submission of responses to the Q&V questionnaire. Parties will be given the opportunity to comment on the CBP data used by the Department to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued. We intend to release the CBP data under APO to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Department invites comments regarding CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

    All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    2 Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.

    3 Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.

    For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

    Initiation of Reviews:

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than May 31, 2017.

    Period to be reviewed Antidumping Duty Proceedings CANADA: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salt A-122-853 5/1/15-4/30/16 Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc. INDIA: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes A-533-502 5/1/15-4/30/16 Lloyds Metals & Engineers Limited and Lloyds Line Pipe Ltd. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Jindal Pipes Limited Maharashtra Seamless Limited Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd. Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. JAPAN: Diffusion-Annealed Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products A-588-869 5/1/15-4/30/16 Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metals Corporation Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber A-580-839 5/1/15-4/30/16 Huvis Corporation TAIWAN: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes A-583-008 5/1/15-4/30/16 Shin Yang Steel Co., Ltd. Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. TAIWAN: Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents A-583-848 5/1/15-4/30/16 Teh Fong Min International Co., Ltd. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Aluminum Extrusions A-570-967 5/1/15-4/30/16 Acro Import and Export Co. Activa International Inc. Allied Maker Limited Alnan Aluminim Co., Ltd. Aluminicaste Fundicion de Mexico AMC Ltd. Atlas Integrated Manufacturing Ltd. Belton (Asia) Development Ltd. Birchwoods (Lin'an) Leisure Products Co., Ltd. Bolnar Hong Kong Ltd. Bracalente Metal Products (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd. Changzhou Changzheng Evaporator Co., Ltd. Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co., Ltd. China Square China Square Industrial Co. China Zhongwang Holdings, Ltd. Chiping One Stop Industrial & Trade Co., Ltd. Classic & Contemporary Inc. Clear Sky Inc. Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd. Dalian Huacheng Aquatic Products Dalian Liwang Trade Co., Ltd. Danfoss Micro Channel Heat Exchanger (Jia Xing) Co., Ltd. Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd. Dongguan Dazhan Metal Co., Ltd. Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. Dragonluxe Limited Dynabright Int'l Group (HK) Limited Dynamic Technologies China Ltd. Ever Extend Ent. Ltd. Fenghua Metal Product Factory First Union Property Limited FookShing Metal & Plastic Co. Ltd. Foreign Trade Co. of Suzhou New & High-Tech Industrial Development Zone Foshan City Nanhai Hongjia Aluminum Alloy Co., Ltd. Foshan Golden Source Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd Foshan Jinlan Aluminum Co. Ltd. Foshan JMA Aluminum Company Limited Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd. Foshan Shunde Aoneng Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd Foshan Yong Li Jian Aluminum Co., Ltd. Fujian Sanchuan Aluminum Co., Ltd. Fuzhou Sunmodo New Energy Equipment Genimex Shanghai, Ltd. Global PMX Dongguan Co., Ltd. Global Point Technology (Far East) Limited Gold Mountain International Development Limited Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc. Gran Cabrio Capital Pte. Ltd. Gree Electric Appliances GT88 Capital Pte. Ltd. Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd. Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd. Guangdong Jianmei Aluminum Profile Company Limited Guangdong JMA Aluminum Profile Factory (Group) Co., Ltd. Guangdong Nanhai Foodstuffs Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Guangdong Weiye Aluminum Factory Co., Ltd. Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Ltd. Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. Guangdong Yonglijian Aluminum Co., Ltd. Guangdong Zhongya Aluminum Company Limited Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., Ltd. Guangzhou Mingcan Die-Casting Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Hangzhou Xingyi Metal Products Co., Ltd. Hanwood Enterprises Limited Hanyung Alcoba Co., Ltd. Hanyung Alcobis Co., Ltd. Hanyung Metal (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. Hao Mei Aluminum Co., Ltd. Hao Mei Aluminum International Co., Ltd. Hebei Xusen Wire Mesh Products Co., Ltd. Henan New Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliances Sales Limited Hong Kong Modern Non-Ferrous Metal Honsense Development Company Hui Mei Gao Aluminum Foshan Co., Ltd. IDEX Dinglee Technology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. IDEX Technology Suzhou Co., Ltd. IDEX Health Innovative Aluminium (Hong Kong) Limited iSource Asia Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd. Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. Jiangmen Jianghai District Foreign Economic Enterprise Corp. Ltd. Jiangmen Jianghai Foreign Ent. Gen. Jiangmen Qunxing Hardware Diecasting Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Changfa Refrigeration Co., Ltd. Jiangyin Suncitygaylin Jiangyin Trust International Inc. Jiangyin Xinhong Doors and Windows Co., Ltd. Jiaxing Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd. Jiaxing Taixin Metal Products Co., Ltd. Jiuyan Co., Ltd. JMA (HK) Company Limited Justhere Co., Ltd. Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn. Bhd. Kanal Precision Aluminum Product Co., Ltd Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. Kong Ah International Company Limited Kromet International, Inc. Kunshan Giant Light Metal Technology Co., Ltd. Liaoning Zhongwang Group Co., Ltd. Liaoyang Zhongwang Aluminum Profile Co. Ltd. Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd. Metaltek Group Co., Ltd. Metaltek Metal Industry Co., Ltd. Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd. Midea International Trading Co., Ltd. Midea International Training Co., Ltd. Miland Luck Limited Nanhai Textiles Import & Export Co., Ltd. New Asia Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. New Zhongya Aluminum Factory Nidec Sankyo (Zhejang) Corporation Nidec Sankyo Singapore Pte. Ltd. Ningbo Coaster International Co., Ltd. Ningbo Hi Tech Reliable Manufacturing Company Ningbo Ivy Daily Commodity Co., Ltd. Ningbo Yili Import and Export Co., Ltd. North China Aluminum Co., Ltd. North Fenghua Aluminum Ltd. Northern States Metals PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited Pengcheng Aluminum Enterprise Inc. Permasteelisa Hong Kong Limited Permasteelisa South China Factory Pingguo Aluminum Company Limited Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd. Popular Plastics Co., Ltd. Press Metal International Ltd. Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd. Sanchuan Aluminum Co., Ltd. Shangdong Huasheng Pesticide Machinery Co. Shangdong Nanshan Aluminum Co., Ltd. Shanghai Automobile Air Conditioner Accessories Ltd. Shanghai Canghai Aluminum Tube Packaging Co., Ltd Shanghai Dongsheng Metal Shanghai Shen Hang Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. Shanghai Tongtai Precise Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co. Ltd. Shenzhen Hudson Technology Development Co. Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. Sihui Shi Guo Yao Aluminum Co., Ltd. Sincere Profit Limited Skyline Exhibit Systems (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Southwest Aluminum (Group) Co., Ltd. Suzhou JRP Import & Export Co., Ltd. Suzhou New Hongji Precision Part Co. Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd. Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. Taizhou Lifeng Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Taizhou Lifeng Manufacturing Corporation, Ltd. Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Tianjin Ganglv Nonferrous Metal Materials Co., Ltd. Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd. Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology, Ltd. Tianjin Xiandai Plastic & Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. Tiazhou Lifeng Manufacturing Corporation Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd. Traffic Brick Network, LLC Union Aluminum (SIP) Co. Union Industry (Asia) Co., Ltd. USA Worldwide Door Components (PINGHU) Co., Ltd. Wenzhou Shengbo Decoration & Hardware Whirlpool (Guangdong) Whirlpool Canada L.P. Whirlpool Microwave Products Development Ltd. WTI Building Products, Ltd. Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. Yuyao Fanshun Import & Export Co., Ltd. Yuyao Haoshen Import & Export Zahoqing China Square Industry Limited Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Company Ltd. Zhaoqing China Square Industrial Ltd. Zhaoqing China Square Industry Limited Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang Aluminum Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Zhengte Group Co., Ltd. Zhenjiang Xinlong Group Co., Ltd. Zhongshan Daya Hardware Co., Ltd. Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd. Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited Zhuhai Runxingtai Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Certain Steel Threaded Rod 4 A-570-932 4/1/15-3/31/16 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salt A-570-937 5/1/15-4/30/16 Anhui BBCA International Co., Ltd. BCH Chemical International Limited China Chem Source (HK) Co., Ltd. COFCO Biochemical AnHui Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Guoxin Union Energy Co., Ltd. Kaifeng Chemical Co., Ltd. Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd. Niran (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Niran Biochemical Limited Qingdao Chongzhi International Qingdao Samin Chemical Co., Ltd. RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. RZBC Co., Ltd. Shanghai Fenhe International Co., Ltd. Sunshine Biotech International Co., Ltd. Tianjin Kaifeng Chemical Co., Ltd. TTCA Co., Ltd. Weifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd. Yixing-Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Pure Magnesium A-570-832 5/1/15-4/30/16 Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (“TMI”) Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd. (“TMM”) TURKEY: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes A-489-501 5/1/15-4/30/16 Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari San ve Tic. Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. Borusan Gemlik Boru Tesisleri A.S. Borusan Iharcat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S. Borusan Ithicat ve Dagitim A.S. Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S. Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S. Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. Caryirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. TURKEY: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube A-489-815 5/1/15-4/30/16 Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S. Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S. Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Cinar Boru Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Agir Haddecilik A.S. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Certain Steel Nails A-520-804 5/1/15-4/30/16 ABF Freight International Private LTD 5 Consolidated Shipping Services LLC International Maritime & Aviation International Maritime & Aviation LLC Ivk Manuport Logistics LLC Kuehne + Nagel LLC 6 Oman Fasteners LLC Overseas Distrubution Services Inc. Overseas International Steel Ind. LLC Overseas International Steel Industry LLC Countervailing Duty Proceedings THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Aluminum Extrusions C-570-968 1/1/15-12/31/15 Acro Import and Export Co. Activa International Inc. Allied Maker Limited Alnan Aluminum Co., Ltd. Aluminicaste Fundicion de Mexico AMC Ltd. Atlas Integrated Manufacturing Ltd. Belton (Asia) Development Ltd. Birchwoods (Lin'an) Leisure Products Co., Ltd. Bolnar Hong Kong Ltd. Bracalente Metal Products (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. Changshu Changshen Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. Changzhou Changzhen Evaporator Co., Ltd. Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co., Ltd. China Square China Square Industrial Co. China Zhongwang Holdings, Ltd. Chiping One Stop Industrial & Trade Co., Ltd. Classic & Contemporary Inc. Clear Sky Inc. Cosco (J.M.) Aluminum Co., Ltd. Dalian Huacheng Aquatic Products Dalian Liwang Trade Co., Ltd. Danfoss Micro Channel Heat Exchanger (Jia Xing) Co., Ltd. Daya Hardware Co., LTD Dongguan Dazhan Metal Co., Ltd. Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. Dongguang Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd. Dragonluxe Limited Dynabright International Group (HK) Ltd. Dynamic Technologies China ETLA Technology (Wuxi) Co., Ltd. Ever Extend Ent. Ltd. Fenghua Metal Product Factory First Union Property Limited FookShing Metal & Plastic Co. Ltd. Foreign Trade Co. of Suzhou New & High-Tech Industrial Development Zone Foshan City Nanhai Hongjia Aluminum Alloy Co., Ltd. Foshan Golden Source Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd Foshan Jinlan Aluminum Co. Ltd. Foshan JMA Aluminum Company Limited Foshan Shanshui Fenglu Aluminum Co., Ltd. Foshan Shunde Aoneng Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd Foshan Yong Li Jian Aluminum Co., Ltd. Fujian Sanchuan Aluminum Co., Ltd. Fuzhou Sunmodo New Energy Equipment Genimex Shanghai, Ltd. Global Hi-Tek Precision Limited Global PMX Dongguan Co., Ltd. Global Point Technology (Far East) Limited Gold Mountain International Development, Ltd. Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc. Gran Cabrio Capital Pte. Ltd. Gree Electric Appliances GT88 Capital Pte. Ltd. Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (HK) Ltd. Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd. Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd. Guangdong Jianmei Aluminum Profile Company Limited Guangdong JMA Aluminum Profile Factory (Group) Co., Ltd. Guangdong Nanhai Foodstuffs Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Guangdong Weiye Aluminum Factory Co., Ltd. Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. Guangdong Xingfa Aluminum Co., Ltd. Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. Guangdong Yonglijian Aluminum Co., Ltd. Guangdong Zhongya Aluminum Company Limited Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., Ltd. Guangzhou Mingcan Die-Casting Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Hangzhou Xingyi Metal Products Co., Ltd. Hanwood Enterprises Limited Hanyung Alcoba Co., Ltd. Hanyung Alcobis Co., Ltd. Hanyung Metal (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. Hao Mei Aluminum Co., Ltd. Hao Mei Aluminum International Co., Ltd. Hebei Xusen Wire Mesh Products Co., Ltd. Henan New Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliances Sales Limited Hong Kong Modern Non-Ferrous Metal Honsense Development Company Hui Mei Gao Aluminum Foshan Co., Ltd. IDEX Dinglee Technology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. IDEX Technology Suzhou Co., Ltd. IDEX Health Innovative Aluminum (Hong Kong) Limited iSource Asia Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd. Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. Jiangmen Jianghai District Foreign Economic Enterprise Corp. Ltd. Jiangmen Jianghai Foreign Ent. Gen. Jiangmen Qunxing Hardware Diecasting Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Changfa Refrigeration Co. Jiangsu Zhenhexiang New Material Technology Co., Ltd. Jiangyin Suncitygaylin Jiangyin Trust International Inc. Jiangyin Xinhong Doors and Windows Co., Ltd. Jiaxing Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd. Jiaxing Taixin Metal Products Co., Ltd. Jiuyan Co., Ltd. JMA (HK) Company Limited Johnson Precision Engineering (Suzhou) Co Ltd Justhere Co., Ltd. Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn. Bhd. Kanal Precision Aluminum Product Co., Ltd Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd. Kong Ah International Company Limited Kromet International Inc. Kunshan Giant Light Metal Technology Co., Ltd. Liaoning Zhongwang Group Co., Ltd. Liaoyang Zhongwang Aluminum Profile Co. Ltd. Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd. Metaltek Group Co., Ltd. Metaltek Metal Industry Co., Ltd. Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd. Midea International Trading Co., Ltd. Midea International Training Co., Ltd. Miland Luck Limited Nanhai Textiles Import & Export Co., Ltd. New Asia Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. New Zhongya Aluminum Factory Nidec Sankyo (Zhejang) Corporation Nidec Sankyo Singapore Pte. Ltd. Ningbo Coaster International Co., Ltd. Ningbo Haina Machine Co., Ltd. Ningbo Hi Tech Reliable Manufacturing Company Ningbo Innopower Tengda Machinery Co., Ltd. Ningbo Ivy Daily Commodity Co., Ltd. Ningbo Yili Import and Export Co., Ltd. Ningbo Yinzhou Sanhua Electric Machine Factory North China Aluminum Co., Ltd. North Fenghua Aluminum Ltd. Northern States Metals PanAsia Aluminum (China) Limited Pengcheng Aluminum Enterprise Inc. Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd. Permasteelisa South China Factory Pingguo Aluminum Company Limited Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd. Popular Plastics Company Ltd. Precision Metal Works LTD. Press Metal International Ltd. Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd. Sanchuan Aluminum Co., Ltd. Shangdong Huasheng Pesticide Machinery Co. Shangdong Nanshan Aluminum Co., Ltd. Shanghai Automobile Air Conditioner Accessories Ltd. Shanghai Canghai Aluminum Tube Packaging Co., Ltd Shanghai Dongsheng Metal Shanghai Shen Hang Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. Shanghai Tongtai Precise Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. Ltd. Shenzhen Hudson Technology Development Co. Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd. Sihui Shi Guo Yao Aluminum Co., Ltd. Sincere Profit Limited Skyline Exhibit Systems (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. Southwest Aluminum (Group) Co., Ltd. Summit Heat Sinks Metal Co., Ltd. Suzhou JRP Import & Export Co., Ltd. Suzhou New Hongji Precision Part Co. Suzhou New Hongji Precision Parts Co Ltd Tai-Ao Aluminum (Taishan) Co. Ltd. Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. Taizhou Lifeng Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Taizhou Lifeng Manufacturing Corporation, Ltd. Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Tianjin Ganglv Nonferrous Metal Materials Co., Ltd. Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd. Tianjin Ruxin Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd. Tianjin Xiandai Plastic & Aluminum Products Co., Ltd. Tiazhou Lifeng Manufacturing Corporation Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd. Traffic Brick Network, LLC Union Aluminum (SIP) Co. Union Industry (Asia) Co., Ltd. USA Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd. Wenzhou Shengbo Decoration & Hardware Whirlpool (Guangdong) Whirlpool Canada L.P. Whirlpool Microwave Products Development Ltd. WTI Building Products, Ltd. Wuxi Huida Aluminum Co., Ltd. Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd. Yuyao Fanshun Import & Export Co., Ltd. Yuyao Haoshen Import & Export Zahoqing China Square Industry Limited Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Company Ltd. Zhaoqing China Square Industrial Ltd. Zhaoqing China Square Industry Limited Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang Aluminum Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminum Industry Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Zhengte Group Co., Ltd. Zhenjiang Xinlong Group Co., Ltd. Zhongshan Daya Hardware Co., Ltd. Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminum Factory Ltd. Zhongya Shaped Aluminum (HK) Holding Limited Zhuhai Runxingtai Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts C-570-938 1/1/15-12/31/15 Anhui BBCA International Co., Ltd. BCH Chemical International Limited China Chem Source (HK) Co., Ltd. COFCO Biochemical AnHui Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Guoxin Union Energy Co., Ltd. Kaifeng Chemical Co., Ltd. Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd. Niran (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Niran Biochemical Limited Qingdao Chongzhi International Qingdao Samin Chemical Co., Ltd. RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. RZBC Co., Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. RZBC Co., Ltd. Shanghai Fenhe International Co., Ltd. Sunshine Biotech International Co., Ltd. Tianjin Kaifeng Chemical Co., Ltd. TTCA Co., Ltd. Weifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd. Yixing-Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. Suspension Agreements

    None.

    4 In the initiation notice that published on June 6, 2016 (81 FR 36268) the POR for the above referenced case was incorrect. The period listed above is the correct POR for this case. The companies under review are those identified in the June 6, 2016 Federal Register Notice.

    5 The request for review covers ABF Freight International Private LTD located in India and the United Arab Emirates.

    6 The request for review covers Kuehne + Nagel LLC located in the Sultanate of Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

    Duty Absorption Reviews

    During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

    Gap Period Liquidation

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

    Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.7 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.8 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    7See section 782(b) of the Act.

    8See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: June 29, 2016. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16145 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-602, A-588-602, A-583-605, A-549-807, A-570-814] Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Brazil, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on carbon butt-weld pipe fittings (BWPF) from Brazil, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2312.

    Background

    On March 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the third sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on BWPF from Brazil, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).1 On March 7, 2015, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate in these reviews from Tube Forgings of America, Inc. (TFA), Mills Iron Works, Inc. (MIW), and Hackney Ladish, Inc. (a subsidiary of Precision Castparts Corp.) (HL), domestic interested parties, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). On March 9, 2015, the Department also received a Notice of Intent to Participate in these reviews from Weldbend Corporation (Weldbend), a domestic interested party, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). TFA, MIW, HL, and Weldbend all claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of a domestic like product in the United States.

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 81 FR 10578 (March 1, 2016).

    On March 31, 2016, we received complete substantive responses for each review from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties with respect to any of the orders covered by these sunset reviews, nor was a hearing requested. On May 9, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(e), TFA, MIW, and HL filed comments on the adequacy of responses in these sunset reviews. Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is conducting expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these orders.

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by the orders consists of certain carbon steel butt-weld type fittings, other than couplings, under 14 inches in diameter, whether finished or unfinished. These imports are currently classified under subheading 7307.93.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.2

    2 A full description of the scope of the orders is contained in the memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Brazil, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and the People's Republic of China” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with these results and hereby adopted by this notice. The scope language varies slightly amongst the countries due to the fact the investigations and subsequent orders for the PRC and Thailand occurred after the investigations for the other three countries. Additionally, the scope language for Taiwan includes a reference to a scope decision.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in these reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked, are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Final Results of Sunset Reviews

    Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1), (2) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on BWPF from Brazil, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping up to the following weighted-average margin percentages:

    Country Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Brazil 52.25 Japan 65.81 Taiwan 87.30 Thailand 52.60 The PRC 182.90
    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Orders IV. History of the Orders V. Legal Framework VI. Discussion of the Issues 1. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping 2. Magnitude of the Margins Likely To Prevail VII. Final Results of Sunset Reviews VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-16059 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee Public Meeting AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, DOC.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC).

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 26, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Global Room at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), 733 10th Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Maureen Hinman, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-0627; Fax: 202-482-5665; email: [email protected]) This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to OEEI at (202) 482-5225 no less than one week prior to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will take place from 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. EDT. The general meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment from 1:30-2:00 p.m. EDT. Those interested in attending must provide notification by Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. EDT, via the contact information provided above. Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.

    Topics to be considered: The agenda for this meeting will include a joint ETTAC-ETWG discussion wherein executives of the U.S. interagency Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee's (TPCC) Environmental Trade Working Group (ETWG) will receive and provide feedback on the ETTAC's recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce and the ETWG.

    Background: The ETTAC is mandated by Public Law 103-392. It was created to advise the U.S. government on environmental trade policies and programs, and to help it to focus its resources on increasing the exports of the U.S. environmental industry. ETTAC operates as an advisory committee to the Secretary of Commerce and the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC). ETTAC was originally chartered in May of 1994.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Man Cho, Deputy Office Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16087 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Cyber Security Trade Mission to Turkey ACTION:

    Supplemental notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, is amending the Notice published at 80 FR 76670 (December 10, 2015), regarding the Information and Communication Technology Trade Mission to Turkey, scheduled for November 28-December 1, 2016, to amend the title, dates, and deadline for submitting applications for the event.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Amendments to Revise the Event Title and Dates.

    Background

    Due to the U.S. holidays around the original dates of the mission, it has been determined that to allow for optimal execution of recruitment and event scheduling for the mission, the title of the mission was amended from “Information and Communication Technology Trade Mission” to “Cyber Security Trade Mission,” and the dates of the mission modified from November 28-December 1, 2016, to December 5-8, 2016. As a result of the shift of the event dates the date of the application deadline is revised from September 6, 2016 to the new deadline of September 16, 2016. Applications will now be accepted through September 16, 2016 (and after that date if space remains and scheduling constraints permit). Interested U.S. companies and trade associations/organizations providing cyber security products and services which have not already submitted an application are encouraged to do so.

    The proposed schedule is updated as follows:

    Sunday Dec. 4 • Trade Mission Participants Arrive in Istanbul. • Visit the city (Optional). • Mission Welcome Meet-up. Monday Dec. 5 • Welcome to Istanbul and Country Briefing (Turkey). • One-on-One business matchmaking appointments. • Networking Lunch. • One-on-One business matchmaking appointments. • Networking Reception (TBC). Tuesday Dec. 6 • One-on-One business matchmaking appointments. • Networking Lunch. • Travel to Ankara. Wednesday Dec. 7 • Welcome to Ankara. • One-on-One business matchmaking appointments. • Networking Lunch. • One-on-One business matchmaking appointments. • Networking Reception. Thursday Dec. 8 • Ministry Meetings. • Networking Lunch. • More meetings. • Trade Mission Ends.

    The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis in accordance with the Notice published at 80 FR 76670 (December 10, 2015). The applicants selected will be notified as soon as possible.

    Contact Information

    Gemal Brangman, Team Leader, Trade Promotion Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: 202-482-3773, Fax: 202-482-9000, [email protected]

    Gemal J. Brangman, Trade Promotion Programs Team Leader.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15842 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-801] Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the Preliminary Results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets (“fish fillets”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”) on January 21, 2016.1 The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2014, through January 1, 2015. We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, we made changes to the margin calculations for the final results. The final dumping margin is listed below in the “Final Results of the New Shipper Review” section of this notice.

    1See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 5709 (January 21, 2016) (“Preliminary Results”), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Walker or Kenneth Hawkins, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-0413 or 202-482-6491, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Results on January 21, 2016.2 On April 4, 2016, the Department extended the deadline for the final results to June 27, 2016.3 The Department conducted a verification of Hai Huong Seafood Joint Stock Company (“HHFISH”) between April 11, 2016, and April 13, 2016.4 Between June 2, 2016 and June 8, 2016, Petitioners submitted their case brief and HHFISH submitted a rebuttal brief.

    2See Preliminary Results; see also Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,” dated January 27, 2016, extending all administrative deadlines by four business days.

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, through James C. Doyle, Director, Office V, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations from Kenneth Hawkins, International Trade Analyst, Office V, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, regarding Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of 2014-2015 New Shipper Review, dated April 4, 2016.

    4See Memorandum to the File, from Matthew Renkey and Kenneth Hawkins, Case Analysts, “Verification of the Sales and Factors of Production Responses of Hai Huong Seafood Joint Stock Company in the 2014-2015 New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” dated May 24, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius) and Pangasius Micronemus. These products are classifiable under tariff article code 0304.62.0020 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius, including basa and tra), and may enter under tariff article codes 0305.59.0000, 1604.19.2100, 1604.19.3100, 1604.19.4100, 1604.19.5100, 1604.19.6100 and 1604.19.8100 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).5 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.6

    5 Until June 30, 2004 these products were classifiable under HTSUS 0304.20.6030, 0304.20.6096, 0304.20.6043 and 0304.20.6057. From July 1, 2004 until December 31, 2006 these products were classifiable under HTSUS 0304.20.6033. From January 1, 2007 until December 31, 2011 these products were classifiable under HTSUS 0304.29.6033. On March 2, 2011 the Department added two HTSUS numbers at the request of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) that the subject merchandise may enter under: 1604.19.2000 and 1604 19.3000, which were changed to 1604.19.2100 and 1604.19.3100 on January 1, 2012. On January 1, 2012 the Department added the following HTSUS numbers at the request of CBP: 0304.62.0020, 0305.59.0000, 1604.19.4100, 1604.19.5100, 1604.19.6100 and 1604.19.8100.

    6 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, regarding Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, at 2-3 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we revised the margin calculations for HHFISH.7

    7See Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of the Review

    The dumping margin for the final results of this new shipper review is as follows:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (dollars/
  • kilogram) 8
  • Hai Huong Seafood Joint Stock Company 1.25
    Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these final results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations.

    8 In the third administrative review of this order, the Department determined that it would calculate per-unit assessment and cash deposit rates for all future reviews. See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 73 FR 15479 (March 24, 2008).

    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this new shipper review.

    For assessment purposes, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. We will continue to direct CBP to assess importer specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per kg) rates by the weight in kgs of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Specifically, we calculated importer specific duty assessment rates on a per-unit rate basis by dividing the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price, or constructed export price) for each importer by the total sales quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR. If an importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise produced and exported by HHFISH, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this new shipper review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for the specific producer-exporter combination listed above); (2) for subject merchandise exported by HHFISH, but not manufactured by HHFISH, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the Vietnam-wide rate (i.e., $2.35/Kilogram); and (3) for subject merchandise manufactured by HHFISH, but exported by any other party, the cash deposit rate will be the Vietnam-wide rate (i.e., $2.35/Kilogram). The cash deposit requirement, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing this new shipper review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214.

    Dated: June 27, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum Summary Case Issues Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues Comment I Application of Facts Available to HHFISH's Reported Factors of Production Comment II By-products Sold During the POR Comment III Corrections to the SAS Program Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-16060 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-602] Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 11, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on brass sheet and strip from Germany.1 The review covers ten producers or exporters of subject merchandise.2 We received no comments or requests for a hearing. Therefore, for the final results, we continue to find that three of the producers or exporters for which the Department initiated a review, Schwermetall, ThyssenKrupp, and Wieland, had no shipments during the POR. Further, we find that subject merchandise has been sold at less than normal value by seven of the companies subject to this review.3

    1See Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015, 81 FR 21312 (April 11, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    2 The ten producers or exporters include: Aurubis Stolberg GmbH & Co. KG (Aurubis), Carl Schreiber GmbH (Schreiber), KME Germany AG & Co. KG (KME), Messingwerk Plettenberg Herfeld GmbH & Co. KG (Messingwerk), MKM Mansfelder Kupfer & Messing GmbH (MKM), Schlenk Metallfolien GmbH & Co. KG (Schlenk), Schwermetall Halbzeugwerk GmbH & Co. KG (Schwermetall), Sundwiger Messingwerke GmbH & Co. KG (Sundwiger), ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH (ThyssenKrupp), and Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland).

    3 The seven companies are Aurubis, Schreiber, KME, Messingwerk, MKM, Schlenk, and Sundwiger.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George McMahon or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167 or (202) 482-6071, respectively.

    Background

    On April 11, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2014, through February 28, 2015. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. We received no comments from any party. The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of the order covers shipments of brass sheet and strip, other than leaded and tinned, from Germany. The chemical composition of the covered products is currently defined in the Copper Development Association (CDA) 200 Series or the Unified Numbering System (UNS) C2000; this review does not cover products the chemical compositions of which are defined by other CDA or UNS series. In physical dimensions, the products covered by this review have a solid rectangular cross section over 0.006 inches (0.15 millimeters) through 0.188 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished thickness or gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included. The merchandise is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7409.21.00.50, 7409.21.00.75, 7409.21.00.90, 7409.29.00.50, 7409.29.00.75, and 7409.29.0090. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the Preliminary Results of this segment of the proceeding. As there are no changes from, or comments on, the Preliminary Results, the Department continues to find that Schwermetall, ThyssenKrupp, and Wieland had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and, therefore, no reviewable transactions, during the POR. Further, we find that subject merchandise has been sold at less than normal value by Aurubis, Schreiber, KME, Messingwerk, MKM, Schlenk, and Sundwiger. Accordingly, the preliminary issues and decision memorandum is adopted in toto as the final decision memorandum and no new decision memorandum accompanies this Federal Register notice. For further details of the issues addressed in this proceeding, see the Preliminary Results and the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.4

    4See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, titled “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany; 2014-2015,” dated April 4, 2016 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). The Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department determines that the following dumping margins on brass sheet and strip from Germany exist for the period March 1, 2014, through February 28, 2015:

    Producer and/or exporter Margin
  • (percent)
  • Aurubis Stolberg GmbH & Co. KG 22.61 Carl Schreiber GmbH 22.61 KME Germany AG & Co. KG 22.61 Messingwerk Plettenberg Herfeld GmbH & Co. KG 55.60 MKM Mansfelder Kupfer & Messing GmbH 22.61 Schlenk Metallfolien GmbH & Co. KG 22.61 Sundwiger Messingwerke GmbH & Co. KG 22.61
    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 7.30 percent, the all-others rate determined in the less than fair value investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16137 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-838, A-533-840, A-570-893, A-549-822] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, India, the People's Republic of China and Thailand: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the “Final Results of Reviews” section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4929.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the AD Orders1 on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, India, the People's Republic of China (PRC), and Thailand, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 On March 8, 2016, and March 16, 2016, respectively, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (AHSTAC (petitioner in the underlying investigation)) and the American Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA) notified the Department of their intent to participate within the 15-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).3 AHSTAC claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act stating that its individual members are each producers in the United States of a domestic like product. ASPA claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(E) of the Act stating that it is a trade association, the majority of whose members are producers and/or processors of a domestic like product in the United States.

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 70 FR 5143 (February 1, 2005); Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 70 FR 5147 (February 1, 2005); Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 5149 (February 1, 2005); and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 5145 (February 1, 2005) (collectively, Orders).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 81 FR 10578 (March 1, 2016) (Notice of Initiation). The Notice of Initiation also announced the initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. However, the results of that sunset review will be discussed within a separate Federal Register notice in the context of a full sunset review in that case.

    3See AHSTAC March 8, 2016, submission “Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Entry of Appearance, Notice of Intent to Participate in Review and APO Application.” See also ASPA March 16, 2016, submissions “Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil (A-351-838): Notice of Intent to Participate of the American Shrimp Processors Association,” “Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India (A-533-840): Notice of Intent to Participate of the American Shrimp Processors Association,” “Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China (A-570-893): Notice of Intent to Participate of the American Shrimp Processors Association,” and “Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand (A-549-822): Notice of Intent to Participate of the American Shrimp Processors Association.”

    On March 29 and 31, 2016, respectively, the Department received complete substantive responses to the Notice of Initiation from AHSTAC 4 and from ASPA 5 (collectively, domestic interested parties) within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties with respect to the orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, India, the PRC, or Thailand, nor was a hearing requested. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of the AD Orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, India, the PRC, and Thailand.

    4See AHSTAC March 29, 2016, submission “Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation.”

    5See ASPA March 31, 2016, submissions “Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil (A-351-838): Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” “Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India (A-533-840): Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” “Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China (A-570-893): Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” and “Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand (A-549-822): Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation.”

    Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by the Orders include certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,6 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form.

    6 “Tails” in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods.

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the Orders, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size.

    The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus).

    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of the Orders. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of the orders.

    Excluded from the Orders are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried.

    The products covered by the Orders are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice, provides a full description of the scope of the Orders. 7

    7See the Department's memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Second Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India, the People's Republic of China, and Thailand,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    A complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Final Results of Reviews

    Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD Orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, India, the PRC, and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to 67.80 percent for Brazil, up to 110.90 percent for India, up to 112.81 percent for the PRC, and up to 5.34 percent for Thailand.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16053 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-042] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Toni Page at (202) 482-1398 or Lingjun Wang at (202) 482-2316, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 3, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated an antidumping duty (AD) investigation of imports of stainless steel sheet and strip from the People's Republic of China.1 The notice of initiation stated that, in accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), we would issue our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of initiation, unless postponed. Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than July 21, 2016.

    1See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less Than Fair Value Investigations, 81 FR 12711 (March 10, 2016).

    Postponement of Preliminary Determinations

    Sections 733(c)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act permit the Department to postpone the time limit for the preliminary determination if it concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating and determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated by reason of the number and complexity of the transactions to be investigated or adjustments to be considered, the novelty of the issues presented, or the number of firms whose activities must be investigated, and additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination. Under this section of the Act, the Department may postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.

    The Department determines that the parties involved in this investigation are cooperating, and that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated. Additional time is required to analyze the questionnaire responses and issue any appropriate requests for clarification and additional information.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1), the Department is postponing the time period for the preliminary determination of this investigation by 50 days, to September 9, 2016. Pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16134 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE675 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air Force 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron Conducting Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS (hereinafter, “we” or “our”) received an application from the U.S. Department of the Air Force, 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron (86 FWS), requesting an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program (LRS WSEP) in the Barking Sands Underwater Range Extension (BSURE) area of the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) at Kauai, Hawaii. 86 FWS's activities are military readiness activities per the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2004. Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS requests comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to 86 FWS to incidentally take, by Level A and Level B harassment, two species of marine mammals, the dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) and pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) during the specified activity.

    DATES:

    NMFS must receive comments and information no later than August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The email address for providing email comments is [email protected] Please include 0648-XE675 in the subject line. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. NMFS is not responsible for comments sent to addresses other than the one provided in this notice.

    Instructions: All submitted comments are a part of the public record, and generally we will post them to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm 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.

    An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. The following associated documents are also available at the same internet address: List of the references used in this document, and 86 FWS's Environmental Assessment (EA) titled, “Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the Long Range Strike Weapon Systems Evaluation Program Operational Evaluations.” Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings for marine mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    The NDAA of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].

    Summary of Request

    On May 12, 2016, NMFS received an application from 86 FWS for the taking of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to the LRS WSEP within the PMRF in Kauai, Hawaii from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. 86 FWS submitted a revised version of the renewal request on June 9, 2016 and June 20, 2016, which we considered adequate and complete.

    The proposed LRS WSEP training activities would occur on September 1, 2016, with a backup date of September 2, 2016.

    86 FWS proposes actions that include LRS WSEP test missions of the Joint Air-To-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) and the Small Diameter Bomb-I/II (SDB-I/II) including detonations at the water surface. These activities qualify as a military readiness activities under the MMPA and NDAA.

    The following aspects of the proposed LRS WSEP training activities have the potential to take marine mammals: Munition strikes and detonation effects (overpressure and acoustic components). Take, by Level B harassment of individuals of dwarf sperm whale and pygmy sperm whale could potentially result from the specified activity. Additionally, although NMFS does not expect it to occur, 86 FWS has also requested authorization for Level A Harassment of one individual dwarf sperm whale. Therefore, 86 FWS has requested authorization to take individuals of two cetacean species by Level A and Level B harassment.

    86 FWS's LRS WSEP training activities may potentially impact marine mammals at or near the water surface in the absence of mitigation. Marine mammals could potentially be harassed, injured, or killed by exploding and non-exploding projectiles, falling debris, or ingestion of military expended materials. However, based on analyses provided in 86 FWS's 2016 application, 2016 Environmental Assessment (EA), and for reasons discussed later in this document, we do not anticipate that 86 FWS's LRS WSEP activities would result in any serious injury or mortality to marine mammals.

    Description of the Specified Activity Overview

    86 FWS proposes to conduct air-to-surface mission in the BSURE area of the PMRF. The LRS WSEP test objective is to conduct operational evaluations of long range strike weapons and other munitions as part of LRS WSEP operations to properly train units to execute requirements within Designed Operational Capability Statements, which describe units' real-world operational expectations in a time of war. Due to threats to national security, increased missions involving air-to-surface activities have been directed by the Department of Defense (DoD). Accordingly, the U.S. Air Force seeks the ability to conduct operational evaluations of all phases of long range strike weapons within the U.S. Navy's Hawaii Range Complex (HRC). The actions would fulfill the Air Force's requirement to evaluate full-scale maneuvers for such weapons, including scoring capabilities under operationally realistic scenarios. LRS WSEP objectives are to evaluate air-to-surface and maritime weapon employment data, evaluate tactics, techniques, and procedures in an operationally realistic environment, and to determine the impact of tactics, techniques, and procedures on combat Air Force training. The munitions associated with the proposed activities are not part of a typical unit's training allocations, and prior to attending a WSEP evaluation, most pilots and weapon systems officers have only dropped weapons in simulators or used the aircraft's simulation mode. Without WSEP operations, pilots would be using these weapons for the first time in combat. On average, half of the participants in each unit drop an actual weapon for the first time during a WSEP evaluation. Consequently, WSEP is a military readiness activity and is the last opportunity for squadrons to receive operational training and evaluations before they deploy.

    Dates and Duration

    86 FWS proposes to schedule the LRS WSEP training missions over one day on September 1, 2016, with a backup day the following day. The proposed missions would occur on a weekday during daytime hours only, with all missions occurring in one day. This IHA would be valid from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017.

    Specified Geographic Region

    The specific planned impact area is approximately 44 nautical miles (nm)(81 kilometers (km)) offshore of Kauai, Hawaii, in a water depth of about 15,240 feet (ft) (4,645 meters (m)) (see Figure 2-2 of 86 FWS's application). All activities will take place within the PMRF, which is located in Hawaii off the western shores of the island of Kauai and includes broad ocean areas to the north, south, and west (see Figure 2-1 of 86 FWS's application).

    Within the PMRF, activities would occur in the BSURE area, which lies in Warning Area 188 (W-188). The BSURE consists of about 900 nm2 of instrumented underwater ranges, encompassing the deepwater portion of the PMRF and providing over 80 percent of PMRF's underwater scoring capability. The BSURE facilitates training, tactics, development, and test and evaluation for air, surface, and subsurface weapons systems in deep water. It provides a full spectrum of range support, including radar, underwater instrumentation, telemetry, electronic warfare, remote target command and control, communications, data display and processing, and target/weapon launching and recovery facilities. The underwater tracking system begins 9 nm (17 km) from the north shore of Kauai and extends out to 40 nm (74 km) from shore. LRS WSEP missions would employ live weapons with long flight paths requiring large amounts of airspace and conclude with weapon impact and surface detonations within the BSURE instrumented range.

    Detailed Description of Activities

    The LRS WSEP training missions, classified as military readiness activities, refer to the deployment of live (containing explosive charges) missiles from aircraft toward the water surface. The actions include air-to-surface test missions of the JASSM and the SDB-I/II including detonations at the water surface.

    Aircraft used for munition releases would include bombers and fighter aircraft. Additional airborne assets, such as the P-3 Orion or the P-8 Poseidon, would be used to relay telemetry (TM) and flight termination system (FTS) streams between the weapon and ground stations. Other support aircraft would be associated with range clearance activities before and during the mission and with air-to-air refueling operations. All weapon delivery aircraft would originate from an out base and fly into military-controlled airspace prior to employment. Due to long transit times between the out base and mission location, air-to-air refueling may be conducted in either W-188 or W-189. Bombers, such as the B-1, would deliver the weapons, conduct air-to-air refueling, and return to their originating base as part of one sortie. However, when fighter aircraft are used, the distance and corresponding transit time to the various potential originating bases would make return flights after each mission day impractical. In these cases, the aircraft would temporarily (less than one week) park overnight at Hickam Air Force Base (HAFB) and would return to their home base at the conclusion of each mission set. Multiple weapon release aircraft would be used during some missions, each potentially releasing multiple munitions. The LRS WSEP missions scheduled for 2016 are proposed to occur in one day, with the following day reserved as a back-up day. Approximately 10 Air Force personnel would be on temporary duty to support the mission.

    Aircraft flight maneuver operations and weapon release would be conducted in W-188A boundaries of PMRF. Chase aircraft may be used to evaluate weapon release and to track weapons. Flight operations and weapons delivery would be in accordance with published Air Force directives and weapon operational release parameters, as well as all applicable Navy safety regulations and criteria established specifically for PMRF. Aircraft supporting LSR WSEP missions would primarily operate at high altitudes—only flying below 3,000 feet for a limited time as needed for escorting non-military vessels outside the hazard area or for monitoring the area for protected marine species (e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles). Protected marine species aerial surveys would be temporary and would focus on an area surrounding the weapon impact point on the water.

    Post-mission surveys would focus on the area down current of the weapon impact location. Range clearance procedures for each mission would cover a much larger area for human safety. Weapon release parameters would be conducted as approved by PMRF Range Safety. Daily mission briefs would specify planned release conditions for each mission. Aircraft and weapons would be tracked for time, space, and position information. The 86 FWS test director would coordinate with the PMRF Range Safety Officer, Operations Conductor, Range Facility Control Officer, and other applicable mission control personnel for aircraft control, range clearance, and mission safety.

    Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missile/Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missile-Extended Range (JASSM/JASSM-ER)

    The JASSM is a stealthy precision cruise missile designed for launch outside area defenses against hardened, medium-hardened, soft, and area type targets. The JASSM has a range of more than 200 nm (370 km) and carries a 1,000-pound (lb) warhead with approximately 300 lbs of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent net explosive weight (NEW). The specific explosive used is AFX-757, a type of plastic bonded explosive (PBX). The weapon has the capability to fly a preprogrammed route from launch to a target, using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and an internal navigation system (INS) combined with a Terminal Area Model when available. Additionally, the weapon has a Common Low Observable Auto-Routing function that gives the weapon the ability to find the route that best utilizes the low observable qualities of the JASSM. In either case, these routes can be modeled prior to weapon release. The JASSM-ER has additional fuel and a different engine for a greater range than the JASSM (500 nm (926 km)) but maintains the same functionality of the JASSM.

    Small Diameter Bomb-I/Small Diameter Bomb-II (SDB-I/SDB-II)

    The SDB-I is a 250-lb air-launched GPS-INS guided weapon for fixed soft to hardened targets. SDB-II expands the SDB-I capability with network enabling and uses a tri-mode sensor infrared, millimeter, and semi-active laser to attack both fixed and movable targets. Both munitions have a range of up to 60 NM (111 km). The SDB-I contains 37 lbs of TNT-equivalent NEW, and the SDB-II contains 23 lbs NEW. The explosive used in both SDB-I and SDB-II is AFX-757.

    Initial phases of the LRS WSEP operational evaluations are proposed for September 2016 and would consist of releasing only one live JASSM/JASSM-ER and up to eight SDBs in military controlled airspace (Table 1). Immediate evaluations for JASSM/JASSM-ER and SDB-I are needed; therefore, they are the only munitions being proposed for summer 2016 missions. Weapon release parameters for 2016 missions would involve a B-1 bomber releasing one live JASSM and fighter aircraft, such as F-15, F-16, or F-22, releasing live SDB-I. Up to four SDB-I munitions would be released simultaneously, similar to a ripple effect, each hitting the water surface within a few seconds of each other; however, the SDB-I releases would occur separate from the JASSM. All releases would occur on the same mission day.

    Table 1—Summary of Proposed Testing at PMRF in 2016 Munition Fusing option Net explosive weight (lb) Detonation scenario Annual total number of
  • munitions
  • JASSM/JASSM-ER Live/Instantaneous 300 Surface 1 SDB-I Live/Instantaneous 37 Surface 8 ER = Extended Range; JASSM = Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile; lb = pounds; SDB = Small Diameter Bomb.

    A typical mission day would consist of pre-mission checks, safety review, crew briefings, weather checks, clearing airspace, range clearance, mitigations/monitoring efforts, and other military protocols prior to launch of weapons. Potential delays could be the result of multiple factors including, but not limited to; adverse weather conditions leading to unsafe take-off, landing, and aircraft operations, inability to clear the range of non-mission vessels or aircraft, mechanical issues with mission aircraft or munitions, or presence of protected species in the impact area. If the mission is cancelled due to any of these, one back-up day has also been scheduled as a contingency. These standard operating procedures are usually done in the morning, and live range time may begin in late morning once all checks are complete and approval is granted from range control. The range would be closed to the public for a maximum of four hours per mission day.

    Each long range strike weapon would be released in W-188A and would follow a given flight path with programmed GPS waypoints to mark its course in the air. Long range strike weapons would complete their maximum flight range (up to 500 nm distance for JASSM-ER) at an altitude of approximately 18,000 ft (equivalent in kms) mean sea level (MSL) and terminate at a specified location for scoring of the impact. The cruise time would vary among the munitions but would be about 45 minutes for JASSM/JASSM-ER and 10 minutes for SDB-I/II. The time frame between employments of successive munitions would vary, but releases could be spaced by approximately one hour to account for the JASSM cruise time. The routes and associated safety profiles would be contained within W-188A boundaries. The objective of the route designs is to complete full-scale evasive maneuvers that avoid simulated threats and would, therefore, not consist of a standard “paper clip” or regularly shaped route. The final impact point on the water surface would be programmed into the munitions for weapons scoring and evaluations.

    All missions would be conducted in accordance with applicable flight safety, hazard area, and launch parameter requirements established for PMRF. A weapon hazard region would be established, with the size and shape determined by the maximum distance a weapon could travel in any direction during its descent. The hazard area is typically adjusted for potential wind speed and direction, resulting in a maximum composite safety footprint for each mission (each footprint boundary is at least 10 nm from the Kauai coastline). This information is used to establish a Launch Exclusion Area and Aircraft Hazard Area. These exclusion areas must be verified to be clear of all non-mission and non-essential vessels and aircraft before live weapons are released. In addition, a buffer area must also be clear on the water surface so that vessels do not enter the exclusion area during the launch window. Prior to weapon release, a range sweep of the hazard area would be conducted by participating mission aircraft or other appropriate aircraft, potentially including S-61N helicopter, C-26 aircraft, fighter aircraft (F-15E, F-16, F-22), or the Coast Guard's C-130 aircraft.

    PMRF has used small water craft docked at the Port Allen public pier to keep nearshore areas clear of tour boats for some mission launch areas. However, for missions with large hazard areas that occur far offshore from Kauai, it would be impractical for these smaller vessels to conduct range clearance activities. The composite safety footprint weapons associated with LRS WSEP missions is anticipated to be rather large; therefore, it is likely that range clearing activities would be conducted solely by aircraft.

    The Range Facility Control Officer is responsible for establishing hazard clearance areas, directing clearance and surveillance assets, and reporting range status to the Operations Conductor. The Control Officer is also responsible for submitting all Notice to Airmen (NOTAMs) and Notice to Mariners (NOTMARs), and for requesting all Federal Aviation Administration airspace clearances.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    There are 25 marine mammal species with potential or confirmed occurrence in the proposed activity area; however, not all of these species occur in this region during the project timeframe. Table 2 lists and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance of these species. Please see NMFS' 2015 Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars for more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance.

    Table 2—Marine Mammals That Could Occur in the BSURE Area Species Stock ESA/MMPA
  • Status;
  • Strategic
  • (Y/N) 1
  • Stock abundance
  • (CV, Nmin, most
  • recent abundance
  • survey) 2
  • PBR 3 Occurrence in BSURE Area
    Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family: Balaenopteridae Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).4 Central North Pacific Y; Y 10,103 (0.300; 7,890; 2006) 83 Seasonal; throughout known breeding grounds during winter and spring (most common November through April). Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Central North Pacific Y; Y 81 (1.14; 38; 2010) 0.1 Seasonal; infrequent winter migrant; few sightings, mainly fall and winter; considered rare. Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus Hawaii Y; Y 58 (1.12; 27; 2010) 0.1 Seasonal, mainly fall and winter; considered rare. Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Hawaii Y; Y 178 (0.90; 93; 2010) 0.2 Rare; limited sightings of seasonal migrants that feed at higher latitudes. Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera brydei/edeni) Hawaii -; N 798 (0.28; 633; 2010) 6.3 Uncommon; distributed throughout the Hawaiian EEZ. Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Hawaii -; N n/a (n/a; n/a; 2010) Undet. Regular but seasonal (October-April). Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family: Physeteridae Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) Hawaii Y; Y 3,354 (0.34; 2,539; 2010) 10.2 Widely distributed year round; more likely in waters >1,000 m depth, most often >2,000 m. Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family: Kogiidae Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) Hawaii -; N n/a (n/a; n/a; 2010) Undet. Widely distributed year round; more likely in waters >1,000 m depth. Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) Hawaii -; N n/a (n/a; n/a; 2010) Undet. Widely distributed year round; more likely in waters >500 m depth. Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family delphinidae Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Hawaii -; N 101 (1.00; 50; 2010) 1 Uncommon; infrequent sightings. False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) Hawaii Pelagic NWHI Stock -; N
  • -; N
  • 1,540 (0.66;
  • 928; 2010)
  • 617 (1.11; 290; 2010)
  • 9.3
  • 2.3
  • Regular.
  • Regular.
  • Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) Hawaii -; N 3,433 (0.52; 2,274; 2010) 23 Year-round resident. Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) Hawaii -; N 12,422 (0.43; 8,872; 2010) 70 Commonly observed around Main Hawaiian Islands and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Melon headed whale (Peponocephala electra) Hawaii Islands stock -; N 5,794 (0.20; 4,904; 2010) 4 Regular. Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Hawaii pelagic -; N 5,950 (0.59; 3,755; 2010) 38 Common in deep offshore waters. Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) Hawaii pelagic -; N 15,917 (0.40; 11,508; 2010) 115 Common; primary occurrence between 100 and 4,000 m depth. Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoala) Hawaii -; N 20,650 (0.36; 15,391; 2010) 154 Occurs regularly year round but infrequent sighting during survey. Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) Hawaii pelagic -; N n/a (n/a; n/a; 2010) Undet. Common year-round in offshore waters. Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) Hawaii stock -; N 6,288 (0.39; 4,581; 2010) 46 Common throughout the Main Hawaiian Islands and Hawaiian Islands EEZ. Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) Hawaii -; N 16,992 (0.66; 10,241; 2010) 102 Tropical species only recently documented within Hawaiian Islands EEZ (2002 survey). Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) Hawaii -; N 7,256 (0.41; 5,207; 2010) 42 Previously considered rare but multiple sightings in Hawaiian Islands EEZ during various surveys conducted from 2002-2012. Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family: Ziphiidae Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) Hawaii -; N 1,941 (n/a; 1,142; 2010) 11.4 Year-round occurrence but difficult to detect due to diving behavior. Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) Hawaii -; N 2,338 (1.13; 1,088; 2010) 11 Year-round occurrence but difficult to detect due to diving behavior. Longman's beaked whale (Indopacetus pacificus) Hawaii -; N 4,571 (0.65; 2,773; 2010) 28 Considered rare; however, multiple sightings during
  • 2010 survey.
  • Order—Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions) Family: Phocidae Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi) Hawaii Y; Y 1,112 (n/a; 1,088; 2013) Undet. Predominantly occur at Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; approximately 138 individuals in Main Hawaiian Islands. 1 ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate. All values presented here are from the 2015 Pacific SARs, except humpback whales—see comment 4. 3 Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). 4 Values for humpback whales are from the 2015 Alaska SAR.

    Of these 25 species, six are listed as endangered under the ESA and as depleted throughout its range under the MMPA. These are: humpback whale, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, sperm whale, and the Hawaiian monk seal.

    Of the 25 species that may occur in Hawaiian waters, only certain stocks occur in the impact area, while others are island-associated or do not occur at the depths of the impact area (e.g. false killer whale insular stock, island-associated stocks of bottlenose, spinner, and spotted dolphins). Only two species are considered likely to be in the impact area during the one day of project activities (dwarf sperm whale and pygmy sperm whale). Other species are seasonal and only occur in these waters in the fall or winter (humpback whale, blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, minke whale, killer whale); some are rare in the area (Longman's beaked whale, Bryde's whale); and others are unlikely to be impacted due to small density estimates (False killer whale, pygmy killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, melon-headed whale, bottlenose dolphin, Pantropical spotted dolphin, striped dolphin, spinner dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, Fraser's dolphin, Risso's dolphin, Cuvier's beaked whale, Blainville's beaked whale, and Hawaiian monk seal). Because these 22 species are unlikely to occur within the BSURE area, 86 FWS has not requested and NMFS has not proposed the issuance of take authorizations for them. Thus, NMFS does not consider these species further in this notice.

    We have reviewed 86 FWS's species descriptions, including life history information, distribution, regional distribution, diving behavior, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and completeness. We refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of 86 FWS's application and to Chapter 3 in 86 FWS's EA rather than reprinting the information here.

    Below, for those species that are likely to be taken by the activities described, we offer a brief introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and describe any information regarding local occurrence.

    Dwarf Sperm Whale

    Dwarf sperm whales are found throughout the world in tropical to warm-temperate waters (Caretta et al., 2014). They are usually found in waters deeper than 500 m, most often sighted in depths between 500 and 1,000 m, but they have been documented in depths as shallow as 106 m and as deep as 4,700 m (Baird, in press). This species is often alone or in small groups of up to two to four individuals (average group size of 2.7 individuals), with a maximum group size observed of eight individuals (Baird, in press). When there are more than two animals together, they are often loosely associated, with up to several hundred meters between pairs of individuals (Baird, in press).

    There is one stock of dwarf sperm whales in Hawaii. Sighting data suggests a small resident population off Hawaii Island (Baird, in press). There are no current abundance estimates for this stock. In 2002, a survey off Hawaii estimated the abundance at 17,159; however, this data is outdated and is no longer used. PBR cannot be calculated due to insufficient data. It has been suggested that this species is probably one of the more abundant species of cetaceans in Hawaiian waters (Baird, in press). One of their main threats is interactions with fisheries; however, dwarf sperm whales are also sensitive to high-intensity underwater sounds and navy sonar testing. This stock is not listed as endangered under the ESA and is not considered strategic or designated as depleted under the MMPA (Caretta et al., 2013).

    Pygmy Sperm Whale

    Pygmy killer whales are found in tropical and subtropical waters throughout the world (Ross and Leatherwood 1994). This species prefers deeper waters, with observations of this species in greater than 4,000 m depth (Baird et al., 2013); and, based on stomach contents from stranded individuals, pygmy sperm whales forage between 600 and 1,200 m depth (Baird, in press). Sightings are rare of this species, but observations include lone individuals or pairs, with an average group size of 1.5 individuals (Baird, in press).

    There is a single stock of Pygmy killer whales in Hawaii. Current abundance estimates for this stock are unknown. A 2002 survey in Hawaii estimated 7,138 animals; however, this data is outdated and is no longer used. PBR cannot be calculated due to insufficient data. (Caretta et al., 2014). The main threats to this species are fisheries interactions and effects from underwater sounds such as active sonar (Caretta et al., 2014). This stock is not listed as endangered under the ESA, and is not considered strategic or designated as depleted under the MMPA (Caretta et al., 2014).

    Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components (e.g., munition strikes and detonation effects) of the specified activity, including mitigation, may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that we expect 86 FWS to take during this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis section will include the analysis of how this specific activity would impact marine mammals, and will consider the content of this section, the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section and the Proposed Mitigation section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks. In the following discussion, we provide general background information on sound and marine mammal hearing before considering potential effects to marine mammals from sound produced by surface detonations.

    Description of Sound Sources and WSEP Sound Types

    Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the “loudness” of a sound and is typically measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal (μPa). One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that we reference all underwater sound levels in this document to a pressure of 1 µPa and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 µPa.

    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that one can account for the values in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.

    When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.

    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction). A number of sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following (Richardson et al., 1995):

    • Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band during heavy surf conditions.

    • Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the water surface can become an important component of total noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times.

    • Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz.

    • Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate rapidly (Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is sometimes termed background sound, as opposed to ambient sound.

    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.

    The sounds produced by the proposed WSEP activities are considered impulsive, which is one of two general sound types, the other being non-pulsed. The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.

    Impulsive sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. These sounds have a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.

    Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals, and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. The lower and/or upper frequencies for some of these functional hearing groups have been modified from those designated by Southall et al. (2007). The functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that these frequency ranges do not necessarily correspond to the range of best hearing, which varies by species):

    • Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz (up to 30 kHz in some species), with best hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz (Watkins, 1986; Ketten, 1998; Houser et al., 2001; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi and Stein, 2007; Ketten et al., 2007; Parks et al., 2007a; Ketten and Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);

    • Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz with best hearing from 10 to less than 100 kHz (Johnson, 1967; White, 1977; Richardson et al., 1995; Szymanski et al., 1999; Kastelein et al., 2003; Finneran et al., 2005a, 2009; Nachtigall et al., 2005, 2008; Yuen et al., 2005; Popov et al., 2007; Au and Hastings, 2008; Houser et al., 2008; Pacini et al., 2010, 2011; Schlundt et al., 2011);

    • High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; now considered to include two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data [May-Collado and Agnarsson, 2006; Kyhn et al., 2009, 2010; Tougaard et al., 2010]): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz (Popov and Supin, 1990a,b; Kastelein et al., 2002; Popov et al., 2005);

    • Phocid pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz with best hearing between 1-50 kHz (Møhl, 1968; Terhune and Ronald, 1971, 1972; Richardson et al., 1995; Kastak and Schusterman, 1999; Reichmuth, 2008; Kastelein et al., 2009); and

    • Otariid pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 48 kHz, with best hearing between 2-48 kHz (Schusterman et al., 1972; Moore and Schusterman, 1987; Babushina et al., 1991; Richardson et al., 1995; Kastak and Schusterman, 1998; Kastelein et al., 2005a; Mulsow and Reichmuth, 2007; Mulsow et al., 2011a, b).

    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013).

    There are two marine mammal species (both cetaceans, the dwarf and pygmy sperm whale) with expected potential to co-occur with 86 FWS WSEP military readiness activities. The Kogia species are classified as high-frequency cetaceans. A species' functional hearing group is a consideration when we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on marine mammals.

    Acoustic Impacts

    Please refer to the information given previously (Description of Sound Sources) regarding sound, characteristics of sound types, and metrics used in this document. Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources can potentially result in one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Götz et al., 2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In general, sudden, high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's hearing range. We first describe specific manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion specific to 86 FWS's activities.

    Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be audible (potentially perceived) to the animal, but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for signals of high intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking (i.e., when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size.

    We describe the more severe effects (i.e., certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects and mortality) only briefly as we do not expect that there is a reasonable likelihood that 86 FWS's activities may result in such effects (see below for further discussion). Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005b). TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can be total or partial deafness, while in most cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).

    When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to constitute auditory injury.

    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals—PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008)—but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several decibels above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al., 2007). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulse sounds (such as bombs) are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). Given the higher level of sound or longer exposure duration necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS could occur.

    Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral reactions (e.g., change in dive profile as a result of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to sound include neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). 86 FWS's activities involve the use of devices such as explosives that are associated with these types of effects; however, severe injury to marine mammals is not anticipated from these activities.

    When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and is incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a “stranding” (16 U.S.C. 1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known to strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series (e.g., Geraci et al., 1999). However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (e.g., Best, 1982). Combinations of dissimilar stressors may combine to kill an animal or dramatically reduce its fitness, even though one exposure without the other would not be expected to produce the same outcome (e.g., Sih et al., 2004). For further description of stranding events see, e.g., Southall et al., 2006; Jepson et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2013.

    1. Temporary threshold shift—TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the data published at the time of this writing concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound.

    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts.

    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale [Delphinapterus leucas], harbor porpoise [Phocoena phocoena], and Yangtze finless porpoise [Neophocoena asiaeorientalis]) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant seal [Mirounga angustirostris], harbor seal [Phoca vitulina], and California sea lion [Zalophus californianus]) exposed to a limited number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (e.g., Finneran et al., 2002; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Kastak et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011). In general, harbor seals (Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012a) and harbor porpoises (Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b) have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species. Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species. There are no data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran and Jenkins (2012).

    2. Behavioral effects—Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that habituation is appropriately considered as a “progressive reduction in response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor beneficial,” rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have shown pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).

    Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.

    Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b). Variations in dive behavior may reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and magnitude of the response.

    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history stage of the animal.

    Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005b, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007).

    Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007b). In some cases, animals may cease sound production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).

    Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales are known to change direction—deflecting from customary migratory paths—in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006).

    A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings (Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be noted that response to a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence the response.

    Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any sleep deprivation or stress effects.

    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive behavioral responses.

    3. Stress responses—An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.

    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated with stress (Romano et al., 2004).

    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.

    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be classified as “distress.” In addition, any animal experiencing TTS would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).

    4. Auditory masking—Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions.

    Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.

    The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007b; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013).

    Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.

    The LRS WSEP training exercises proposed for the incidental take of marine mammals have the potential to take marine mammals by exposing them to impulsive noise and pressure waves generated by live ordnance detonation at the surface of the water. Exposure to energy, pressure, or direct strike by ordnance has the potential to result in non-lethal injury (Level A harassment), disturbance (Level B harassment), serious injury, and/or mortality. In addition, NMFS also considered the potential for harassment from vessel and aircraft operations.

    Acoustic Effects, Underwater

    Explosive detonations at the water surface send a shock wave and sound energy through the water and can release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. The shock wave and accompanying noise are of most concern to marine animals. Depending on the intensity of the shock wave and size, location, and depth of the animal, an animal can be injured, killed, suffer non-lethal physical effects, experience hearing related effects with or without behavioral responses, or exhibit temporary behavioral responses or tolerance from hearing the blast sound. Generally, exposures to higher levels of impulse and pressure levels would result in greater impacts to an individual animal.

    The effects of underwater detonations on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including the size, type, and depth of the animal; the depth, intensity, and duration of the sound; the depth of the water column; the substrate of the habitat; the standoff distance between activities and the animal; and the sound propagation properties of the environment. Thus, we expect impacts to marine mammals from LRS WSEP activities to result primarily from acoustic pathways. As such, the degree of the effect relates to the received level and duration of the sound exposure, as influenced by the distance between the animal and the source. The further away from the source, the less intense the exposure should be.

    The potential effects of underwater detonations from the proposed LRS WSEP training activities may include one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). However, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, often depending on species and contextual factors (based on Richardson et al., 1995).

    In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species could result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008). The type and severity of behavioral impacts are more difficult to define due to limited studies addressing the behavioral effects of impulsive sounds on marine mammals.

    Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects—Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift. Given the available data, the received level of a single pulse (with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s (i.e., 186 dB sound exposure level (SEL) or approximately 221-226 dB p-p (peak)) in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several strong pulses that each have received levels near 190 dB rms (175-180 dB SEL) might result in cumulative exposure of approximately 186 dB SEL and thus slight TTS in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first approximation) a function of the total received pulse energy.

    Non-auditory Physiological Effects—Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound include stress and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007).

    Serious Injury/Mortality: 86 FWS proposes to use surface detonations in its training exercises. The explosions from these weapons would send a shock wave and blast noise through the water, release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. The shock wave and blast noise are of most concern to marine animals. In general, potential impacts from explosive detonations can range from brief effects (such as short term behavioral disturbance), tactile perception, physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs, and death of the animal (Yelverton et al., 1973; O'Keeffe and Young, 1984; DoN, 2001). The effects of an underwater explosion on a marine mammal depend on many factors, including: the size, type, and depth of both the animal and the explosive charge; the depth of the water column; the standoff distance between the charge and the animal, and the sound propagation properties of the environment. Physical damage of tissues resulting from a shock wave (from an explosive detonation) constitutes an injury. Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid interface (Landsberg, 2000) and gas containing organs, particularly the lungs and gastrointestinal tract, are especially susceptible to damage (Goertner, 1982; Yelverton et al., 1973). Nasal sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and lungs may be damaged by compression/expansion caused by the oscillations of the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and Laitman, 2003). Severe damage (from the shock wave) to the ears can include tympanic membrane rupture, fracture of the ossicles, cochlear damage, hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the middle ear.

    Non-lethal injury includes slight injury to internal organs and the auditory system; however, delayed lethality can be a result of individual or cumulative sublethal injuries (DoN, 2001). Immediate lethal injury would be a result of massive combined trauma to internal organs as a direct result of proximity to the point of detonation (DoN, 2001).

    Disturbance Reactions

    Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Numerous studies have shown that underwater sounds are often readily detectable by marine mammals in the water at distances of many kilometers. However, other studies have shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers away often show no apparent response to activities of various types (Miller et al., 2005). This is often true even in cases when the sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal group. Although various baleen whales, toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to underwater sound from impulsive sources such as airguns, at other times, mammals of all three types have shown no overt reactions (e.g., Malme et al., 1986; Richardson et al., 1995; Madsen and Mohl, 2000; Croll et al., 2001; Jacobs and Terhune, 2002; Madsen et al., 2002; MacLean and Koski, 2005; Miller et al., 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006).

    Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources (typically seismic guns or acoustic harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007).

    Because the few available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound, it is difficult to quantify exactly how sound from the LRS WSEP operational testing would affect marine mammals. It is likely that the onset of surface detonations could result in temporary, short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995): changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); or avoidance of areas where sound sources are located.

    The biological significance of any of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However generally, one could expect the consequences of behavioral modification to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction include:

    • Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);

    • Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and

    • Cessation of feeding or social interaction.

    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007).

    Auditory Masking

    Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking, or interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to hear other sounds. Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound interferes with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher levels (Clark et al., 2009). While it may occur temporarily, we do not expect auditory masking to result in detrimental impacts to an individual's or population's survival, fitness, or reproductive success. Dolphin movement is not restricted within the BSURE area, allowing for movement out of the area to avoid masking impacts and the sound resulting from the detonations is short in duration. Also, masking is typically of greater concern for those marine mammals that utilize low frequency communications, such as baleen whales and, as such, is not likely to occur for marine mammals in the BSURE area.

    Vessel and Aircraft Presence

    The marine mammals most vulnerable to vessel strikes are slow-moving and/or spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (e.g., North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis), fin whales, and sperm whales). Smaller marine mammals are agile and move more quickly through the water, making them less susceptible to ship strikes. NMFS and 86 FWS are not aware of any vessel strikes of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales within in BSURE area during training operations, and both parties do not anticipate that potential 86 FWS vessels engaged in the specified activity would strike any marine mammals.

    Dolphins within Hawaiian waters are exposed to recreational, commercial, and military vessels. Behaviorally, marine mammals may or may not respond to the operation of vessels and associated noise. Responses to vessels vary widely among marine mammals in general, but also among different species of small cetaceans. Responses may include attraction to the vessel (Richardson et al., 1995); altering travel patterns to avoid vessels (Constantine, 2001; Nowacek et al., 2001; Lusseau, 2003, 2006); relocating to other areas (Allen and Read, 2000); cessation of feeding, resting, and social interaction (Baker et al., 1983; Bauer and Herman, 1986; Hall, 1982; Krieger and Wing, 1984; Lusseau, 2003; Constantine et al., 2004); abandoning feeding, resting, and nursing areas (Jurasz and Jurasz 1979; Dean et al., 1985; Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari, 1985, 1990; Lusseau, 2005; Norris et al., 1985; Salden, 1988; Forest, 2001; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Courbis, 2004; Bejder, 2006); stress (Romano et al., 2004); and changes in acoustic behavior (Van Parijs and Corkeron, 2001). However, in some studies marine mammals display no reaction to vessels (Watkins, 1986; Nowacek et al., 2003) and many odontocetes show considerable tolerance to vessel traffic (Richardson et al., 1995). Dolphins may actually reduce the energetic cost of traveling by riding the bow or stern waves of vessels (Williams et al., 1992; Richardson et al., 1995).

    Aircraft produce noise at frequencies that are well within the frequency range of cetacean hearing and also produce visual signals such as the aircraft itself and its shadow (Richardson et al., 1995, Richardson and Wursig, 1997). A major difference between aircraft noise and noise caused by other anthropogenic sources is that the sound is generated in the air, transmitted through the water surface and then propagates underwater to the receiver, diminishing the received levels significantly below what is heard above the water's surface. Sound transmission from air to water is greatest in a sound cone 26 degrees directly under the aircraft.

    There are fewer reports of reactions of odontocetes to aircraft than those of pinnipeds. Responses to aircraft by pinnipeds include diving, slapping the water with pectoral fins or tail fluke, or swimming away from the track of the aircraft (Richardson et al., 1995). The nature and degree of the response, or the lack thereof, are dependent upon the nature of the flight (e.g., type of aircraft, altitude, straight vs. circular flight pattern). Wursig et al. (1998) assessed the responses of cetaceans to aerial surveys in the north central and western Gulf of Mexico using a DeHavilland Twin Otter fixed-wing airplane. The plane flew at an altitude of 229 m (751.3 ft) at 204 km/hr (126.7 mph) and maintained a minimum of 305 m (1,000 ft) straight line distance from the cetaceans. Water depth was 100 to 1,000 m (328 to 3,281 ft). Bottlenose dolphins most commonly responded by diving (48 percent), while 14 percent responded by moving away. Other species (e.g., beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and sperm whales) show considerable variation in reactions to aircraft but diving or swimming away from the aircraft are the most common reactions to low flights (less than 500 m; 1,640 ft).

    Direct Strike by Ordnance

    Another potential risk to marine mammals is direct strike by ordnance, in which the ordnance physically hits an animal. While strike from an item at the surface of the water while the animals is at the surface is possible, the potential risk of a direct hit to an animal within the target area would be so low because marine mammals spend the majority of their time below the surface of the water, and the potential for one bomb or missile to hit that animal at that specific time is highly unlikely since there are only a total of eight bombs on one day.

    Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    Detonations of live ordnance would result in temporary changes to the water environment. An explosion on the surface of the water from these weapons could send a shock wave and blast noise through the water, release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. However, these effects would be temporary and not expected to last more than a few seconds. Similarly, 86 FWS does not expect any long-term impacts with regard to hazardous constituents to occur. 86 FWS considered the introduction of fuel, debris, ordnance, and chemical materials into the water column within its EA and determined the potential effects of each to be insignificant. We summarize 86 FWS's analyses in the following paragraphs (for a complete discussion of potential effects, please refer to section 3.0 in 86 FWS's EA).

    Metals typically used to construct bombs and missiles include aluminum, steel, and lead, among others. Aluminum is also present in some explosive materials. These materials would settle to the seafloor after munitions detonate. Metal ions would slowly leach into the substrate and the water column, causing elevated concentrations in a small area around the munitions fragments. Some of the metals, such as aluminum, occur naturally in the ocean at varying concentrations and would not necessarily impact the substrate or water column. Other metals, such as lead, could cause toxicity in microbial communities in the substrate. However, such effects would be localized to a very small distance around munitions fragments and would not significantly affect the overall habitat quality of sediments in the BSURE area. In addition, metal fragments would corrode, degrade, and become encrusted over time.

    Chemical materials include explosive byproducts and also fuel, oil, and other fluids associated with remotely controlled target boats. Explosive byproducts would be introduced into the water column through detonation of live munitions. Explosive materials would include 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and research department explosive (RDX), among others. Various byproducts are produced during and immediately after detonation of TNT and RDX. During the very brief time that a detonation is in progress, intermediate products may include carbon ions, nitrogen ions, oxygen ions, water, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen gas, nitrous oxide, cyanic acid, and carbon dioxide (Becker, 1995). However, reactions quickly occur between the intermediates, and the final products consist mainly of water, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gas, although small amounts of other compounds are typically produced as well.

    Chemicals introduced into the water column would be quickly dispersed by waves, currents, and tidal action, and eventually become uniformly distributed. A portion of the carbon compounds such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide would likely become integrated into the carbonate system (alkalinity and pH buffering capacity of seawater). Some of the nitrogen and carbon compounds, including petroleum products, would be metabolized or assimilated by phytoplankton and bacteria. Most of the gas products that do not react with the water or become assimilated by organisms would be released into the atmosphere. Due to dilution, mixing, and transformation, none of these chemicals are expected to have significant impacts on the marine environment.

    Explosive material that is not consumed in a detonation could sink to the substrate and bind to sediments. However, the quantity of such materials is expected to be inconsequential. Research has shown that if munitions function properly, nearly full combustion of the explosive materials will occur, and only extremely small amounts of raw material will remain. In addition, any remaining materials would be naturally degraded. TNT decomposes when exposed to sunlight (ultraviolet radiation), and is also degraded by microbial activity (Becker, 1995). Several types of microorganisms have been shown to metabolize TNT. Similarly, RDX decomposes by hydrolysis, ultraviolet radiation exposure, and biodegradation.

    While we anticipate that the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat and prey resources would be temporary and reversible. The main impact associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice. Marine mammals are anticipated to temporarily vacate the area of live detonations. However, these events are usually of short duration, and animals are anticipated to return to the activity area during periods of non-activity. Thus, based on the preceding discussion, we do not anticipate that the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

    Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).

    The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military-readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

    NMFS and 86 FWS have worked to identify potential practicable and effective mitigation measures, which include a careful balancing of the likely benefit of any particular measure to the marine mammals with the likely effect of that measure on personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the “military-readiness activity.” We refer the reader to Section 11 of 86 FWS's application for more detailed information on the proposed mitigation measures which include the following:

    Visual Aerial Surveys: For the LRS WSEP activities, mitigation procedures consist of visual aerial surveys of the impact area for the presence of protected marine species (including marine mammals). During aerial observation, Navy test range personnel may survey the area from an S-61N helicopter or C-62 aircraft that is based at the PMRF land facility (typically when missions are located relatively close to shore). Alternatively, when missions are located farther offshore, surveys may be conducted from mission aircraft (typically jet aircraft such as F-15E, F-16, or F-22) or a U.S. Coast Guard C-130 aircraft.

    Protected species surveys typically begin within one hour of weapon release and as close to the impact time as feasible, given human safety requirements. Survey personnel must depart the human hazard zone before weapon release, in accordance with Navy safety standards. Personnel conduct aerial surveys within an area defined by an approximately 2-NM (3,704 m) radius around the impact point, with surveys typically flown in a star pattern. This survey distance is consistent with requirements already in place for similar actions at PMRF and encompasses the entire TTS threshold ranges (SEL) for mid-frequency cetaceans (Table 5). For species in which potential exposures have been calculated (dwarf sperm whale and pygmy sperm whale), the survey distance would cover over half of the PTS SEL range. Given operational constraints, surveying these larger areas would not be feasible.

    Observers would consist of aircrew operating the C-26, S-61N, and C-130 aircraft from PMRF and the Coast Guard. These aircrew are trained and experienced at conducting aerial marine mammal surveys and have provided similar support for other missions at PMRF. Aerial surveys are typically conducted at an altitude of about 200 feet, but altitude may vary somewhat depending on sea state and atmospheric conditions. If adverse weather conditions preclude the ability for aircraft to safely operate, missions would either be delayed until the weather clears or cancelled for the day. For 2016 Long Range Strike WSEP missions, one day has been designated as a weather back-up day. The C-26 and other aircraft would generally be operated at a slightly higher altitude than the helicopter. The observers will be provided with the GPS location of the impact area. Once the aircraft reaches the impact area, pre-mission surveys typically last for 30 minutes, depending on the survey pattern. The fixed-wing aircraft are faster than the helicopter; and, therefore, protected species may be more difficult to spot. However, to compensate for the difference in speed, the aircraft may fly the survey pattern multiple times.

    If a protected species is observed in the impact area, weapon release would be delayed until one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the impact area; (2) the animal is thought to have exited the impact area based on its course and speed; or (3) the impact area has been clear of any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes. All weapons will be tracked and their water entry points will be documented.

    Post-mission surveys would begin immediately after the mission is complete and the Range Safety Officer declares the human safety area is reopened. Approximate transit time from the perimeter of the human safety area to the weapon impact area would depend on the size of the human safety area and vary between aircraft but is expected to be less than 30 minutes. Post-mission surveys would be conducted by the same aircraft and aircrew that conducted the pre-mission surveys and would follow the same patterns as pre-mission surveys but would focus on the area down current of the weapon impact area to determine if protected species were affected by the mission (observation of dead or injured animals). If an injury or mortality occurs to a protected species due to LRS WSEP missions, NMFS would be notified immediately.

    A typical mission day would consist of pre-mission checks, safety review, crew briefings, weather checks, clearing airspace, range clearance, mitigations/monitoring efforts, and other military protocols prior to launch of weapons. Potential delays could be the result of multiple factors including, but not limited to, adverse weather conditions leading to unsafe take-off, landing, and aircraft operations, inability to clear the range of non-mission vessels or aircraft, mechanical issues with mission aircraft or munitions, or presence of protected species in the impact area. If the mission is cancelled due to any of these, one back-up day has also been scheduled as a contingency. These standard operating procedures are usually done in the morning, and live range time may begin in late morning once all checks are complete and approval is granted from range control. The range would be closed to the public for a maximum of four hours per mission day.

    Determination of the Zone of Influence: The zone of influence is defined as the area or volume of ocean in which marine mammals could be exposed to various pressure or acoustic energy levels caused by exploding ordnance. Refer to Appendix A of the application for a description of the method used to calculate impact areas for explosives. The pressure and energy levels considered to be of concern are defined in terms of metrics, criteria, and thresholds. A metric is a technical standard of measurement that describes the acoustic environment (e.g., frequency duration, temporal pattern, and amplitude) and pressure at a given location. Criteria are the resulting types of possible impact and include mortality, injury, and harassment. A threshold is the level of pressure or noise above which the impact criteria are reached.

    Standard impulsive and acoustic metrics were used for the analysis of underwater energy and pressure waves in this document. Several different metrics are important for understanding risk assessment analysis of impacts to marine mammals: SPL is the ratio of the absolute sound pressure to a reference level, SEL is measure of sound intensity and duration, and positive impulse is the time integral of the pressure over the initial positive phase of an arrival.

    The criteria and thresholds used to estimate potential pressure and acoustic impacts to marine mammals resulting from detonations were obtained from Finneran and Jenkins (2012) and include mortality, injurious harassment (Level A), and non-injurious harassment (Level B). In some cases, separate thresholds have been developed for different species groups or functional hearing groups. Functional hearing groups included in the analysis are low-frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, high-frequency cetaceans, and phocids.

    Based on the ranges presented in Table 5 and factoring operational limitations associated with the mission, 86 FWS estimates that during pre-mission surveys, the proposed monitoring area would be approximately 2 km (3.7 miles) from the target area radius around the impact point, with surveys typically flown in a star pattern, which is consistent with requirements already in place for similar actions at PMRF and encompasses the entire TTS threshold ranges (SEL) for mid-frequency cetaceans. For species in which potential exposures have been calculated (dwarf sperm whale and pygmy sperm whale), the survey distance would cover over half of the PTS SEL range. Given operational constraints, surveying these larger areas would not be feasible.

    Post-Mission Monitoring

    Post-mission monitoring determines the effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any marine mammals. Post-mission monitoring surveys will commence once the mission has ended or, if required, as soon as personnel declare the mission area safe. Post-mission monitoring will be identical to pre-mission surveys and will occur approximately 30 minutes after the munitions have been detonated, concentrating on the area down-current of the test site. Observers will document and report any marine mammal species, number, location, and behavior of any animals observed.

    We have carefully evaluated 86 FWS's proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

    • The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

    • The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

    • The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed here:

    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).

    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to stimuli that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to training exercises that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

    Based on our evaluation of 86 FWS's proposed measures, as well as other measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures, including visual aerial surveys and mission delays if protected species are observed in the impact area, provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance (while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and the impact of effectiveness of the military readiness activity).

    Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an Authorization for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that we must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for an authorization must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and our expectations of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals present in the proposed action area.

    86 FWS submitted marine mammal monitoring and reporting measures in their IHA application. We may modify or supplement these measures based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period. Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:

    • Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density).

    • Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) Affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) Co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) Biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).

    • Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).

    • How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock.

    • Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals.

    • Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

    NMFS proposes to include the following measures in the LRS WSEP Authorization (if issued). They are:

    (1) 86 FWS will track the use of the PMRF for missions and protected species observations, through the use of mission reporting forms.

    (2) 86 FWS will submit a summary report of marine mammal observations and LRS WSEP activities to the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) and the Office of Protected Resources 90 days after expiration of the current Authorization. This report must include the following information: (i) Date and time of each LRS WSEP exercise; (ii) a complete description of the pre-exercise and post-exercise activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of LRS WSEP exercises on marine mammal populations; and (iii) results of the LRS WSEP exercise monitoring, including number of marine mammals (by species) that may have been harassed due to presence within the activity zone.

    (3) 86 FWS will monitor for marine mammals in the proposed action area. If 86 FWS personnel observe or detect any dead or injured marine mammals prior to testing, or detects any injured or dead marine mammal during live fire exercises, 86 FWS must cease operations and submit a report to NMFS within 24 hours.

    (4) 86 FWS must immediately report any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., serious injury or mortality) to NMFS and to the respective Pacific Islands Region stranding network representative. 86 FWS must cease operations and submit a report to NMFS within 24 hours.

    Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Taken by Harassment

    The NDAA amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].

    NMFS' analysis identified the physiological responses, and behavioral responses that could potentially result from exposure to explosive detonations. In this section, we will relate the potential effects to marine mammals from detonation of explosives to the MMPA regulatory definitions of Level A and Level B harassment. This section will also quantify the effects that might occur from the proposed military readiness activities in PMRF BSURE area.

    86 FWS thresholds used for onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS; Level B Harassment) and onset of permanent threshold shift (PTS; Level A Harassment) are consistent with the thresholds outlined in the Navy's report titled, “Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis Technical Report,” which the Navy coordinated with NMFS. NMFS believes that the thresholds outlined in the Navy's report represent the best available science. The report is available on the internet at: http://nwtteis.com/Portals/NWTT/DraftEIS2014/SupportingDocs/NWTT_NMSDD_Technical_Report_23_January%202014_reduced.pdf.

    Level B Harassment

    Of the potential effects described earlier in this document, the following are the types of effects that fall into the Level B harassment category:

    Behavioral Harassment—Behavioral disturbance that rises to the level described in the above definition, when resulting from exposures to non-impulsive or impulsive sound, is Level B harassment. Some of the lower level physiological stress responses discussed earlier would also likely co-occur with the predicted harassments, although these responses are more difficult to detect and fewer data exist relating these responses to specific received levels of sound. When predicting Level B harassment based on estimated behavioral responses, those takes may have a stress-related physiological component.

    Temporary Threshold Shift—As discussed previously, TTS can affect how an animal behaves in response to the environment, including conspecifics, predators, and prey. NMFS classifies TTS (when resulting from exposure to explosives and other impulsive sources) as Level B harassment, not Level A harassment (injury).

    Level A Harassment

    Of the potential effects that were described earlier, the following are the types of effects that fall into the Level A Harassment category:

    Permanent Threshold Shift—PTS (resulting from exposure to explosive detonations) is irreversible and NMFS considers this to be an injury.

    Table 4 outlines the explosive thresholds used by NMFS for this Authorization when addressing noise impacts from explosives.

    EN07JY16.000

    86 FWS completed acoustic modeling to determine the distances to NMFS's explosive thresholds from their explosive ordnance, which was then used with each species' density to determine number of exposure estimates. Below is a summary of those modeling efforts.

    The maximum estimated range, or radius, from the detonation point to which the various thresholds extend for all munitions proposed to be released in a 24-hour time period was calculated based on explosive acoustic characteristics, sound propagation, and sound transmission loss in the Study Area, which incorporates water depth, sediment type, wind speed, bathymetry, and temperature/salinity profiles (Table 5). The ranges were used to calculate the total area (circle) of the zones of influence for each criterion/threshold. To eliminate “double-counting” of animals, impact areas from higher impact categories (e.g., mortality) were subtracted from areas associated with lower impact categories (e.g., Level A harassment). The estimated number of marine mammals potentially exposed to the various impact thresholds was then calculated as the product of the adjusted impact area, scaled animal density, and number of events. Since the model accumulates the energy from all detonations within a 24-hour timeframe, it is assumed that the same population of animals is being impacted within that time period. The population would refresh after 24 hours. In this case, only one mission day is planned for 2016, and therefore, only one event is modeled that would impact the same population of animals. Details of the acoustic modeling method are provided in Appendix A of the application.

    The resulting total number of marine mammals potentially exposed to the various levels of thresholds is shown in Table 7. An animal is considered “exposed” to a sound if the received sound level at the animal's location is above the background ambient acoustic level within a similar frequency band. The exposure calculations from the model output resulted in decimal values, suggesting in most cases that a fraction of an animal was exposed. To eliminate this, the acoustic model results were rounded to the nearest whole animal to obtain the exposure estimates from 2016 missions. Furthermore, to eliminate “double-counting” of animals, exposure results from higher impact categories (e.g., mortality) were subtracted from lower impact categories (e.g., Level A harassment). For impact categories with multiple criteria and/or thresholds (e.g., three criteria and four thresholds associated with Level A harassment), numbers in the table are based on the threshold resulting in the greatest number of exposures. These exposure estimates do not take into account the required mitigation and monitoring measures, which may decrease the potential for impacts.

    Table 5—Distances (m) to Explosive Thresholds From 86 FWS's Explosive Ordnance Species Mortality 1 Level A Harassment 2 Slight
  • lung
  • injury
  • GI tract
  • injury
  • 237 dB SPL PTS Applicable SEL* Applicable SPL* Level B Harassment TTS Applicable SEL* Behavioral Applicable SPL* Applicable SEL*
    Humpback Whale 38 81 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163 Blue Whale 28 59 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163 Fin Whale 28 62 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163 Sei Whale 38 83 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163 Bryde's Whale 38 81 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163 Minke Whale 55 118 165 2,161 330 6,565 597 13,163 Sperm Whale 33 72 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Pygmy Sperm Whale 105 206 165 6,565 3,450 20,570 6,565 57,109 Dwarf Sperm Whale 121 232 165 6,565 3,450 20,570 6,565 57,109 Killer Whale 59 126 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 False Killer Whale 72 153 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Pygmy Killer Whale 147 277 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Short-finned Pilot Whale 91 186 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Melon-headed Whale 121 228 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Bottlenose Dolphin 121 232 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Pantropical Spotted Dolphin 147 277 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Striped Dolphin 147 277 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Spinner Dolphin 147 277 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Rough-toothed Dolphin 121 232 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Fraser's Dolphin 110 216 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Risso's Dolphin 85 175 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Cuvier's Beaked Whale 51 110 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Blainville's Beaked Whale 79 166 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Longman's Beaked Whale 52 113 165 753 330 3,198 597 4,206 Hawaiian Monk Seal 135 256 165 1,452 1,107 3,871 1,881 6,565 1 Based on Goertner (1982). 2 Based on Richmond et al. (1973). *Based on the applicable Functional Hearing Group.
    Density Estimation

    Density estimates for marine mammals were derived from the Navy's 2014 Marine Species Density Database (NMSDD). NMFS refers the reader to Section 3 of 86 FWS's application for detailed information on all equations used to calculate densities presented in Table 6.

    Table 6—Marine Mammal Density Estimates Within 86 FWS's PMRF Species Density
  • (animals/km2)
  • Dwarf sperm whale 0.00714 Pygmy sperm whale 0.00291
    Take Estimation

    Table 7 indicates the modeled potential for lethality, injury, and non-injurious harassment (including behavioral harassment) to marine mammals in the absence of mitigation measures. 86 FWS and NMFS estimate that one marine mammal species could be exposed to injurious Level A harassment noise levels (187 dB SEL) and two species could be exposed to Level B harassment (TTS and Behavioral) noise levels in the absence of mitigation measures.

    Table 7—Modeled Number of Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by LRS WSEP Operations Species Mortality Level A
  • harassment
  • (PTS only)
  • Level B
  • harassment
  • (TTS)
  • Level B
  • harassment
  • (behavioral)
  • Dwarf sperm whale 0 1 9 64 Pygmy sperm whale 0 0 3 26 TOTAL 0 1 12 90

    Based on the mortality exposure estimates calculated by the acoustic model, zero marine mammals are expected to be affected by pressure levels associated with mortality or serious injury. Zero marine mammals are expected to be exposed to pressure levels associated with slight lung injury or gastrointestinal tract injury.

    NMFS generally considers PTS to fall under the injury category (Level A Harassment). An animal would need to stay very close to the sound source for an extended amount of time to incur a serious degree of PTS, which could increase the probability of mortality. In this case, it would be highly unlikely for this scenario to unfold given the nature of any anticipated acoustic exposures that could potentially result from a mobile marine mammal that NMFS generally expects to exhibit avoidance behavior to loud sounds within the BSURE area.

    NMFS has relied on the best available scientific information to support the issuance of 86 FWS's authorization. In the case of authorizing Level A harassment, NMFS has estimated that one dwarf sperm whale could, although unlikely, experience minor permanent threshold shifts of hearing sensitivity (PTS). The available data and analyses, as described more fully in this notice include extrapolation results of many studies on marine mammal noise-induced temporary threshold shifts of hearing sensitivities. An extensive review of TTS studies and experiments prompted NMFS to conclude that possibility of minor PTS in the form of slight upward shift of hearing threshold at certain frequency bands by one individual marine mammal is extremely low, but not unlikely.

    Negligible Impact Analysis and Preliminary Determinations

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

    To avoid repetition, the discussion below applies to all the species listed in Table 7 for which we propose to authorize incidental take for 86 FWS's activities.

    In making a negligible impact determination, we consider:

    • The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;

    • The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment;

    • The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to baseline data);

    • The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative to the size of the population);

    • Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and

    • The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the number or severity of incidental take.

    For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, 86 FWS's specified activities are not likely to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, serious injury, or death.

    The takes from Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance and TTS. The takes from Level A harassment would be due to potential PTS. Activities would only occur over a timeframe of one day in September, 2016.

    Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS, which includes PTS) are defined as increases in the threshold of audibility (i.e., the sound has to be louder to be detected) of the ear at a certain frequency or range of frequencies (ANSI 1995; Yost 2007). Several important factors relate to the magnitude of TS, such as level, duration, spectral content (frequency range), and temporal pattern (continuous, intermittent) of exposure (Yost 2007; Henderson et al., 2008). TS occurs in terms of frequency range (Hz or kHz), hearing threshold level (dB), or both frequency and hearing threshold level.

    In addition, there are different degrees of PTS: Ranging from slight/mild to moderate and from severe to profound. Profound PTS or the complete loss of the ability to hear in one or both ears is commonly referred to as deafness. High-frequency PTS, presumably as a normal process of aging that occurs in humans and other terrestrial mammals, has also been demonstrated in captive cetaceans (Ridgway and Carder, 1997; Yuen et al. 2005; Finneran et al., 2005; Houser and Finneran, 2006; Finneran et al., 2007; Schlundt et al., 2011) and in stranded individuals (Mann et al., 2010).

    In terms of what is analyzed for the potential PTS (Level A harassment) in one marine mammal as a result of 86 FWS's LRS WSEP operations, if it occurs, NMFS has determined that the levels would be slight/mild because research shows that most cetaceans show relatively high levels of avoidance. Further, it is uncommon to sight marine mammals within the target area, especially for prolonged durations. Avoidance varies among individuals and depends on their activities or reasons for being in the area.

    NMFS' predicted estimates for Level A harassment take (Table 7) are likely overestimates of the likely injury that will occur. NMFS expects that successful implementation of the required aerial-based mitigation measures could avoid Level A take. Also, NMFS expects that some individuals would avoid the source at levels expected to result in injury. Nonetheless, although NMFS expects that Level A harassment is unlikely to occur at the numbers proposed to be authorized, because it is difficult to quantify the degree to which the mitigation and avoidance will reduce the number of animals that might incur PTS, we are proposing to authorize (and analyze) the modeled number of Level A takes (one), which does not take the mitigation or avoidance into consideration. However, we anticipate that any PTS incurred because of mitigation and the likely short duration of exposures, would be in the form of only a small degree of permanent threshold shift and not total deafness.

    While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the activity, because of the short duration of the actual individual explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation) combined with the short duration of the LRS WSEP operations, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be a substantial impact on marine mammals or on the normal functioning of the nearshore or offshore waters off Kauai and its ecosystems. We do not expect that the proposed activity would impact rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals since we do not expect mortality (which would remove individuals from the population) or serious injury to occur. In addition, the proposed activity would not occur in areas (and/or times) of significance for the marine mammal populations potentially affected by the exercises (e.g., feeding or resting areas, reproductive areas), and the activities would only occur in a small part of their overall range, so the impact of any potential temporary displacement would be negligible and animals would be expected to return to the area after the cessations of activities. Although the proposed activity could result in Level A (PTS only, not slight lung injury or gastrointestinal tract injury) and Level B (behavioral disturbance and TTS) harassment of marine mammals, the level of harassment is not anticipated to impact rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals because the number of exposed animals is expected to be low due to the short-term (i.e., four hours a day or less on one day) and site-specific nature of the activity. We do not anticipate that the effects would be detrimental to rates of recruitment and survival because we do not expect serious of extended behavioral responses that would result in energetic effects at the level to impact fitness.

    Moreover, the mitigation and monitoring measures proposed for the IHA (described earlier in this document) are expected to further minimize the potential for harassment. The protected species surveys would require 86 FWS to search the area for marine mammals, and if any are found in the impact zone, then the exercise would be suspended until the animal(s) has left the area or relocated outside of the zone. Furthermore, LRS WSEP missions may be delayed or rescheduled for adverse weather conditions.

    Based on the preliminary analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that 86 FWS's LRS WSEP operations will result in the incidental take of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment only, and that the taking from the LRS WSEP exercises will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

    Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In 2015, 86 FWS provided NMFS with an EA titled, Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the Long Range Strick Weapon Systems Evaluation Program Operational Evaluations. The EA analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the specified activities on marine mammals. NMFS will review and evaluate the 86 FWS EA for consistency with the regulations published by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, and determine whether or not to adopt it. Information in 86 FWS's application, EA, and this notice collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed issuance of the IHA for public review and comment. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice as we complete the NEPA process, including decision of whether to sign a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), prior to a final decision on the IHA request. The 2016 NEPA documents are available for review at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.html.

    Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to issue an IHA to 86 FWS for conducting LRS WSEP activities, for a period of one year from the date of issuance, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed Authorization language is provided in the next section. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the Authorization (if issued).

    1. This Authorization is valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance.

    2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with the LRS WSEP operations utilizing munitions identified in the Attachment.

    3. The incidental taking, by Level A and Level B harassment, is limited to: Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) and Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) as specified in Table 1 of this notice.

    Table 1—Authorized Take Numbers. Species Level
  • A
  • takes
  • Level
  • B
  • takes
  • Dwarf sperm whale 1 73 Pygmy sperm whale 0 29 Total 1 102

    The taking by serious injury or death of these species, the taking of these species in violation of the conditions of this Incidental Harassment Authorization, or the taking by harassment, serious injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.

    4. Mitigation

    When conducting this activity, the following mitigation measures must be undertaken:

    • If daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life, LRS WSEP strike operations must be delayed until adequate sea conditions exist for monitoring to be undertaken.

    • On the morning of the LRS WSEP strike mission, the test director and safety officer will confirm that there are no issues that would preclude mission execution and that the weather is adequate to support monitoring and mitigation measures.

    • If post-mission surveys determine that an injury or lethal take of a marine mammal has occurred, the next mission will be suspended until the test procedure and the monitoring methods have been reviewed with NMFS and appropriate changes made.

    5. Monitoring

    The holder of this Authorization is required to cooperate with the National Marine Fisheries Service and any other Federal, state or local agency monitoring the impacts of the activity on marine mammals.

    The holder of this Authorization will track their use of the PMRF BSURE area for the LRS WSEP missions and marine mammal observations, through the use of mission reporting forms.

    Aerial surveys: Pre- and post- mission will be conducted. Pre-mission surveys would begin approximately one hour prior to detonation. Post-detonation monitoring surveys will commence once the mission has ended or, if required, as soon as personnel declare the mission area safe.

    Proposed monitoring area would be approximately 2 km (3.7 miles) from the target area radius around the impact point, with surveys typically flown in a star pattern. Aerial surveys would be conducted at an altitude of about 200 feet, but altitude may vary somewhat depending on sea state and atmospheric conditions. If adverse weather conditions preclude the ability for aircraft to safely operate, missions would either be delayed until the weather clears or cancelled for the day. The observers will be provided with the GPS location of the impact area. Once the aircraft reaches the impact area, pre-mission surveys typically last for 30 minutes, depending on the survey pattern. The aircraft may fly the survey pattern multiple times.

    6. Reporting

    The holder of this Authorization is required to:

    (a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for projects at PMRF, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan, at minimum (see www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm), and shall also include:

    1. Date and time of each LRS WSEP mission;

    2. A complete description of the pre-exercise and post-exercise activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of LRS WSEP missions on marine mammal populations; and

    3. Results of the monitoring program, including numbers by species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the LRS WSEP mission and number of marine mammals (by species if possible) that may have been harassed due to presence within the zone of influence.

    The draft report will be subject to review and comment by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Any recommendations made by the National Marine Fisheries Service must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The draft report will be considered the final report for this activity under this Authorization if the National Marine Fisheries Service has not provided comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft report.

    (b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:

    i. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury for species not authorized (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, 86 FWS shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Pacific Islands Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:

    A. Time and date of the incident;

    B. Description of the incident;

    C. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

    D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    E. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    F. Fate of the animal(s); and

    G. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).

    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with 86 FWS to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. 86 FWS may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.

    ii. In the event that 86 FWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), 86 FWS shall immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Pacific Islands Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.

    The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with 86 FWS to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.

    iii. In the event that 86 FWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, scavenger damage), 86 FWS shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Pacific Islands Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. 86 FWS shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.

    7. Additional Conditions

    • The holder of this Authorization must inform the Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, (301-427-8400) or designee (301-427-8401) prior to the initiation of any changes to the monitoring plan for a specified mission activity.

    • A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of the safety officer on duty each day that long range strike missions are conducted.

    • This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.

    Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Federal Register notice of proposed Authorization. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on 86 FWS's renewal request for an MMPA authorization.

    Dated: July 1, 2016. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16114 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE461 Marine Mammals; Pinniped Removal Authority; Approval of Application AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce (NOAA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces approval of an application for a Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho for lethal removal of individually identifiable predatory California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) in the vicinity of Bonneville Dam to minimize pinniped predation on Pacific salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon. This authorization is pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NMFS also announces availability of decision documents and other information relied upon in making this determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    Additional information about our determination may be obtained by visiting the NMFS West Coast Region's Web site: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov, or by writing to us at: NMFS West Coast Region, Protected Resources Division, 1201 Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Robert Anderson at the above address, by phone at (503) 231-2226, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 120 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.) allows the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, and the West Coast Regional Administrator of NMFS, the discretion to authorize the intentional lethal taking of individually identifiable pinnipeds that are having a significant negative impact on salmonids that are either: (1) Listed under the ESA, (2) approaching a threatened or endangered status, or (3) migrate through the Ballard Locks in Seattle. The authorization applies only to pinnipeds that are not: (1) Listed under the ESA, (2) designated as depleted, or (3) designated a strategic stock.

    In December 2006, NMFS received an application from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (collectively referred to as the States) requesting authorization under section 120 of the MMPA to intentionally take, by lethal methods, individually identifiable predatory California sea lions in the Columbia River, which were then having a significant negative impact on the recovery of threatened and endangered Pacific salmon and steelhead. As required under the MMPA, NMFS convened a Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force (Task Force). The role of the Task Force is to recommend to NMFS approval or denial of the States' application along with recommendations of the proposed location, time, and method of such taking, criteria for evaluating the success of the action, and the duration of the intentional lethal taking authority. The Task Force must also suggest non-lethal alternatives, if available and practicable, including a recommended course of action. NMFS partially approved the States' 2006 request, issuing a LOA on March 17, 2008, and on March 24, 2008, NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 15483).

    Shortly after NMFS issued the LOA, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Oregon, alleging that NMFS' LOA violated section 120 of the MMPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In November 2008, the district court issued an order upholding NMFS' approval of the lethal removal program and its evaluation of impacts under NEPA. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which declined to halt the removal program while the appeal was pending. Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the LOA to NMFS in November 2010 (Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Locke, 626 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2010)). In response to the Ninth Circuit Court's 2010 decision, the States submitted a new request for lethal removal authorization on December 7, 2010. NMFS considered the request and new information available since its prior authorization, including the Task Force's recommendations. NMFS again authorized lethal take, under similar conditions to the 2008 authorization (albeit with modifications), issuing a new LOA on May 13, 2011. HSUS again filed suit this time in federal court for the District of Columbia, alleging, among other things, that NMFS had not followed procedural requirements under MMPA section 120 prior to issuing the new authorization (including public notice and comment on the States' application). In coordination with the States, NMFS revoked the May 13, 2011, authorization on July 22, 2011, and HSUS voluntarily withdrew their lawsuit.

    On August 18, 2011, the States submitted a new request for lethal removal of California sea lions at Bonneville Dam under substantially the same conditions as the prior authorizations. On March 15, 2012, NMFS issued a LOA to the States. In renewed litigation by HSUS this LOA was upheld in district court on February 15, 2013, and later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Humane Society of the US v. Bryson, 924 F.Supp.2d 1228 (D. Or., 2013); HSUS v. Pritzker, No. 13-35195 (9th Cir., 9/27/13)). The 2012 LOA expires on June 30, 2016.

    On January 27, 2016, NMFS received an application from the States to extend the 2012 LOA through June 30, 2021. The States are not requesting any changes or modifications to the terms and conditions of the 2012 LOA. Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS determined that the application contains sufficient information to warrant convening the Task Force. On March 28, 2016, NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 17141), announcing receipt of the States' application, and soliciting public comments on the application and any additional information that NMFS should consider in making its decision. On May 31, 2016, NMFS reconvened the Task Force at a meeting that was open to the public, during which it reviewed the States' application, public comments on the application, and other information related to sea lion predation on salmonids at Bonneville Dam. The Task Force completed and submitted its report to NMFS on June 22, 2016. Thirteen of the fourteen members recommended that NMFS approve the States' extension request, with one member dissenting. All decision documents, including a copy of the new LOA, are available on NMFS's West Coast Region Web page (see ADDRESSES).

    Findings

    As required under section 7(a)(2) under the ESA, NMFS completed formal consultation, and in accordance with NEPA, NMFS completed a supplemental environmental assessment (EA) to the 2008 EA with a finding of no significant impact. In considering a state's application to lethally remove pinnipeds, NMFS is also required, pursuant to section 120(b)(1) of the MMPA, to determine that individually identifiable pinnipeds are having a significant negative impact on the decline or recovery of at-risk salmonid fishery stocks. Based on these requirements, considerations, and analyses, NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 120 of the MMPA have been met and it is therefore reasonable to issue a new LOA to the States for the lethal removal of individually identifiable predatory California sea lions through 2021.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16006 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2014-0044] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Exchange Accounts Receivable Files; Exchange Form 6450-002 “Military Star Card Application, Exchange Form 6450-005 “Exchange Credit Program”; OMB Control Number 0702-XXXX.

    Type of Request: Existing collection in use without an OMB Control Number.

    Number of Respondents: 200,455.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 200,455.

    Average Burden per Response: 3 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 9,948 hours.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to process, monitor, and post audit accounts receivables to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service; to administer the Federal Claims Collection act and to answer inquiries pertaining thereto as well as collection of indebtedness and determination of customer's eligibility to cash checks at Exchange facilities.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: July 1, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16107 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the United States Military Academy Board of Visitors (“the Board”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This committee's charter is being renewed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4355 and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). The charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    The Board provides independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on the state of morale and discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and other matters relating to the United States Military Academy that the Board decides to consider. The Board is composed of 15 members: (a) The Chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, or designee; (b) Three other members of the Senate designated by the Vice President or the President pro tempore of the Senate, two of whom are members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations; (c) The Chair of the House Committee on Armed Services, or designee; (d) Four other members of the House of Representatives designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, two of whom are members of the House Committee on Appropriations; and (e) Six persons designated by the President. Board members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees are appointed as regular government employee members pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a), whereas, Board members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees are appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee (SGE) members. The DoD, as necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Board, and all subcommittees must operate under the provisions of FACA and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Subcommittees will not work independently of the Board and must report all recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees. The Board's DFO, pursuant to DoD policy, must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD officer or employee, and is required to be in attendance at all Board and subcommittee meetings for the entire duration of each and every meeting. The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Such statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned Board. All written statements must be submitted to the Board's DFO who will ensure the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

    Dated: July 1, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16119 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, July 27, 2016, 1:00 p.m.-5:15 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Santa Fe Community College, Jemez Complex, 6401 Richards Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda • Call to Order • Welcome and Introductions • Approval of Agenda and Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2016 • Old Business • New Business • Update from Co-Deputy Designated Federal Officers • Pre-Solicitation Request for Proposals • Presentation: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Recovery • Presentation: Lifecycle Baseline • Public Comment Period • Updates from EM Los Alamos Field Office and New Mexico Environment Department • Wrap-Up Comments from NNMCAB Members • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Northern New Mexico, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://energy.gov/em/nnmcab/northern-new-mexico-citizens-advisory-board.

    Issued at Washington, DC on June 30, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16072 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6405-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Monday, July 25, 2016, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.

    Tuesday, July 26, 2016, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    New Ellenton Community Center, 212 Pine Hill Avenue, New Ellenton, South Carolina 29809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Giusti, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7684.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda Monday, July 25, 2016 Opening and Agenda Review Work Plan Update Combined Committees Session Order of committees • Administrative & Outreach • Facilities Disposition & Site Remediation • Strategic & Legacy Management • Waste Management • Nuclear Materials Public Comments Adjourn Tuesday, July 26, 2016 Opening, Minutes, Chair Update, and Agenda Review Agency Updates Public Comments Break

    Administrative & Outreach Committee Update

    Facilities Disposition & Site Remediation Committee Update

    Lunch Break Facilities Disposition & Site Remediation Committee Update (Continued) Waste Management Committee Update Strategic & Legacy Management Committee Update Public Comments Break Nuclear Materials Committee Update Public Comments Adjourn

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Savannah River Site, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact James Giusti at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact James Giusti's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling James Giusti at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://cab.srs.gov/srs-cab.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on July 1, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16096 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OGC-2016; FRL-9948-79-OGC] Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club: Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 15-cv-01555 (D.D.C.). In 2012, EPA issued two rules disapproving certain aspects of a state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by Louisiana to address regional haze. In their lawsuit, Sierra Club alleges that EPA has failed to meet the requirement of the CAA that the Agency promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of disapproving a SIP, in whole or in part. The proposed consent decree establishes deadlines for EPA to take certain actions to meet its CAA obligations with respect to Louisiana's regional haze SIP.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0363, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by email to [email protected]; by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew C. Marks, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-3276; fax number (202) 564-5603; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    In 2012, EPA disapproved certain aspects of Louisiana's regional haze SIP 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012); 77 FR 39425 (July 3, 2012). When EPA disapproves a SIP submission in whole or in part, section 110(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years unless the State corrects the deficiency and EPA approves the plan revision. The proposed consent decree would resolve the lawsuit filed by Sierra Club by requiring EPA to take certain actions by March 31, 2017 and December 15, 2017. See the proposed consent decree for details.

    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0363) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Lorie J. Schmidt, Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16143 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9948-82-OECA] Production of Confidential Business Information in Pending Enforcement Litigation; Transfer of Information Claimed as Confidential Business Information to the United States Department of Justice and Parties to Certain Litigation AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is providing notice of disclosure in civil enforcement litigation against Navistar International Corp. and Navistar, Inc. pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(d). In response to discovery requests received by the United States in the litigation styled, United States of America v. Navistar International Corp., and Navistar, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-6143, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Navistar Litigation”), the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is disclosing information which has been submitted to EPA by vehicle and engine manufacturers that is claimed to be, or has been determined to be, potential confidential business information (collectively “CBI”). The use of the CBI is limited to the Navistar Litigation and its distribution is restricted by terms of a Court confidentiality order.

    DATES:

    Access by DOJ and/or the parties to the Navistar Litigation to material, including CBI, discussed in this document, is ongoing and expected to continue during the Navistar Litigation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edward Kulschinsky, Air Enforcement Division, Office of Civil Enforcement (2242A); telephone number: 202-564-4133; fax number: 202-564-0069; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States has initiated a civil enforcement action alleging that Navistar International Corp. and Navistar, Inc., violated Title II of the Clean Air Act in connection with the production and sale of on-highway heavy-duty diesel engines in calendar years 2009 and 2010. This notice is being provided, pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(d), to inform affected businesses that EPA intends to transmit certain information, which has been submitted by vehicle and engine manufacturers that is claimed to be, or has been determined to be, potential confidential business information (collectively “CBI”), to defendants in this enforcement action. The information includes EPA communications with, and information provided by, vehicle and engine manufacturers in connection with the certification of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle engines or non-road engines, some of which may include CBI.

    The parties to the Navistar Litigation have entered into an Agreed Confidentiality Order, see Case No. 15-cv-6143, ECF Document No. 35 in the Navistar Litigation docket, filed December 15, 2015, (the “Confidentiality Order”), that governs the treatment of information, including CBI, that is designated “Confidential” pursuant to the Confidentiality Order. The Confidentiality Order provides for limited disclosure and use of CBI and for the return or destruction of CBI at the conclusion of the litigation. In accordance with 40 CFR 2.209(c)-(d), DOJ must disclose such information to the extent required to comply with the discovery obligations of the United States in the Navistar Litigation, including its obligations under the Confidentiality Order.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Phillip A. Brooks, Director, Air Enforcement Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16144 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9948-80-OECA] National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of Public Teleconference and Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of public teleconference.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC. For additional information about registering to attend the meeting or to provide public comment, please see “Registration” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Due to a limited number of telephone lines, attendance will be on a first-come, first served basis. Pre-registration is required.

    DATES:

    The NEJAC will host a public teleconference meeting on Wednesday, July 20, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The topics of discussion will include: (1) Water infrastructure financing in vulnerable and overburdened communities and (2) the implementation and outreach of EPA's Revised Agricultural Worker Protection Regulation. Public comment period relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) is scheduled for Wednesday, July 20, 2016 starting at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Members of the public who wish to participate during the public comment period are highly encouraged to pre-register by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on Monday, July 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions or correspondence concerning the teleconference meeting should be directed to Karen L. Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at 202-564-0203; via email at [email protected]; or by fax at 202-564-1624. Additional information about the NEJAC is available at: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/nejac.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee “will provide independent advice and recommendations to the Administrator about broad, crosscutting issues related to environmental justice. The NEJAC's efforts will include evaluation of a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, community engagement and economic issues related to environmental justice.”

    Registration

    Registrations for the July 20, 2016, pubic teleconference will be processed http://nejac-teleconference-july-20-2016.eventbrite.com. Pre-registration is required. Registration for the July 20, 2016, teleconference meeting closes at 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on Monday, July 18, 2016. The deadline to sign up to speak during the public comment period, or to submit written public comments, is also 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time Monday, July 18, 2016. When registering, please provide your name, organization, city and state, email address, and telephone number for follow up. Please also state whether you would like to be put on the list to provide public comment, and whether you are submitting written comments before the Monday, July 18, 2016, 11:59 p.m. Due to a limited number of telephone lines, attendance will be on a first-come, first served basis.

    Public Comment

    Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to seven (7) minutes. To accommodate the number of people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative of a particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak. Written comments can also be submitted for the record. The suggested format for individuals providing public comments is as follows: Name of speaker; name of organization/community; city and state; and email address; brief description of the concern, and what you want the NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by registration deadline, will be included in the materials distributed to the NEJAC prior to the teleconference. Written comments received after that time will be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All written comments should be sent to Karen L. Martin, EPA, via email at [email protected]

    Information About Services for Individuals With Disabilities or Requiring English Language Translation Assistance

    For information about access or services for individuals requiring assistance, please contact Karen L. Martin, at (202) 564-0203 or via email at [email protected] To request special accommodations for a disability or other assistance, please submit your request at least seven (7) working days prior to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone/fax number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Matthew Tejada, Designated Federal Officer, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16129 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 011426-062.

    Title: West Coast of South America Discussion Agreement.

    Parties: CMA CGM S.A.; Hamburg-Süd; Mediterranean Shipping Company, SA; and Seaboard Marine Ltd.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes Hapag-Lloyd as a party to the Agreement, and reflects the recent resignation of Trinity Shipping Line as a party to the Agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012109-001.

    Title: CSAV/Hoegh Autoliners Mexico/USA Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Compania Sud Americana De Vapores S.A. and Hoegh Autoliners AS.

    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment adds Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile to the geographic scope of the Agreement, corrects the addresses of the Parties, and adds a new Article 11 to the Agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012200-003.

    Title: G6/Zim Transpacific Vessel Sharing Agreement.

    Parties: American President Lines, Ltd. and APL Co. Pte, Ltd. (Operating as one Party); Hapag-Lloyd AG; Hapag-Lloyd USA LLC; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Orient Overseas Container Line, Limited.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services Limited.

    Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes existing authority for the parties to engage in slot exchanges between the joint strings operated under the Agreement, and other G6 service strings.

    Agreement No.: 012422.

    Title: Liberty Global Logistics/NYK Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Liberty Global Logistics, LLC and Nippon Yusen Kaisha.

    Filing Party: Kristen Chung, Corporate Counsel, NYK Line (North America) Inc.; 300 Lighting Way, 5th Floor; Secaucus, NJ 07094.

    Synopsis: The Agreement would authorize the parties to share vessels and vessel space for the carriage of ro/ro cargo in the trades between ports and places in the United States and ports or places in a foreign country.

    Agreement No.: 012423.

    Title: Glovis/NYK Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd. and Nippon Yusen Kaisha.

    Filing Party: Kristen Chung, Corporate Counsel, NYK Line (North America) Inc.; 300 Lighting Way, 5th Floor; Secaucus, NJ 07094.

    Synopsis: The Agreement would authorize the parties to share vessels and vessel space for the carriage of ro/ro cargo in the trades between ports and places in the United States and ports or places in a foreign country.

    Agreement No.: 201178-001.

    Title: Los Angeles/Long Beach Port/Terminal Operator Administration and Implementation Agreement.

    Parties: The West Coast MTO Agreement and its individual marine terminal operator members; The City of Los Angeles, acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners; and The City of Long Beach, acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners.

    Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment would add authority for the Parties to discuss issues relating to congestion and port and terminal efficiency.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16011 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Docket No. 16-14] T. Parker Host, Inc. v. Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC, et al.: Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) by T. Parker Host, Inc., hereinafter “Complainant,” against Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC, Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals, Inc., Kinder Morgan Services, LLC, Kinder Morgan Southeast Terminals, LLC, Kinder Morgan Virginia Liquids Terminals LLC, Kinder Morgan Materials Services, LLC, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “A”, Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “C”, Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “D”, Kinder Morgan Transmix Company LLC, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, Nassau Terminals, LLC, Kinder Morgan Terminals, and Kinder Morgan, Inc., hereinafter “Respondents.” Complainant states that it is a business engaged in providing ship's agency services to vessel owners, operators and charterers. Complainant alleges that Respondents are operators of marine terminals.

    Complainant alleges that by banning Complainant from entering on or coordinating port calls at all marine terminals owned or operated by Respondents, as well as informing Complainant's customers that as of July 1, 2016 Complainant has been banned from coordinating port calls at all marine terminals owned or operated by Respondents, Respondents have violated the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41106, which states that marine terminal operators “may not give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage or impose any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage with respect to any person; or unreasonably refuse to deal or negotiate.”

    Complainant requests that the Commission enter an order declaring the “Blacklist Notice” and/or Respondents' actions described in their complaint violate 46 U.S.C. 41106 and are unlawful and unenforceable, and further declaring that Complainant may continue to provide vessel agency services at Respondents' terminals as it currently does, and that Respondent be required to answer the charges made in the Complaint. Complainant also requests that after taking evidence and conducting a hearing, the Commission order Respondents to cease and desist from violation of the Shipping Act; to put in place lawful and reasonable practices to insure no continuing similar violations of the Shipping Act; to pay Complainant's reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41305(e); to pay monetary penalties for violating the Shipping Act pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41107; and that the Commission make any further orders as it determines to be just and proper.

    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at www.fmc.gov/16-14.

    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by June 29, 2017, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by January 12, 2018.

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16012 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-FAS-2016-01; Docket No. 2016-0001; Sequence 15] Seeking Input on the Public Release of Data Collected Through Transactional Data Reporting AGENCY:

    Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    FAS is publishing this notice to solicit comments regarding the public release of transactional data reported in accordance with the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) Transactional Data Reporting clauses. GSA FAS will consider comments received in establishing its final position on which Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) data elements are releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and which elements will therefore be released to the general public via a public data extract.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Adam Jones, Procurement Analyst, FAS Office of Acquisition Management, at [email protected], or 571-289-0164.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by “Notice FAS-2016-01; Seeking Input on the Public Release of Data Collected Through Transactional Data Reporting” by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “Notice FAS-2016-01; Seeking Input on the Public Release of Data Collected through Transactional Data Reporting” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search”. Select the link “submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Notice FAS-2016-01; Seeking Input on the Public Release of Data Collected Through Transactional Data Reporting”. Following the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Notice FAS-2016-01; Seeking Input on the Public Release of Data Collected Through Transactional Data Reporting” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/Notice FAS-2016-01; Seeking Input on the Public Release of Data Collected Through Transactional Data Reporting.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Notice FAS-2016-01; Seeking Input on the Public Release of Data Collected Through Transactional Data Reporting, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background: GSA published the Transactional Data Reporting final rule in the Federal Register at 81 FR 41103 on June 23, 2016. The rule amended the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to include clauses that require vendors to report transactional data from orders placed against select Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts, Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs), and Governmentwide Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The clause applicable to GWACs and Governmentwide IDIQs, GSAR clause 552.216-75, will be applied to new contracts in that class and may be applied to any existing contracts in this class that do not contain other transactional data clauses. For FSS contracts, the clause (GSAR clause 552.238-74 Alternate I) will be introduced in phases, beginning with a pilot for select Schedules or Special Item Numbers and will be paired with changes to existing requirements for Commercial Sales Practices disclosures and Price Reductions clause basis of award monitoring. The final rule does not apply to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) FSS contract holders.1

    1See GSAR Case 2013-G504; Docket 2014-0020; Sequence 1 (80 FR 11619 (Mar. 4, 2015)).

    Contractors subject to Transactional Data Reporting will be required to report eleven standard data elements. Any data elements beyond the standard elements must be coordinated with the applicable category manager, and approved by the Head of Contracting Activity and GSA's Senior Procurement Executive in order for them to be included with a tailored version of the applicable clause. The determination regarding additional data elements will consider the benefits, alternatives, burden, and need for additional rulemaking.

    GSA intends to share transactional data to the maximum extent allowable to promote transparency and competition while respecting that some data could be exempt from disclosure. Accordingly, a public data extract, containing information that would otherwise be releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), will be created for use by the general public.

    The data released to the public will provide valuable market intelligence that can be used by vendors for crafting more efficient, targeted business development strategies that incur lower administrative costs. This will be particularly beneficial for small businesses, which often do not have the resources to invest in dedicated business development staff or acquire business intelligence through third-parties.

    B. Standard Data Elements: Both Transactional Data Reporting GSAR clauses 552.238-74, Alternate I and 552.216-75 require contractors to report the same eleven standard data elements. These data elements, along with their exemption status under FOIA, are listed in the table below.

    Data element description Exemption status 1. Contract or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Number Not exempt under FOIA. 2. Delivery/Task Order Number/Procurement Instrument Identifier (PIID) Not exempt under FOIA. 3. Non Federal Entity Not exempt under FOIA. 4. Description of Deliverable Not exempt under FOIA. 5. Manufacturer Name Not exempt under FOIA. 6. Manufacturer Part Number Not exempt under FOIA. 7. Unit Measure (each, hour, case, lot) Not exempt under FOIA. 8. Quantity of Item Sold Exempt—5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).2 9. Universal Product Code Not exempt under FOIA. 10. Price Paid Per Unit Exempt—5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 11. Total Price Not exempt under FOIA.

    As described in Section A, GSA intends to share transactional data elements that are not exempt under the FOIA with the general public through a public data extract.

    2 Since the price paid per unit is exempt, GSA FAS will not release both the Total Price (data element #11) and Quantity of Item Sold (data element #8) as this may reveal the price paid per unit; therefore, Quantity of Item Sold is considered “exempt”.

    C. Public Comments: Public comments are invited on the FOIA exemption status of the eleven standard data elements identified in Section B. Comments must be submitted following the instructions above and must identify any data elements addressed by number and description.

    Dated: June 23, 2016. Chiara A. McDowell, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of Acquisition Management, Federal Acquisition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16064 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0108; Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 20] Submission for OMB Review; Bankruptcy AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments regarding the extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Bankruptcy. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 24104 on April 25, 2016. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0108, Bankruptcy.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0108, Bankruptcy” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC Information Collection 9000-0108, Bankruptcy.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0108, Bankruptcy, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202-501-1448 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 42, Bankruptcy and Related Clause in 52.242-13; OMB Control Number 9000-0108.

    Needs and Uses: The Government requires contractors to notify the contracting officer within five days after the contractor enters into bankruptcy. The Procuring Contracting Officer and the Administrative Contracting Officer use the information to ensure the contractor's ability to perform its Government contract.

    A. Purpose

    Under statute, contractors may enter into bankruptcy which may have a significant impact on the contractor's ability to perform its Government contract. The Government often does not receive adequate and timely notice of this event. The clause at 52.242-13 requires contractors to notify the contracting officer within 5 days after the contractor enters into bankruptcy.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 545.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 545.

    Hours per Response: 1.25.

    Total Burden Hours: 681.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0108, Bankruptcy, in all correspondence.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Mahruba Uddowla, Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15997 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0012; Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 36] Information Collection; Termination Settlement Proposal Forms—FAR (SF 1435 Through 1440) AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension, with changes, to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Termination Settlement Proposal Forms—FAR (Standard Forms 1435 through 1440), as prescribed at FAR subpart 49.6, Contract Termination Forms and Formats.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before September 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0012, Termination Settlement Proposal Forms—FAR (Standard Forms 1435 through 1440) by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “Information Collection 9000-0012; Termination Settlement Proposal Forms—FAR (Standard Forms 1435 through 1440)”. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0012; Termination Settlement Proposal Forms—FAR (Standard Forms 1435 through 1440)”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0012; Termination Settlement Proposal Forms—FAR (Standard Forms 1435 through 1440)” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0012.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0012, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Curtis E. Glover Sr., Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, at 202-501-1448, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    The termination settlement proposal forms (Standard Forms 1435 through 1440) provide a standardized format for listing essential cost and inventory information needed to support the terminated contractor's negotiation position per FAR subpart 49.6—Contract Termination Forms and Formats. Submission of the information assures that a contractor will be fairly reimbursed upon settlement of the terminated contract.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 4,851.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.7.

    Total Responses: 8,247.

    Hours per Response: 2.4.

    Total Burden Hours: 19,793.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requester may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0012, Termination Settlement Proposal Forms—FAR (SF's 1435 through 1440), in all correspondence.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Mahruba Uddowla, Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15995 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED).

    OMB No.: 0970-0439.

    Description: The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) within the Administration for Child and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeks an extension without change for an existing data collection called the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) through September 30, 2018 (OMB no. 0970-439; expiration date September 30, 2016). Under CSPED, OCSE has issued grants to eight state child support agencies to provide employment, parenting, and child support services to parents who are having difficulty meeting their child support obligations. The overall objective of the CSPED evaluation is to document and evaluate the effectiveness of the approaches taken by these eight CSPED grantees. This evaluation will yield information about effective strategies for improving child support payments by providing non-custodial parents employment and other services through child support programs. It will generate extensive information on how these programs operated, what they cost, the effects the programs had, and whether the benefits of the programs exceed their costs. The information gathered will be critical to informing decisions related to future investments in child support-led employment-focused programs for non-custodial parents who have difficulty meeting their child support obligations.

    The CSPED evaluation consists of the following two interconnected components or “studies”:

    1. Implementation and Cost Study. The goal of the implementation and cost study is to provide a detailed description of the programs—how they are implemented, their participants, the contexts in which they are operated, their promising practices, and their costs. The detailed descriptions will assist in interpreting program impacts, identifying program features and conditions necessary for effective program replication or improvement, and carefully documenting the costs of delivering these services. Key data collection activities of the implementation and cost study include: (1) Conducting semi-structured interviews with program staff and selected community partner organizations to gather information on program implementation and costs; (2) conducting focus groups with program participants to elicit participation experiences; (3) administering a web-based survey to program staff and community partners to capture broader staff program experiences; and (4) collecting data on study participant service use, dosage, and duration of enrollment throughout the demonstration using a web-based Management Information System (MIS). Two of these collection activities will be completed before the requested extension period begins. They include the focus groups and the web-based survey of program staff and community partners.

    2. Impact Study. The goal of the impact study is to provide rigorous estimates of the effectiveness of the eight programs using an experimental research design. Program applicants who are eligible for CSPED services are randomly assigned to either a program group that is offered program services or a control group. The study MIS that documents service use for the implementation study is also being used by grantee staff to conduct random assignment for the impact study. The impact study relies on data from surveys of participants, as well as administrative records from state and county data systems. Survey data are collected twice from program applicants. Baseline information is collected from all noncustodial parents who apply for the program prior to random assignment. A follow-up survey is collected from sample members twelve months after random assignment. A wide range of measures are collected through surveys, including measures of employment stability and quality, barriers to employment, parenting and co-parenting, and demographic and socio-economic characteristics. In addition, data on child support obligations and payments, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, Medicaid receipt, involvement with the criminal justice system, and earnings and benefit data collected through the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system are obtained from state and county databases.

    Respondents: Respondents to these activities include study participants, grantee staff and community partners, as well as state and county staff responsible for extracting data from government databases for the evaluation. Specific respondents per instrument are noted in the burden table below.

    Annual Burden Estimates

    The following table provides the burden estimates for the implementation and cost study and the impact study components of the current request. The requested extension period is estimated to be two years and three months, from July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018. Thus, burden hours for all components are annualized over two years and three months.

    Implementation and Cost Study Instrument Total number of respondents remaining Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • remaining
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • remaining
  • Estimated total burden hours remaining Total annual burden hours remaining
    Staff interview topic guide with program staff and community partners 120 1 1 120 53 Study MIS for grantee and partner staff to track program participation 200 468.75 0.0333 3,125 1,390
    Impact Study Instrument Total number of respondents remaining Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • remaining
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • remaining
  • Estimated total burden hours remaining Total annual burden hours remaining
    Introductory Script for Program Staff 120 9 .1667 180 80 Introductory Script for Program Participants 1,050 1 .1667 175 78 Baseline Survey 1,000 1 .5833 583 259 Study MIS to Conduct Random Assignment 120 9 .1667 180 80 Protocol for collecting administrative records 32 1 8 256 114 12-month follow-up survey 1,476 1 0.75 1,107 492

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,546.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration of Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16050 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Notice of Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service; Correction AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service (IHS), Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) published a document in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016, for the Notice of Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service. The date and location of the onsite consultation session has been changed as reflected in this correction notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CAPT Chris Buchanan, Acting Director, Great Plains Area, Indian Health Service, 115 4th Ave. SE., Suite 309, Aberdeen, South Dakota, (605) 226-7584, Fax (605) 226-7541.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of June 3, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-13135, on page 35786, in the third column, under the heading SUMMARY, delete “July 13, 2016 in Aberdeen, South Dakota”, and insert “July 15, 2016.” On page 35786, in the third column, under the heading DATES, delete both references to Aberdeen, South Dakota in the first and second paragraphs. On page 35786, in the third column, under the heading ADDESSES, delete “The Dakota Event Center located at 720 Lamont Street, Aberdeen, South Dakota”, and insert “The Best Western Ramkota Hotel located at 2111 N. Lacrosse Street, Rapid City, SD 57701”.

    Dated: June 29, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16135 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Mechanisms of Neuroprotection and Neurodegeneration.

    Date: July 20, 2016

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Carole L. Jelsema, Ph.D., Chief and Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4176, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1248, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Neurodegeneration.

    Date: July 21, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Richard D. Crosland, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4190, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1220, [email protected],

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Stem Cells in Development and Neurodegeneration.

    Date: July 22, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Carol Hamelink, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4192, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 213-9887, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Stem Cells and Neurodevelopment.

    Date: July 26, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Carol Hamelink, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4192, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 213-9887, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 30, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16041 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; IDD Research Centers.

    Date: July 25-26, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Washington Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.

    Contact Person: Marita R. Hopmann, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Building, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6911, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 30, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16042 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Outstanding New Environmental Scientist Review Meeting.

    Date: July 25, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: NIEHS, Keystone Building, 3003, 530 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27713, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Leroy Worth, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat. Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30/Room 3171, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919/541-0670, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 30, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16043 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

    DATES:

    The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 20, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case No. Chief executive officer of community Community map repository Effective date of modification Community No. Arizona: Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1556 City of Peoria (14-09-4245P) The Honorable Cathy Carlat, Mayor, City of Peoria, 8401 West Monroe Street, Peoria, AZ 85345 City Hall, 8401 West Monroe Street, Peoria, AZ 85345 Mar. 18, 2016 040050 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) City of Peoria (15-09-2060P) The Honorable Cathy Carlat, Mayor, City of Peoria, 8401 West Monroe Street, Peoria, AZ 85345 City Hall, 8401 West Monroe Street, Peoria, AZ 85345 Apr. 29, 2016 040050 Pima (FEMA Docket No.: B-1556) Unincorporated areas of Pima County (15-09-0394P) The Honorable Sharon Bronson, Chair, Board of Supervisors, Pima County, 130 West Congress Street, 11th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 Pima County Flood Control District, 210 North Stone Avenue, 9th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 Mar. 21, 2016 040073 Pima (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) Unincorporated areas of Pima County (15-09-1650P) The Honorable Sharon Bronson, Chair, Board of Supervisors, Pima County, 130 West Congress Street, 11th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 Pima County Flood Control District, 210 North Stone Avenue, 9th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 Apr. 15, 2016 040073 Yavapai (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) Unincorporated areas of Yavapai County (15-09-1727P) The Honorable Craig Brown, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Yavapai County, 1015 Fair Street, Prescott Valley, AZ 86305 Yavapai County Flood Control District Office, 1120 Commerce Drive, Prescott, AZ 86305 May 27, 2016 040093 California: Kern (FEMA Docket No.: B-1556) City of Bakersfield (13-09-2248P) The Honorable Harvey Hall, Mayor, City of Bakersfield, 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 Public Works Department, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 Mar. 29, 2016 060077 Kern (FEMA Docket No.: B-1556) Unincorporated areas of Kern County (13-09-2248P) The Honorable David Couch, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Kern County, 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor, Bakersfield, CA 93301 Kern County Planning Department, 2700 M Street, Suite 100, Bakersfield, CA 93301 Mar. 29, 2016 060075 Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) City of Corona (15-09-1832P) The Honorable Eugene Montanez, Mayor, City of Corona, 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, CA 92882 City Hall, 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, CA 92882 Mar. 31, 2016 060250 Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) City of Moreno Valley (15-09-1728P) The Honorable Tom Owings, Mayor, City of Moreno Valley, 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92552 City Hall, 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92552 May 26, 2016 065074 Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) City of Perris (15-09-1728P) The Honorable Daryl R. Busch, Mayor, City of Perris, 101 North D Street, Perris, CA 92570 City Hall, 101 North D Street, Perris, CA 92570 May 26, 2016 060258 Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) Unincorporated areas of Riverside County (15-09-1832P) The Honorable Marion Ashley, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Riverside County, 4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1995 Market Street, Riverside, CA 92501 Mar. 31, 2016 060245 San Diego (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) City of El Cajon (15-09-1699P) The Honorable Bill Wells, Mayor, City of El Cajon, 200 Civic Center Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 City Hall, 200 Civic Center Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 Apr. 8, 2016 060289 San Mateo (FEMA Docket No.: B-1556) Unincorporated areas of San Mateo County (15-09-1770P) The Honorable Carole Groom, Chair, Board of Supervisors, San Mateo County, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063 San Mateo County Planning and Building Department, 455 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063 Mar. 31, 2016 060311 Hawaii: Maui (FEMA Docket No.: B-1556) Maui County (15-09-2997X) The Honorable Alan M. Arakawa, Mayor, County of Maui, 200 South High Street, Kalana O Maui Building, 9th Floor, Wailuku, HI 96793 Maui County Planning Department, 2200 Main Street, One Main Plaza Building, Suite 315, Wailuku, HI 96793 Mar. 28, 2016 150003 Nevada: Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) Unincorporated areas of Clark County (15-09-2566P) The Honorable Steve Sisolak, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Clark County, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, 6th Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89106 Office of the Director of Public Works, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155 May 19, 2016 320003 Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) Unincorporated areas of Clark County (16-09-0035P) The Honorable Steve Sisolak, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Clark County, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, 6th Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89106 Office of the Director of Public Works, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155 May 10, 2016 320003 Douglas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) Unincorporated areas of Douglas County (15-09-0074P) The Honorable Doug N. Johnson, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Douglas County, P.O. Box 218, Minden, NV 89423 Douglas County Public Works Department, 1615 8th Street, Minden, NV 89423 May 26, 2016 320008 Douglas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1556) Unincorporated areas of Douglas County (15-09-2371P) The Honorable Doug N. Johnson, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Douglas County, P.O. Box 218, Minden, NV 89423 Douglas County Public Works Department, 1615 8th Street, Minden, NV 89423 Mar. 24, 2016 320008 Washoe (FEMA Docket No.: B-1608) City of Reno (16-09-0377X) The Honorable Hillary Schieve, Mayor, City of Reno, 1 East 1st Street, Reno, NV 89505 City Hall Annex, 450 Sinclair Street, Reno, NV 89501 May 25, 2016 320020
    [FR Doc. 2016-16055 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1631] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before October 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1631, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 20, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Community map repository address Seneca Watershed Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Anderson County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas City of Anderson Public Works Building, 1100 Southwood Street, Anderson, SC 29624. Town of Pendleton Town Municipal Complex, 310 Greenville Street, Pendleton, SC 29670. Unincorporated Areas of Anderson County Anderson County Department of Development Standards, 401 East River Street, Anderson, SC 29624. Oconee County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas City of Seneca City Hall, 221 East North 1st Street, Lower Floor, Seneca, SC 29678. Unincorporated Areas of Oconee County Oconee County Council Chambers, Administration Office Building, 415 South Pine Street, Walhalla, SC 29691. Pickens County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas City of Clemson City Hall, 1250 Tiger Boulevard, Clemson, SC 29631. Unincorporated Areas of Pickens County Pickens County Building Codes Administration, 222 McDaniel Avenue, B-10, Pickens, SC 29671.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16056 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5909-N-46] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) Systems User Access Authorization Form and Rules of Behavior and User Agreement AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on April 20, 2016 at 81 FR 23325.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: EIV System User Access Authorization Form and Rules of Behavior and User Agreement.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0267.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: HUD-52676 and HUD-52676-1.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: In accordance with statutory requirements at 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended (most commonly known as the Federal Privacy Act of 1974), the Department is required to account for all disclosures of information contained in a system of records. Specifically, the Department is required to keep an accurate accounting of the name and address of the person or agency to which the disclosure is made. The Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) System (HUD/PIH-5) is classified as a System of Records, as initially published on July 20, 2005, in the Federal Register at page 41780 (70 FR 41780) and amended and published on August 8, 2006, in the Federal Register at page 45066 (71 FR 45066).

    As a condition of granting access to the EIV system, each prospective user of the system must (1) request access to the system; (2) agree to comply with HUD's established rules of behavior; and (3) review and signify their understanding of their responsibilities of protecting data under the Federal Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 522a, as amended). As such, the collection of information about the user and the type of system access required by the prospective user is required by HUD to: (1) Identify the user; (2) determine if the prospective user in fact requires access to the EIV system and in what capacity; (3) provide the prospective user with information related to the Rules of Behavior for system usage and the user's responsibilities to safeguard data accessed in the system once access is granted; and (4) obtain the signature of the prospective user to certify the user's understanding of the Rules of Behavior and responsibilities associated with his/her use of the EIV system.

    HUD collects the following information from each prospective user: Public Housing Agency (PHA) code, organization name, organization address, prospective user's full name, HUD-assigned user ID, position title, office telephone number, facsimile number, type of work which involves the use of the EIV system, type of system action requested, requested access roles to be assigned to prospective user, public housing development numbers to be assigned to prospective PHA user, and prospective user's signature and date of request. The information is collected electronically and manually (for those who are unable to transmit electronically) via a PDF-fillable or Word-fillable document, which can be emailed, faxed or mailed to HUD. If this information is not collected, the Department will not be in compliance with the Federal Privacy Act and be subject to civil penalties.

    Estimate Number of Respondents: 12,777.

    Estimate Number of Responses: 13,209.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Average Hours per Response: 0.25.

    Total Estimated Burden: 10,724.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16117 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5909-N-48] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Fair Housing Initiatives Program Grant Application and Monitoring Reports AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Inez C. Downs at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-8046. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on April 28, 2016 at 81 FR 25413.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Fair Housing Initiatives Program Grant Application and Monitoring Reports.

    OMB Approval Number: 2529-0033.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Form Number: HUD 904 A, B and C, SF-425, SF-424, SF-LLL, HUD-2880, HUD-2990, HUD-2993, HUD-424CB, HUD-424-CBW, HUD-2994-A, HUD-96010, and HUD-27061.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The collection is needed to allow the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) to request applicant information necessary to complete a grant application package during the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) grant application process. The collection is used to assist the Department in effectively evaluating grant application packages to select the highest ranked applications for funding to carry out fair housing enforcement and/or education and outreach activities under the following FHIP initiatives: Private Enforcement, Education and Outreach, and Fair Housing Organization. The collection is also needed for the collection of post-award report and other information used to monitor grants and grant funds. Information collected from quarterly and final progress reports and enforcement logs will enable the Department to evaluate the performance of agencies that receive funding and determine the impact of the program on preventing and eliminating discriminatory housing practices.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): 400.

    Estimate Number of Respondents: 876.

    Estimate Number of Responses: 1,366.

    Frequency of Response: 14.

    Average Hours per Response: 187.50.

    Total Estimated Burden: 46,356.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Inez C. Downs, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16118 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5909-N-47] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) Systems—Debts Owed to Public Housing Agencies and Terminations AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on April 26, 2016 at 81 FR 24634.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) Systems—Debts Owed to Public Housing Agencies and Terminations.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0266.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: HUD-52675.

    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: In accordance with 24 CFR 5.233, processing entities that administer the Public Housing, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Moderate Rehabilitation, Project-based Voucher, Project-based Section 8, Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, Section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Sections 221(d)(3) and 236 of the National Housing Act, and Section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 Rent Supplement programs are required to use HUD's Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) system to verify employment and income information of program participants and to reduce administrative and subsidy payment errors. The EIV system is a system of records owned by HUD, as published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2005 at 70 FR 41780 and updated on August 8, 2006 at 71 FR 45066.

    The Department seeks to identify families who no longer participate in a HUD rental assistance program due to adverse termination of tenancy and/or assistance, and owe a debt to a Public Housing Agency (PHA). In accordance with 24 CFR 982.552 and 960.203, the PHA may deny admission to a program if the family is not suitable for tenancy for reasons such as, but not limited to: Unacceptable past performance in meeting financial obligations, history of criminal activity, eviction from Federally assisted housing in the last five years, family has committed fraud, bribery, or any other corrupt or criminal act in connection with a Federal housing program, or if a family currently owes rent or other amounts to the PHA or to another PHA in connection with a Federally assisted housing program under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.

    Within the scope of this collection of information, HUD seeks to collect from all PHAs, the following information:

    1. Amount of debt owed by a former tenant to a PHA;

    2. If applicable, indication of executed repayment agreement;

    3. If applicable, indication of bankruptcy filing;

    4. If applicable, the reason for any adverse termination of the family from a Federally assisted housing program.

    This information is collected electronically from PHAs via HUD's EIV system. This information is used by HUD to create a national repository of families that owe a debt to a PHA and/or have been terminated from a federally assisted housing program. This national repository is available within the EIV system for all PHAs to access during the time of application for rental assistance. PHAs are able to access this information to determine a family's suitability for rental assistance, and avoid providing limited Federal housing assistance to families who have previously been unable to comply with HUD program requirements. If this information is not collected, the Department is at risk of paying limited Federal dollars on behalf of families who may not be eligible to receive rental housing assistance. Furthermore, if this information is not collected, the public will perceive that there are no consequences for a family's failure to comply with HUD program requirements.

    Respondents: Public Housing Agencies.

    Information
  • collection
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden hour per
  • response
  • Annual
  • burden hours
  • Hourly cost
  • per response
  • Annual
  • cost
  • HUD-52675 3937 Monthly 47,244 0.0833 Hours or 5 minutes per family 26,177 $21.03 $550,502.31
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16116 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2016-N102; FXES11120100000-167-FF01E00000] Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan, Kauai, Hawaii AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent; announcement of public scoping meeting; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) to evaluate the impacts of several alternatives relating to the requested issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) to the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) that would authorize take of listed species caused by activities covered under the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative Long-term Habitat Conservation Plan (KIUC LTHCP). We also provide this notice to announce a public scoping period.

    DATES:

    The public scoping period begins with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and will continue through September 6, 2016. The Service will consider all comments on the scope of the DEIS analysis that are received or postmarked by this date. Comments received or postmarked after this date will be considered to the extent practicable. The Service will also hold one public scoping open house, at the following time and location during the scoping period:

    • July 20, 2016—Kauai Community College, 3-1901 Kaumualii Highway, Lihue, Kauai, HI 96766, 5 to 7 p.m.

    The scoping meeting will provide the public an opportunity to ask questions, discuss issues with Service and State staff regarding the DEIS, and provide written comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods:

    U.S. Mail: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850. Include “KIUC HCP and scoping EIS” in the subject line of your request or comment.

    Email: [email protected] Include “KIUC HCP and scoping EIS” in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 808-792-9580, Attn: Field Supervisor. Include “KIUC HCP and scoping EIS” in the subject line of the message.

    Internet: You may obtain copies of this notice on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/, or from the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office in Honolulu, Hawaii (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

    We request that you send comments by only one of the methods described above. See the Public Availability of Comments section below for more information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lasha-Lynn Salbosa, by telephone at 808-792-9442, or by email at [email protected] Hearing or speech impaired individuals may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) to evaluate the impacts of several alternatives relating to the requested issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) to the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) that would authorize take of listed species caused by activities covered under the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative Long-term Habitat Conservation Plan (KIUC LTHCP). We also provide this notice to announce a public scoping period.

    The KIUC LTHCP is being prepared by KIUC to address the effects of its generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity on listed species within the plan area, which covers the full geographic extent of the Island of Kauai, Hawaii. KIUC anticipates requesting incidental take coverage for the endangered Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), threatened Newell's shearwater (Puffinus newelli), and a species proposed for listing as endangered, the band-rumped storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro). These species are collectively referred to as the “Covered Species.” The activities covered under the KIUC LTHCP (“Covered Activities”) include construction of certain planned facilities; power line construction, reconfiguration, or undergrounding; installation and operation of streetlight fixtures at the request of State, County, or private entities; the operation and maintenance of all existing and planned KIUC facilities and infrastructure; and activities associated with the management of certain lands to mitigate for the take of Covered Species.

    This notice was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6, and pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. We intend to prepare a DEIS to evaluate the impacts of several alternatives related to the potential issuance of an ITP under the KIUC LTHCP. KIUC intends to request a permit term of 30 years. The primary purpose of the scoping process is for the public and other agencies to assist in developing the DEIS by identifying important issues and identifying alternatives that should be considered.

    Background

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered under section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1538 and 16 U.S.C. 1533, respectively). The ESA implementing regulations extend, under certain circumstances, the prohibition of take to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31). Under section 3 of the ESA, the term “take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm” is defined by regulation as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in the regulations as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3).

    Under section 10(a) of the ESA, the Service may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed fish and wildlife species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions for issuing ITPs to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met:

    • The taking will be incidental;

    • The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking;

    • The applicant will develop a proposed HCP and ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided;

    • The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and

    • The applicant will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.

    Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32.

    KIUC Short-Term HCP

    In 2011, the KIUC Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan (STHCP) was approved by the Service, and KIUC received an ITP for the Covered Species (i.e., the Newell's shearwater, Hawaiian petrel, and the band-rumped storm petrel). The Covered Species are subject to injury or mortality as a result of colliding with KIUC-owned power lines and utility infrastructure, and injury or mortality as a result of attraction to nighttime lighting from KIUC-owned and operated streetlights and facilities. The ITP authorized an annual take amount of 162 Newell's shearwaters, two Hawaiian petrels, and two band-rumped storm petrels over a 5-year period, as a result of attraction to, or collision with, KIUC facilities. In total, the ITP authorized a combined take amount of 830 sub-adults or adults of the Covered Species.

    Current estimates of the Newell's shearwater population, of which 90 percent nest on Kauai, range from 16,200 to 24,300, based on at-sea population estimates from 1998 through 2011 (Joyce 2013), and projected under various annual levels of decline (Griesemer and Holmes 2011). The Newell's shearwater rangewide population has experienced an over 75 percent decline from 1993 through 2009 (Day et al. 2003; Holmes et al. 2009). The Hawaiian petrel population nests on several of the southeastern Hawaiian Islands, including Hawaii and Maui, with the total population estimated at 20,000 individuals (Spear et al. 1995). The majority of the breeding population nests on Kauai (Ainley et al. 1997). An updated assessment of the Hawaiian petrel population on Kauai is under way (A. Raine, personal communication, September 30, 2015). Seabird colony monitoring data reflect significant threats from feral pig, cat, barn owl, and rat predation, as well as habitat degradation from invasive plants. Combined with the take caused by power line collisions and light attraction, these threat factors have resulted in the extirpation of at least three breeding colonies of these species on Kauai since 2011 (Holmes and Troy 2008).

    The 2011 STHCP established a comprehensive monitoring and research program designed to further evaluate the impact of the power line system on seabird populations and to provide key biological data to more adequately inform a longer term HCP and take authorization. To this end, KIUC provides funding to the Kauai Endangered Seabird Recovery Project (KESRP), a project of the University of Hawaii's Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, to monitor seabird colonies and develop approaches to assess seabird-power line collisions. Due to the remote location of many power lines on Kauai and the nocturnal behavior of seabirds, in 2012 KESRP developed an acoustic song-meter monitoring system to detect seabird collisions. This acoustic system became the foundation for KIUC's Underline Monitoring Program (UMP) and has been accepted and is funded by KIUC.

    During the course of implementation of the KIUC STHCP, KESRP observed a total of 28 seabird power line collisions using night vision equipment. Of the 28 seabird power line collisions observed, only one of these collision events definitively resulted in an immediate grounded bird within the observer's field of view. Additionally, about 25 deceased Newell's shearwaters have been opportunistically found from 2011 through 2015, associated with KIUC power lines or lights. The acoustic system, which is able to monitor the power lines for seabird collisions more extensively than human observers can, has detected a minimum of 1,012 and 1,002 seabird collision events in 2014 and 2015, respectively (KIUC STHCP 2014 and 2015 UMP Reports). Since 2012, KESRP, in collaboration with KIUC, has identified all high and medium risk power line spans that pose a threat to the Covered Species. These high and medium risk lines are continually monitored every year, and those data are used to plan and test for effective minimization measures, including reconfiguring lines or installing bird diverters. While the acoustic system has been successful in detecting seabird power line collisions, only a subset of the power line system can be monitored and therefore collisions outside of the monitored areas must be estimated. Moreover, while a minimum of 1,002 seabird collision events have been detected in 2015, the fate of the birds that collided with these lines is unknown. Based on KESRP field observations, it is certain that some portion of these collisions results in immediate grounding or mortality, and that some additional proportion results in harm or injury, or potential mortality sometime after the collision event. Previous scientific studies based on waterfowl and their interactions with power lines have estimated that this subsequent mortality after the collision event could range from 20 percent to 74 percent of total detected collisions (Bevanger 1995; Bevanger 1999; Beaulaurier 1981; and Shaw et al. 2010).

    The STHCP has been successful in guiding measures that KIUC has implemented to mitigate the effects of its existing facilities on the Covered Species; increasing knowledge related to the impact of KIUC's power line system on seabird populations; providing key biological data concerning the Covered Species; and improving our understanding of the effectiveness of conservation measures to more adequately inform a longer term habitat conservation plan and take authorization.

    In 2015, KIUC spent $2.32 million to implement the conservation program under the STHCP. Sixty-two percent of this budget funded seabird colony management (i.e., predator control and monitoring). Under the STHCP, KIUC is funding a total of 851 acres of seabird colony management (i.e., predator control) at three sites within the State's Hono o Na Pali Natural Area Reserve, and a larger location within the National Tropical Botanical Garden's Upper Limahuli Preserve. The remaining budget funds the retrieval and rehabilitation of seabirds on Kauai, and the KIUC Underline Monitoring Program, which includes testing and installation of avian deterrent devices. KIUC has undergrounded or reconfigured 25 percent of their identified high collision-risk power lines since 2011. KIUC continues to use the underline monitoring data to direct minimization actions, including reconfiguring or undergrounding power lines, and installing bird deterrent devices to minimize impacts from high collision-risk power lines. Although KIUC's current mitigation and minimization programs are meaningful, these efforts are likely not commensurate with the actual level of take occurring.

    The STHCP expiration date was in May 2016. On April 12, 2016, we received an application for renewal of that permit pending preparation of the LTHCP.

    Proposed Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan

    The KIUC LTHCP is being prepared by KIUC to cover the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity within the plan area, which covers the full geographic extent of the Island of Kauai, Hawaii. KIUC intends to submit the LTHCP as part of the its application for a Federal ITP and a State incidental take license, in accordance with respective Federal and State permit issuance criteria. KIUC intends to develop the LTHCP in coordination with the Service, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources-Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Kauai Endangered Seabird Recovery Project, Kauai Seabird Habitat Conservation Program, Kauai Humane Society, and the National Tropical Botanical Garden.

    In response to the Service's recommendation in 2011, KIUC was participating in the planning for a State-sponsored islandwide HCP (the “Kauai Seabird Habitat Conservation Program” or “KSHCP”) which was intended to address take of the Covered Species from attraction to, or collision with various lights and power lines on the island of Kauai, due to activities by numerous entities in addition to KIUC. However, in November 2015, the State, in consultation with the Service, decided to limit the KSHCP planning effort just to light attraction take. As a result of this decision to limit the KSHCP to light attraction take, KIUC is now seeking long-term incidental take authorization through its own separate KIUC LTHCP.

    Covered Species and Activities: The Covered Species addressed in the LTHCP will be the same as those addressed in the STHCP: The endangered Hawaiian petrel, threatened Newell's shearwater, and the band-rumped storm-petrel, a species proposed for listing as endangered. As noted above, the Covered Species are subject to collisions with power lines and other infrastructure while flying at night between their nesting colonies and at-sea foraging areas. The Covered Species, particularly fledglings, are also affected by and attracted to bright nighttime lights. Disoriented birds are commonly observed circling repeatedly around exterior light sources until they fall exhausted to the ground or collide with structures.

    The KIUC LTHCP and ITP will address the incidental take of the Covered Species caused by Covered Activities that are described and analyzed in the LTHCP. In accordance with the requirements of section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA, the LTHCP will also address: The impacts to the Covered Species caused by the taking; the steps KIUC will take to minimize and mitigate those impacts; the funding that will be available to implement those steps; what alternative actions to the taking that KIUC considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized; and other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan.

    The KIUC intends to utilize new information generated through implementation of the STHCP to develop a long-term HCP addressing the Covered Species in support of its request for a 30-year ITP. It is anticipated that KIUC will request authorization for the lethal take of approximately 100 to 1,000 individuals annually of the Covered Species combined. A more specific total combined amount of take, and a more specific amount of take for each Covered Species that KIUC will request will be described in the LTHCP.

    KIUC's existing facilities include over 1,400 miles of electrical transmission and distribution lines, two fossil fuel-fired generating stations, two hydroelectric stations, two 12-megawatt solar energy parks, twelve substations, and approximately 3,500 streetlights. Covered Activities under the KIUC LTHCP are expected to include: (1) KIUC operations, including actions necessary to construct, operate, maintain and repair all existing and certain planned KIUC facilities and infrastructure; (2) minimization measures, including installation of bird deterrents, undergrounding power lines, line reconfiguring, line removal, relocating facilities, and line rerouting; and (3) mitigation measures, including construction and maintenance of predator-proof fenced enclosures, invasive predator reduction efforts, and seabird colony monitoring and habitat management activities to create or enhance seabird breeding habitat. The KIUC LTHCP is also expected to include the following as Covered Activities: 600 new streetlights; approximately 15 miles of new transmission lines (much of it on already constructed poles or underground); approximately 15 miles per year of line improvements, re-configured, or undergrounded distribution lines; the closure of one substation and the construction of 3 or more new facilities, including the Aepo Substation, Hanahanapuni Switching Station, and the Kilohana Switching station. Additional substations may also be built for renewable projects that cannot be integrated into the existing facilities due to their location, capacity, or operation constraints.

    Minimization and Mitigation Measures: The KIUC LTHCP is expected to include a comprehensive minimization program that will be based on the results of extensive underline monitoring conducted under the STHCP. These minimization measures would be designed to reduce the amount of Covered Species collisions with power lines in areas known to have a high risk of seabird-line collisions. These minimization measures are likely to include installation of bird deterrents and line reconfiguring.

    The KIUC LTHCP is expected to include a variety of conservation measures to mitigate unavoidable impacts to the Covered Species. One set of measures is intended to improve the breeding success of the Covered Species. These measures are likely to include: the installation and maintenance of predator-proof fencing at two or more locations encompassing at least several hundred acres of existing Covered Species breeding colonies in northern, interior areas of Kauai; post-fencing efforts to greatly reduce or eliminate predator populations from within the fenced areas; efforts to reduce predator populations at other locations; and one or more social attraction projects to create new breeding areas within appropriate habitat for the Covered Species. Other mitigation measures are expected to include: continued implementation of the Save Our Shearwaters program which retrieves downed seabirds and releases them back to the wild following evaluation and any necessary rehabilitation; surveys to identify the location of additional breeding colonies of the Covered Species on Kauai; and research to evaluate methods of improving Covered Species breeding success through habitat and predator management.

    Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that Federal agencies conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may significantly affect the human environment. Based on 40 CFR 1508.27 and 40 CFR 1508.2, we have determined that the proposed KIUC LTHCP and ITP may have significant effects on the human environment. Therefore, before deciding whether to issue an ITP, we will prepare a DEIS to analyze the environmental impacts associated with that action.

    The DEIS will consider the impacts of the issuance of an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit on the human environment. The DEIS will also include an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives. Such alternatives may include, but are not limited to, variations in: The permit term or permit structure; the level of take allowed; the level, location, or type of minimization, mitigation, or monitoring provided under the HCP; the scope of Covered Activities; the list of Covered Species; or a combination of these factors. Other alternatives could include undergrounding, reconfiguring or taking other measures to minimize the take at all five power line segments that accounted for 72 percent of all seabird collisions in 2014, expanding existing predator control areas to maximize seabird protection, and the addition of one or more seabird colony management sites in the Upper Manoa Valley. Additionally, a No Action Alternative will be included. Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not issue an ITP, and KIUC would be obligated to avoid incidental take of federally-listed species or risk violation of Federal and State law.

    The DEIS will identify and describe direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on biological resources, land use, air quality, water quality, water resources, socioeconomics, climate, and other environmental resources that could occur with the implementation of the proposed action and alternatives. The Service will also identify measures, consistent with NEPA and other relevant considerations of national policy, to avoid or minimize any significant effects of the proposed action on the quality of the human environment. Following completion of the environmental review, the Service will publish a notice of availability and a request for comment on the DEIS, which will include a draft of the proposed KIUC LTHCP.

    Request for Information

    We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Native Hawaiian organizations or entities, industry, or any other interested party on this notice. We will consider these comments in developing the DEIS. We seek specific comments on:

    1. Biological information and relevant data concerning the Covered Species;

    2. Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the Covered Species;

    3. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that implementation of the proposed Covered Activities and mitigation/minimization measures could have on the Covered Species; and other endangered or threatened species, and their communities or habitats; and other aspects of the human environment;

    4. Whether there are connected, similar, or reasonably foreseeable cumulative actions;

    5. Other possible alternatives to the proposed permit action that the Service should consider, including additional or alternative mitigation and minimization measures;

    6. Other current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on Covered Species;

    7. The presence of archaeological sites, buildings and structures, historic events, sacred and traditional areas, and other historic preservation concerns, which are required to be considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation Act; and

    8. Identification of any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed KIUC LTHCP and permit action.

    Public Availability of Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed above in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—might be made publicly available at any time. 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.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the DEIS, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

    Scoping Meeting

    See DATES section above for the date and time of the public scoping meeting. The primary purpose of the meeting and the public comment period is to provide the public with a general understanding of the background of the proposed action and to solicit suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives we should consider when preparing the DEIS. Written comments will be accepted at the meeting. Comments can also be submitted by the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Once the DEIS and proposed KIUC LTHCP are complete and made available for review, there will be additional opportunity for public comment on the content of these documents.

    Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public scoping meeting should contact the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office using one of the methods listed above in ADDRESSES as soon as possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please make contact no later than one week before the public meeting. Information regarding this proposed action is available in alternative formats upon request.

    Authority

    We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and per NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.7, 40 CFR 1506.5 and 1508.22).

    Theresa Rabot, Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16077 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0069; FF09E15000-FXHC112509CBRA1-167] John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Bay and Gulf Counties, FL; Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, NJ; Availability of Draft Maps and Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of six John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) draft revised maps for public review and comment. The draft maps, all dated May 16, 2016, are for four existing CBRS units located in Bay and Gulf Counties, Florida, and for three existing units and three proposed new units located in Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:

    Electronically: Go to the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0069, which is the docket number for this notice. Then, on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Notices link to locate this document and submit a comment.

    By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0069; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC; Falls Church, VA 22041-3808.

    We request that you send comments by only the methods described above. We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide personal identifying information in your comment, 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katie Niemi, Coastal Barriers Coordinator, (703) 358-2071 (telephone); or [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Coastal barriers are typically elongated, narrow landforms located at the interface of land and sea, and are inherently dynamic ecosystems. Coastal barriers provide important habitat for fish and wildlife, and serve as the mainland's first line of defense against the impacts of severe storms. With the passage of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) in 1982 (Pub. L. 97-348), Congress recognized that certain actions and programs of the Federal Government have historically subsidized and encouraged development on coastal barriers, where severe storms are much more likely to occur, and the result has been the loss of natural resources; threats to human life, health, and property; and the expenditure of millions of tax dollars each year.

    The CBRA established the CBRS, which comprised 186 geographic units encompassing approximately 453,000 acres of undeveloped lands and associated aquatic habitat along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The CBRS was expanded by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-591) to include additional areas along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, as well as areas along the coasts of the Great Lakes, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The CBRS now comprises a total of 859 geographic units, encompassing approximately 3.3 million acres of relatively undeveloped coastal barrier lands and associated aquatic habitat. These areas are depicted on a series of maps entitled “John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System.”

    Most new Federal expenditures and financial assistance that would have the effect of encouraging development are prohibited within the CBRS. However, development can still occur within the CBRS, provided that private developers or other non-Federal parties bear the full cost, rather than the American taxpayers.

    The CBRS includes two types of units, System Units and Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs). System Units generally comprise private lands that were relatively undeveloped at the time of their designation within the CBRS. Most new Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including Federal flood insurance, are prohibited within System Units. OPAs generally comprise lands established under Federal, State, or local law or held by a qualified organization primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation purposes. OPAs are denoted with a “P” at the end of the unit number. The only Federal spending prohibition within OPAs is the prohibition on Federal flood insurance.

    The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), through the Service, is responsible for administering the CBRA, which includes maintaining the official maps of the CBRS, consulting with Federal agencies that propose to spend funds within the CBRS, preparing updated maps of the CBRS, and making recommendations to Congress regarding changes to the CBRS. Aside from three minor exceptions, only Congress—through new legislation—can modify the maps of the CBRS to add or remove land. These exceptions, which allow the Secretary to make limited modifications to the CBRS (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)-(e)), are for: (1) Changes that have occurred to the CBRS as a result of natural forces, (2) voluntary additions to the CBRS by property owners, and (3) additions of excess Federal property to the CBRS.

    The Service receives numerous requests from property owners and other interested parties who seek to remove areas from the CBRS. When assessing whether a proposed change to remove an area from the CBRS constitutes an appropriate technical correction, we consider whether the original intent of the boundaries is reflected on the maps (i.e., whether the lines on the maps appropriately follow the features they were intended to follow on the ground). We also consider the level of development that was on the ground when the area was originally included in the CBRS by Congress.

    The Service generally does not recommend removals from the CBRS, unless there is clear and compelling evidence that a mapping error was made. In cases where mapping errors are found, the Service supports changes to the maps and works with Congress and other interested parties to create comprehensively revised maps using modern digital technology.

    Mapping Protocol for the Protection of Existing Critical Facilities

    Through this notice, we are developing a new CBRS mapping protocol for critical facilities located within and immediately adjacent to the CBRS. Under certain limited circumstances, the Service may consider mapping a CBRS area to allow for the protection of existing critical facilities (e.g., sewage treatment facilities, nuclear facilities, and hospitals) that primarily serve areas located outside of the CBRS. In such cases, the following criteria must be met: (1) The protection of the facility must be consistent with the three purposes of the CBRA: To minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and damage to the fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with coastal barriers; (2) the protection of the facility should not encourage new development within the CBRS (e.g., a levee protecting a facility should not also unnecessarily protect an undeveloped area within the CBRS or an area within the CBRS that developed after the unit was established); and (3) and there must be no reasonable alternative to protect the facility (e.g., nonstructural floodproofing, buyouts to allow for construction of levees and flood walls outside of the CBRS, alternative project design that does not infringe upon the CBRS, etc.). For the purpose of this protocol, the Service defines “existing” as being on-the-ground as of the date the area was added to the CBRS, and “critical facility” as a structure or other improvement that, because of its function, would likely cause catastrophic human health and safety impacts if it is destroyed or damaged or if its functionality is impaired. For the purposes of this protocol, a critical facility does not include other infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, electric lines, etc.) that is commonly included within the CBRS.

    The Service has developed this new protocol for critical facilities to allow for the protection of the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority (BRSA) Wastewater Treatment Facility in Monmouth County, New Jersey (see Proposed Map Modifications section below). In cases where the Service recommends the removal of an area from the CBRS in accordance with this protocol, the change will become effective only if the updated map is adopted through legislation enacted by Congress.

    Proposed Map Modifications

    The Service has prepared six comprehensively revised draft maps dated May 16, 2016, that propose modifications to the CBRS in Florida and New Jersey. Below is a summary of the changes depicted on the draft maps.

    Bay County, Florida

    The Service has prepared three draft maps for St. Andrew Complex P31/P31P located in Bay County, Florida. The draft maps for Units P31 and P31P remove approximately 125 acres from the CBRS (98 acres of fastland and 27 acres of associated aquatic habitat) and add approximately 1,582 acres to the CBRS (131 acres of fastland and 1,451 acres of associated aquatic habitat). The draft maps remove areas (some of which were inappropriately included within the CBRS in the past) and add areas that meet the CBRA criteria for inclusion within the CBRS (16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)). The draft maps also reclassify certain areas from System Unit to OPA, and vice versa.

    Gulf County, Florida

    The Service has prepared two draft maps for Cape San Blas Unit P30/P30P located in Gulf County, Florida. The draft maps for Unit P30/P30P remove approximately 65 acres from the CBRS (52 acres of fastland and 13 acres of associated aquatic habitat) and add approximately 642 acres to the CBRS (61 acres of fastland and 581 acres of associated aquatic habitat). The draft maps remove areas that were inappropriately included within the CBRS in the past and add areas that meet the CBRA criteria for inclusion within the CBRS (16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)). The draft maps also reclassify certain areas from System Unit to OPA, and vice versa.

    Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey

    The Service has prepared a draft map for Seidler Beach Unit NJ-02, Cliffwood Beach Unit NJ-03P, and Conaskonk Point Unit NJ-04, located in Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey. The draft map also includes three proposed new OPAs, Seidler Beach Unit NJ-02P, Sayreville Unit NJ-15P, and Matawan Point Unit NJ-16P, which are within the vicinity of the existing units. The draft map for Units NJ-02/NJ-02P, NJ-03P, NJ-04, NJ-15P, and NJ-16P, removes approximately 21 acres from the CBRS (15 acres of fastland and 6 acres of associated aquatic habitat) and adds approximately 393 acres to the CBRS (116 acres of fastland and 277 acres of associated aquatic habitat). The draft map removes areas that were inappropriately included within the CBRS in the past. Additionally, a strip of wetlands along the northeastern side of the BRSA facility is removed to allow for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a planned levee to protect a wastewater treatment facility from future storm damage. This proposed removal is in accordance with the protocol described in the Mapping Protocol for the Protection of Existing Critical Facilities section above. The draft map also adds areas that meet the CBRA criteria for inclusion within the CBRS (16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1) and reclassifies an area from System Unit to OPA.

    Proposed Additions to the CBRS

    The draft maps for Units P30/P30P, P31/P31P, NJ-02/NJ-02P, NJ-03P, NJ-04, NJ-15P, and NJ-16P propose additions to the CBRS, including the creation of three new units that are consistent with a directive in Section 4 of Public Law 109-226 concerning recommendations for expansion of the CBRS. The proposed boundaries depicted on the draft maps for Florida and New Jersey are based upon the best data available to the Service at the time the draft maps were created. Our assessment indicated that any new areas proposed for addition to the CBRS were relatively undeveloped at the time the draft maps were created.

    Section 2 of Public Law 106-514 requires that we consider the following criteria when assessing the development status of a potential addition to the CBRS: (1) Whether the density of development is less than one structure per five acres of land above mean high tide (which generally suggests eligibility for inclusion within the CBRS); and (2) whether there is existing infrastructure consisting of: A road, with a reinforced road bed, to each lot or building site in the area; a wastewater disposal system sufficient to serve each lot or building site in the area; electric service for each lot or building site in the area; and a fresh water supply for each lot or building site in the area (which generally suggests ineligibility for inclusion within the CBRS).

    If, upon review of the draft maps, interested parties find that any areas proposed for addition to the CBRS are currently developed (according to the criteria established by Section 2 of Public Law 106-514), they may submit supporting documentation of such development to the Service during this public comment period. For any areas proposed for addition to the CBRS on the draft maps, we will consider the density of development and level of infrastructure on the ground as of the close of the comment period on the date listed in the DATES section.

    Request for Comments

    Section 4 of Public Law 109-226 requires the Secretary to provide an opportunity for the submission of public comments. We invite the public to review and comment on the draft maps dated May 16, 2016, for CBRS Units P30/P30P, P31/P31P, NJ-02/NJ-02P, NJ-03P, NJ-04, NJ-15P, and NJ-16P. The Service is specifically notifying the following stakeholders concerning the availability of the draft revised maps: The Chair and Ranking Member of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources; the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; the members of the Senate and House of Representatives for the affected areas; the Governors of Florida and New Jersey; other appropriate Federal, State, and local officials; and nongovernmental organizations.

    Interested parties may submit written comments and accompanying data through http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the ADDRESSES section. The Service will also accept digital Geographic Information System (GIS) data files that are accompanied by written comments. Comments regarding specific CBRS unit(s) should reference the appropriate unit number(s) and unit name(s). We must receive comments on or before the date listed in the DATES section.

    Following the close of the comment period, we will review all comments received on the draft maps and we will make adjustments to the draft maps, as appropriate, based on information received through public comments, updated aerial imagery, CBRA criteria, and objective mapping protocols. We will then prepare final recommended maps to be submitted to Congress. The final recommended maps will become effective only if they are adopted by Congress through legislation.

    Availability of Draft Maps and Related Information

    The draft maps, unit summaries (containing historical changes and more detailed information regarding proposed changes to the units), and digital boundary data can be accessed and downloaded from the Service's Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/coastal.html, or via www.regulations.gov, where public comments should be submitted. The digital boundary data are available for reference purposes only. The digital boundaries are best viewed using the base imagery to which the boundaries were drawn; this information is printed in the title block of the draft maps. The Service is not responsible for any misuse or misinterpretation of the digital boundary data.

    Interested parties may also contact the Service individual identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to make arrangements to view the draft maps at the Service's Headquarters office. Interested parties who are unable to access the draft maps via the Service's Web site or Headquarters office may contact the individual identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and reasonable accommodations will be made.

    Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Ecological Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16100 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-ES-2015-N115; FXES11130400000EA-123-FF04EF1000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plans, Lake, County, FL AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comment/information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received five applications for incidental take permits (ITPs) and one renewal of an ITP under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) in Lake County, Florida. We request public comment on the permit applications and accompanying proposed habitat conservation plans (HCPs), as well as on our preliminary determination that the plans qualify as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statements and low-effect screening forms, which are also available for review.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    If you wish to review the applications and HCPs, you may request documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone (see below). These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.

    Email: [email protected] Use “Attn: Permit number TE96908B-0” as your message subject line for Walton Acquistions FL, LLC; “Attn: Permit number TE96852B-0” for EPC Holdings 808 LLC and Parkview Oaks, LLC; “Attn: Permit number TE96862B-0” for Mattamy Orlando, LLC (Ladd Property); “Attn: Permit number TE96859B-0” for Mattamy Orlando, LLC (NOLA Property); “Attn: Permit number TE96904B-0” for Mattamy Orlando, LLC (Clermont Self Storage Property); and “Attn: Permit number TE105732-2” for Richard Bosserman.

    Fax: Field Supervisor, (904) 731-3191, Attn: Permit number [Insert permit number].

    U.S. mail: Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, Attn: Permit number [Insert permit number], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256.

    In-person drop-off: You may drop off information during regular business hours at the above office address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin M. Gawera, telephone: (904) 731-3121; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received five applications for incidental take permits (ITPs) and one renewal of an ITP under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Walton Acquisitions FL, LLC requests a 20-year ITP; EPC Holdings 808 LLC and Parkview Oaks, LLC request a 25-year ITP; Mattamy Orlando, LLC (Ladd Property) requests a 5-year ITP; Mattamy Orlando, LLC (NOLA Property) requests a 5-year ITP; Mattamy Orlando, LLC (Clermont Self Storage Property) requests a 5-year ITP; and Richard Bosserman requests a 10-year renewal of ITP permit #TE105732-1. We request public comment on the permit applications and accompanying proposed habitat conservation plans (HCPs), as well as on our preliminary determination that the plans qualify as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.

    Background

    Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and our implementing Federal regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR part 17 prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). However, under limited circumstances, we issue permits to authorize incidental take—i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.

    Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The Act's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.

    Applicants' Proposals Walton Acquisitions FL, LLC

    Walton Acquisitions FL, LLC is requesting take of approximately 6.03 acres (ac) of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of a residential project, and they seek a 20-year permit. The 505.99-ac project is located on parcel number 21-20-24-000100000900 within Sections 21, 22, 27, and 28, Township 22 South, and Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The project includes construction of a residential development and the associated infrastructure, and landscaping. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the sand skink by the purchase of 12.06 mitigation credits within the Collany Conservation Bank or another Service-approved sand skink bank.

    EPC Holdings 808 LLC and Parkview Oaks, LLC

    EPC Holdings 808 LLC and Parkview Oaks, LLC request take of approximately 1.58 ac of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of a residential project, and they seek a 25-year permit. The 1433-ac project is located on parcels identified with by the Lake County Property Appraiser with the Alternate Key IDs of 1037051, 2804271, 1031028, 1065062, 3029038, 3029020, 3029011, 3859093, 1017301, 2868180, 3854637, 3884096, 1590361, 3860074, 1070015, 3860073, 1070015, and 3859995, 1590817, 3019890, 1027764, 2934590, 2934581, 2934603, and 1065101, within Sections 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, and 29, Township 21 South, and Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The project includes construction of a residential development and the associated infrastructure, and landscaping. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the sand skink by the purchase of 3.16 mitigation credits within the Collany Conservation Bank or another Service-approved sand skink bank.

    Mattamy Orlando, LLC (Ladd Property)

    Mattamy Orlando, LLC is requesting take of approximately 10.65 ac of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of a residential project, and they seek a 5-year permit. The 17.75-ac project is located on parcel numbers 342226000200000200, 342226130000C00001, and 342226000200000600 within Section 34, Township 22 South, and Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The project includes construction of a residential development and the associated infrastructure, and landscaping. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the sand skink by the purchase of 21.3 mitigation credits within the Hatchineha Conservation Bank or another Service-approved sand skink bank.

    Mattamy Orlando, LLC (NOLA Property)

    Mattamy Orlando, LLC is requesting take of approximately 9.67 ac of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of a residential project, and they seek a 5-year permit. The 541-ac project is located on parcel numbers 27-22-26-00-030-0000-500, 34-22-26-00-010-0000-100, and 35-22-26-00-010-0000-600 within Sections 27, 34, 35 and 36, Township 22 South, and Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The project includes construction of a residential development and the associated infrastructure, and landscaping. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the sand skink by the purchase of 19.34 mitigation credits within the Hatchineha Conservation Bank or another Service-approved sand skink bank.

    Mattamy Orlando, LLC (Self Storage Property)

    Mattamy Orlando, LLC is requesting take of approximately 9.1 ac of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of a mixed commercial and residential project, and they seek a 5-year permit. The 16.25-ac project is located on parcel numbers 342226130000A00000, 34226130000000100, 342226130000C00000, and 342226000200000200 within Section 34, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The project includes construction of a mixed commercial and residential development and the associated infrastructure, and landscaping. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the sand skink by the purchase of 18.2 mitigation credits within the Hatchineha Conservation Bank or another Service-approved sand skink bank.

    Richard Bosserman

    Richard Bosserman has been approved for take of approximately 1.9 ac of sand skink-occupied habitat incidental to construction of a commercial facility, and seeks a 10-year extension on an existing permit. The 29.6-ac project is located within Section 27, Township 22 South, and Range 26 East, Clermont, Lake County, Florida. The applicant's HCP describes the mitigation and minimization measures the applicant completed to address the effects of the project to the sand skink.

    Our Preliminary Determination

    We have determined that the applicants' proposals, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in their HCPs. Therefore, we determined that the ITPs for each of the applicants are “low-effect” projects and qualify for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) Minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the HCPs and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If we determine that the applications meet these requirements, we will issue ITP numbers TE96908B-0, TE96852B-0, TE96862B-0, TE96859B-0, TE96904B, and TE105732-2. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITPs complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITPs. If the requirements are met, we will issue the permits to the applicants.

    Public Comments

    If you wish to comment on the permit applications, HCPs, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in ADDRESSES.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. 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.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under Section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Dated: June 29, 2016. Jay B. Herrington, Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, Southeast Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16079 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R6-R-2016-N045; FXRS12610600000-167-FF06R00000] Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; Record of Decision AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Western Area Power Administration (Western), as joint lead agencies, issued the Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Final PEIS) on May 1, 2015. The Service has decided to implement Alternative 1, as described in the Final PEIS and summarized in the Record of Decision (ROD). Alternative 1 was identified as both the agency-preferred alternative and the environmentally preferred alternative.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may request copies of the Final PEIS and ROD, or more information, by one of the following methods.

    Web site: http://plainswindeis.anl.gov/.

    U.S. Mail: Kelly Hogan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, P.O. Box 25486, Denver, CO 80225-0486.

    To view comments on the final PEIS from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or for information on EPA's role in the EIS process, see EPA's Role in the EIS Process under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Hogan, 303-236-4355 (phone) or [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Record of Decision (ROD) we announce today documents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) decision to implement the Programmatic Regional Wind Energy Development Evaluation Process (Alternative 1) of the Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Final PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0408), published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24914).

    In response to an increase in wind energy development in the Upper Great Plains Region (UGP Region), which encompasses all or parts of the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, the Service (Service) and the Western Area Power Administration (Western) have prepared the Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final PEIS to streamline their procedures for conducting environmental reviews of wind energy applications by implementing standardized evaluation procedures and identifying measures to address potential environmental impacts associated with wind energy projects in the UGP Region.

    The Service and Western cooperatively prepared the PEIS to (1) assess the potential environmental impacts associated with wind energy projects within the UGP Region that may propose placement of project elements on grassland or wetland easements managed by the Service, or that may interconnect to Western's transmission system, and (2) evaluate how environmental impacts would differ under alternative sets of environmental evaluation procedures, best management practices, avoidance strategies, and mitigation measures that the agencies would request project developers to implement, as appropriate, for specific wind energy projects. Four alternatives, including the No Action alternative, were analyzed in the PEIS.

    The PEIS analyzes, to the extent practicable, the impacts resulting from development of wind energy projects and the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs), avoidance of sensitive areas, and mitigation measures in reducing potential impacts. Impacts and mitigation have been analyzed for each environmental resource, and all components of wind energy projects have been addressed, including turbines, transformers, collector lines, overhead lines, access roads, substation installations, and operational and maintenance activities. Many of the impacts resulting from constructing and operating these types of wind energy infrastructure are well known from existing wind energy projects.

    In addition to the PEIS, the Service and Western engaged in informal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA in support of the PEIS process. A programmatic biological assessment (Programmatic BA) has been prepared for listed and candidate species occurring in the UGP Region. Development of the Programmatic BA was closely coordinated with the Service's North Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. That office issued a letter of concurrence with the Programmatic BA on July 7, 2015, as a result of this consultation.

    The agencies also investigated a programmatic approach to section 106 consultations under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.). Since section 106 consultations are highly site-specific, it was determined that effective consultation could be accomplished only once an individual project location was defined. However, general avoidance and protection measures for cultural resources and historic properties that would be implemented were identified and included in the analysis.

    EPA's Role in the EIS Process

    The EPA is charged under section 309 of the Clean Air Act to review all Federal agencies' environmental impact statements (EISs) and to comment on the adequacy and the acceptability of the environmental impacts of proposed actions in the EISs.

    EPA also serves as the repository (EIS database) for EISs prepared by Federal agencies and provides notice of their availability in the Federal Register. The EIS Database provides information about EISs prepared by Federal agencies, as well as EPA's comments concerning the EISs. All EISs are filed with EPA, which publishes a notice of availability each Friday in the Federal Register. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.You may search for EPA comments on EISs, along with EISs themselves, at https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    Purpose and Need

    The Service's purpose and need for Federal action, as presented in the Draft and Final PEIS, is to streamline the environmental review process for wind energy projects that would unavoidably impact grassland or wetland easements administered by the Service and would therefore require an easement exchange to accommodate wind energy development.

    Alternatives

    Four alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the PEIS and are briefly described below. More detailed information on the alternatives may be found in the Final PEIS, which can be accessed from the Web site provided above.

    No Action Alternative

    Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would continue to consider requests for easement exchanges to accommodate wind energy project requests under the procedures currently used to evaluate and address the environmental impacts associated with wind energy projects. Requests would be processed, reviewed, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis, including separate NEPA, section 7, and section 106 reviews performed for each specific project.

    Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)—Programmatic Regional Wind Energy Development Evaluation Process for Western and the Service

    The Service has decided to adopt a Programmatic Regional Wind Energy Development Process to address requests for Service easement exchanges to accommodate wind energy development. Under Alternative 1, the Service will adopt a standardized structured process for collecting information and evaluating and reviewing environmental impacts of wind energy requests. Best management practices and mitigation measures developed in the PEIS programmatic process would be employed to minimize the potential environmental impacts of wind energy projects. Project-specific NEPA analyses, either environmental assessments (EAs) or streamlined EISs, would tier off (eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues) the analyses in the Final PEIS as long as the appropriate identified conservation measures were implemented as part of proposed projects. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.20, these project-specific NEPA documents would summarize the information and issues covered in the Final PEIS or incorporate relevant discussions by reference. This approach would allow for more efficient NEPA documents that would properly focus on local or site-specific issues. The decision to pursue a tiered EA or EIS would be made similar to any other proposal. If the potential for new significant impacts appeared low, then an EA process could be initiated, with the understanding that the identification of any potentially new significant impact would require transition to an EIS process. It is anticipated that the tiered NEPA document in most instances will be an EA. If there appeared to be a potential for new significant environmental impacts, based on the project description and site location, then a tiered EIS process would be initiated.

    Project-specific ESA Section 7 consultations would utilize the Programmatic BA so long as the applicable best management practices, minimization measures, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements established in the Programmatic BA were implemented. Project proponents who could not agree to the requirements in the Programmatic BA would be required to conduct a separate ESA Section 7 consultation with the Service. NHPA section 106 and related tribal consultation would continue unchanged from the present practices; since cultural resources issues are very site specific, it was not possible to address them programmatically beyond including general avoidance and protection measures and committing to the established processes and procedures. The primary objective of Alternative 1 was to collect relevant natural resources information; evaluate the typical impacts of wind energy projects and associated facilities on those resources; identify effective best management practices, minimization measures, and mitigation measures that could reduce impacts; provide information about areas that would be more sensitive to development impacts and encourage avoidance of siting projects in these areas; and have all this material available to support site-specific tiered environmental reviews. The parallel Programmatic BA would similarly expedite the ESA section 7 consultation by having previously established minimization measures, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements, by species, that if committed to and implemented would constitute compliance with ESA section 7 without a separate consultation.

    Alternative 2: Programmatic Regional Wind Energy Development Evaluation Process for Western and No Wind Energy Development Allowed on USFWS Easements

    Alternative 2 would not allow easement exchanges to accommodate wind energy facilities.

    Alternative 3: Regional Wind Energy Development Evaluation Process for Western and the USFWS, With No Programmatic Requirements

    In essence, Alternative 3 is a minimalist approach that would incorporate all mandated environmental review requirements, but would not extend beyond them. Easement exchanges would occur for wind energy projects as presented by developers without consideration of best management practice and other issues to limit environmental impacts.

    Decision

    The Service has determined that Alternative 1, the agency-preferred alternative, best meets the agency's needs. Alternative 1 is also the environmentally preferred alternative, and would afford the greatest protection for environmental resources that would be impacted by future wind energy projects. Therefore, it is the Service's decision to implement Alternative 1, and use the program defined by that alternative for all applicable future wind energy project affecting Service easements in the UGP Region. This decision is based on the information contained in the Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final PEIS. The ROD was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA at 42 U.S.C. 1505.2 and the Department of the Interior's implementing regulations in part 46 of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215).

    Matt Hogan, Deputy Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16078 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [16X LLIDB00100.LF1000000.HT0000.LXSS024D0000.241A00] Notice of Public Meeting: Resource Advisory Council (RAC) to the Boise District, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Boise District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold a meeting as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held August 3, 2016, at the Boise District Office, 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83705 beginning at 9:00 a.m. and adjourning by 4:00 p.m. Members of the public are invited to attend. A public comment period will be held from 11:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larry Ridenhour, Public Affairs Specialist and RAC Coordinator, BLM Boise District, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, Idaho 83705, telephone (208) 384-3393.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in southwestern Idaho. During the August meeting the Boise District RAC will receive updates on Soda Fire emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions, sage-grouse conservation implementation efforts, programmatic assessments for herbicide treatments and vegetation seeding projects and management actions associated with Skinny Dipper Hot Springs. The RAC's subcommittee on the proposed Tri-State Fuel Breaks Project will report on their meetings to date. Agenda items and location may be modified due to changing circumstances. The public may present written or oral comments to members of the Council. At each full RAC meeting, time is provided in the agenda for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance should contact the BLM Coordinator as provided above. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or questions. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Lara Douglas, District Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16080 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCA942000 L57000000.BX0000 15X L5017AR] Filing of Plats of Survey: California AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The plats of survey of lands described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento, California.

    DATES:

    August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the plats may be obtained from the California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825, upon required payment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chief, Branch of Geographic Services, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, 1-916-978-4310. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, Branch of Geographic Services. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Chief, Branch of Geographic Services within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. 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. 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.

    Mount Diablo Meridian, California

    T. 33 N., R. 5 W., the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of sections 25 and 26, and the metes-and-bounds survey of Tract 37 and certain lots in section 25, accepted June 6, 2016.

    San Bernardino Meridian, California

    T. 3 N., R. 26 E., the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 13, and the survey of the meanders of the full-pool line of a portion of Lake Havasu Reservoir, accepted March 9, 2016.

    T. 3 N., R. 27 E., the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 18, and the survey of the meanders of the full-pool line of a portion of Lake Havasu Reservoir, accepted March 9, 2016.

    T. 3 S., R. 2 E., the supplemental plat showing parcels 1 through 6 of Tract 9 in section 6, accepted March 28, 2016.

    T. 9 N., R. 23 E., the supplemental plat showing a corrected distance measurement on the west boundary of Lot 6 in the NW. 1/4 of the NE. 1/4 of section 31, accepted April 11, 2016.

    T. 10 N., R. 4 E., the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and a portion of the Camp Cady Military Reservation boundary and the subdivision of section 20, accepted June 21, 2016.

    Authority:

    43 U.S.C., chapter 3.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Jon L. Kehler, (Acting) Chief Cadastral Surveyor, California.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16081 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-21349; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before June 18, 2016, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.

    DATES:

    Comments should be submitted by July 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before June 18, 2016. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

    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. 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.

    MISSOURI St. Louis Independent City St. Louis Mart and Terminal Warehouse, 1222 Spruce St., St. Louis (Independent City), 16000477 NEBRASKA Colfax County Schuyler Downtown Historic District, (Lincoln Highway in Nebraska MPS) Railside Dr., Colfax, 12th, C, D & 10th Sts., Schuyler, 16000478 Douglas County Allas Apartments, (Apartments, Flats and Tenements in Omaha, Nebraska from 1880-1962 MPS) 1609 Binney St., Omaha, 16000479 Danish Brotherhood in America National Headquarters Building, 3717 Harney St., Omaha, 16000480 Gage County Beatrice Downtown Historic District, Centered on 6th & Court Sts., Beatrice, 16000481 Saline County Crete Downtown Historic District, Centered on Main Ave. & 13th St., Crete, 16000482 NEW YORK Hamilton County Civilian Conservation Corps Camp S-90 (Speculator), 117 Page St., Lake Pleasant, 16000485 Rensselaer County Connors, William, Paint Manufacturing Company Building, 669 River St., Troy, 16000486 Westchester County New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Highbrook Avenue Bridge, Highbrook Ave. between Lincoln & Harmon Aves., Pelham, 16000487 TENNESSEE Davidson County Jackson Park Historic District, Brush Hill Ct., Brush Hill Rd., Earlene, Kenwood, Riverwood & E. Riverwood Drs., Eastdale & Plymouth Aves., Nashville, 16000483 VIRGINIA Bath County Ashwood School, 5604 Sam Snead Hwy., Hot Springs, 16000484

    A request for removal was received for the following resource:

    VIRGINIA Danville Independent City Dan River Inc. Riverside Division Historic District, Both sides of Dan River roughly bounded by Union St. Dam, Main St. Bridge, Riverside & Memorial Drs., Danville (Independent City), 00000480
    Authority:

    Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.

    Dated: June 21, 2016. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16061 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NERO-GATE-21281: PPNEGATEB0, PPMVSCS1Z.Y00000] Notice of the September to December 2016 Meeting Schedule for the Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16), notice is hereby given of the September through December 2016 meeting schedule of the Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory Committee.

    Agenda: The Committee will offer expertise and advice regarding the preservation of historic Army buildings at Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground National Historic Landmark into a viable, vibrant community with a variety of uses for visitors, not-for-profit organizations, residents and others. All meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m., with a public comment period at 11:30 a.m. (EASTERN). All meetings are open to the public.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will take place in the Beech Room at the Thompson Park Visitor Center, 805 Newman Springs Road, Lincroft, NJ. Thompson Park is part of the Monmouth County Park System.

    DATES:

    The meetings will take place on the following dates: Thursday, September 8, 2016; Friday, October 14, 2016; and Friday, December 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daphne Yun, Acting Public Affairs Officer, Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, 210 New York Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10305, (718) 354-4602, email [email protected], or by visiting the park Web site at https://www.nps.gov/gate.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16), the purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the National Park Service, on the development of a reuse plan and on matters relating to future uses of certain buildings at the Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground National Historic Landmark which lie within Gateway National Recreation Area.

    The Committee Web site, http://www.forthancock21.org, includes summaries from all prior meetings. Interested persons may present, either orally or through written comments, opinions, or information for the Committee to consider during the public meeting. Attendees and those wishing to provide comment are strongly encouraged to preregister through the contact information provided. The public will be able to comment at the meetings from 11:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. Written comments will be accepted prior to, during, or after the meeting. Due to time constraints during the meeting, the Committee is not able to read written public comments submitted into the record. Individuals or groups requesting to make oral comments at the public Committee meeting will be limited to no more than five minutes per speaker.

    All comments will be made part of the public record and will be electronically distributed to all Committee members. Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your written comments, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information will be publicly available. While you may 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.

    Alma Ripps, Chief, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16102 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NERO-CAJO-21276; PPNECAJO00 PPMPSPD1Z.Y00000] Notice of Meeting for Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Advisory Council AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16), the National Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice that the Advisory Council for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Council) will hold a meeting. The Council will meet for the purpose of discussing segment planning, land and resource management and the National Register of Historic Places eligibility process. Designated through an amendment to the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 to 1251, as amended), the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic trail consists of “a series of water routes extending approximately 3,000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay in the States of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and in the District of Columbia,” tracing the 1607-1609 voyages of Captain John Smith to chart the land and waterways of the Chesapeake Bay. In 2012, the trail was extended to include four river segments closely associated with Captain John Smith's exploration of the Chesapeake Bay, including the north and west branches of the Susquehanna River.

    DATES:

    The Council will meet from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Monday, August 1, 2016, and from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 2, 2016 (EASTERN).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Columbia Crossing River Trails Center at Columbia River Park, 41 Walnut Street, Columbia, PA 17512. For more information, please contact the NPS Chesapeake Bay Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 314, Annapolis, MD 21403, telephone (410) 260-2477.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christine Lucero, Partnership Coordinator, telephone (757) 258-8914 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is open to the public. Preregistration is required for both public attendance and comment. Any individual who wishes to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should register via email at [email protected] or telephone (757) 258-8914. For those wishing to make comments, please provide a written summary of your comments prior to the meeting. The Designated Federal Official for the Council is Jonathan Doherty, Assistant Superintendent, telephone (410) 260-2477.

    Comments will be taken for 30 minutes at the end of the meeting on August 2, 2016, (from 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.). Before including your address, telephone 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. While you may 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. All comments will be made part of the public record and will be electronically distributed to all Council members.

    Alma Ripps, Chief, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16103 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EE-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1071 (Second Review)] Alloy Magnesium From China; Determination

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on alloy magnesium from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    2 Vice Chairman Dean A. Pinkert did not participate in this review.

    Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on February 1, 2016 (81 FR 5136) and determined on May 6, 2016, that it would conduct an expedited review (81 FR 32346, May 23, 2016).

    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on June 30, 2016. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4618 (June 2016), entitled Alloy Magnesium from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1071 (Second Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 30, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16044 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-563 and 731-TA-1331-1333 (Preliminary)] Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India, Italy, and Spain; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation nos. 701-TA-563 and 731-TA-1331-1333 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India, Italy, and Spain provided for in subheading 7307.91.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of India. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by August 15, 2016. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by August 22, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Sherman (202-205-3289), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—These investigations are being instituted, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), in response to petitions filed on June 30, 2016, by Weldbend Corporation (“Weldbend”), Argo, Illinois and Boltex Mfg. Co., L.P. (“Boltex”), Houston, Texas. For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

    Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Conference.—The Commission's Director of Investigations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on July 21, 2016, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the conference should be emailed to [email protected] and [email protected] (DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before July 19, 2016. Parties in support of the imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

    Written submissions.—As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before July 26, 2016, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 30, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16057 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1330 (Preliminary)] Dioctyl Terephthalate (DOTP) From Korea; Institution of Antidumping Duty Investigation and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigation AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of an investigation and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1330 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of dioctyl terephthalate (“DOTP”) from Korea, provided for in subheading 2917.39.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by August 15, 2016. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by August 22, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—This investigation is being instituted, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), in response to a petition filed on June 30, 2016, by Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport, Tennessee.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

    Participation in the investigation and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to this investigation upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this investigation available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigation under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Conference.—The Commission's Director of Investigations has scheduled a conference in connection with this investigation for 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 21, 2016, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the conference should be emailed to [email protected] and [email protected] (DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before Tuesday, July 19, 2016. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in this investigation and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

    Written submissions.—As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before July 26, 2016, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 30, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16062 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Personal Protective Equipment for General Industry ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Personal Protective Equipment for General Industry,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201605-1218-002 or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected].

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected]. Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected].

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for General Industry Standard information collections codified in regulations 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I. The Standard requires that PPE—including equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities; protective clothing; respiratory devices; and protective shields and barriers—be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact. This ICR covers hazard assessment and verification records and record disclosure during inspections. Occupational Safety and Health Act sections 2(b)(9) and 8(g)(2) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9) and 657(g)(2).

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2016 (81 FR 10918).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1218-0205. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-OSHA.

    Title of Collection: Personal Protective Equipment for General Industry.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0205.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—business or other for-profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,500,000.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 601,020.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 1,366,521 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16092 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Benzene Standard AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, DOL.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)] sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Benzene Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201606-1218-002 or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Benzene Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.1028. The Standard requires an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard to monitor worker exposure, to provide medical surveillance, and to maintain accurate records of worker exposure to benzene. Employers, workers, physicians, and the Government use these records to ensure exposure to benzene in the workplace does not harm workers. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9), 655, and 657(c).

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1218-0129.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2016 (81 FR 23008).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1218-0129. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-OSHA.

    Title of Collection: Benzene Standard.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0129.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,148.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 297,672.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 144,909 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $10,811,474.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16094 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Trade Activity Participant Report AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, DOL.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Trade Activity Participant Report” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201605-1205-011 or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Trade Activity Participant Report (TAPR) information collection. The TAPR is a data collection and reporting system that supplies critical information on the operation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and the outcomes for its participants. The State collects required information for use by Federal, State, and local, agencies to report program management information to Congress and other Federal agencies, and to improve the effectiveness of job training programs. The Trade Act of 1974, as amended authorizes this information collection. See 19 U.S.C. 2311.

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1205-0392.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2016 (81 FR 5486).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1205-0392. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-ETA.

    Title of Collection: Trade Activity Participant Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1205-0392.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households and State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,600.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 450,200.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 18,500 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16093 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection will hold a meeting on July 28, 2016, at the U.S. NRC Region II Office, 245 Peachtree Center Avenue NE., 8th floor, Salon A, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1257.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance. Visitors wishing to attend that meeting must report to the NRC Security Desk on the 8th floor.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Thursday, July 28, 2016—8:00 a.m. Until 2:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will meet with Region II staff to discuss items of mutual interest. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Derek Widmayer (Telephone 301-415-5375 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63846).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the Web site cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    Dated: June 29, 2016. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16106 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-9092; NRC-2013-0164] Reno Creek In Situ Uranium Recovery Project in Campbell County, Wyoming AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft supplemental environmental impact statement; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    By letter dated October 3, 2012, AUC LLC (AUC) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a new source and byproduct materials license for the proposed Reno Creek In Situ Uranium Recovery (ISR) Project (Reno Creek ISR Project) proposed to be located in Campbell County, Wyoming. The NRC is issuing for public comment a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) for the Reno Creek ISR Project. The Draft SEIS is Supplement 6 to NUREG-1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by August 22, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0164. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H8, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jill Caverly, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7674; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0164 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0164.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The Draft SEIS (NUREG-1910, Supplement 6) is available in ADAMS under Accession Number ML16181A082. NUREG-1910 is available in ADAMS under Accession Numbers ML091480244 (Volume 1) and ML091480188 (Volume 2).

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

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0164 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Further Information

    Under the NRC's environmental protection regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or supplement to an EIS (SEIS) is required for issuance of a license to possess and use source material for uranium milling (see 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8)).

    In May 2009, the NRC staff issued NUREG-1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities” (herein referred to as the GEIS). In the GEIS, the NRC assessed the potential environmental impacts from construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in situ leach uranium milling facility (also known as an ISR facility) located in four specific geographic regions of the western United States. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is located within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region identified in the GEIS. The Draft SEIS supplements the GEIS and incorporates by reference relevant portions from the GEIS, and uses site-specific information from AUC's license application and independent sources to fulfill the requirements in 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8).

    The Draft SEIS for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project may also be accessed on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/ by selecting “NUREG-1910” and then “Supplement 6,” or on the NRC's Reno Creek ISR Project Web page at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/license-apps/reno-creek.html. Additionally, a copy of the Draft SEIS will be available at the following public libraries: Campbell County Library, 2101 S 4-J Rd., Gillette, WY 82718; Campbell County Library, Wright Branch, 105 Wright Blvd., Wright, WY 82732.

    The Draft SEIS was prepared in response to an application submitted by AUC by letter dated October 3, 2012. The applicant proposes the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility.

    The Draft SEIS was prepared by the NRC and its contractor, Southwest Research Institute. The NRC has prepared this Draft SEIS in compliance with NEPA and the NRC's regulations for implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 51).

    The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project will be located in Campbell County between the communities of Wright, Edgerton and Gillette and would encompass approximately 2,451 hectares (6,057 acres).

    The Draft SEIS is being issued as part of the NRC's process to decide whether to issue a license to AUC pursuant to 10 CFR part 40. In the Draft SEIS, the NRC staff has assessed the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The NRC staff assessed the impacts of the proposed action and an alternative on land use; historical and cultural resources; visual and scenic resources; climatology, meteorology and air quality; geology, minerals and soils; water resources; ecological resources; socioeconomics; environmental justice; noise; traffic and transportation; public and occupational health and safety; and waste management. Additionally, the Draft SEIS analyzes and compares the benefits and costs of the proposed action.

    The NRC staff evaluated site-specific data and information on the Reno Creek ISR Project to determine if AUC's proposed activities and the site characteristics were consistent with those evaluated in the GEIS. NRC then determined which relevant sections of, and impact conclusions in, the GEIS could be incorporated by reference. The NRC staff also determined if additional data or analysis was needed to assess the potential environmental impacts for a specific environmental resource area. The NRC documented its assessments and conclusions in the Draft SEIS.

    In addition to the action proposed by AUC, the NRC staff addressed the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative serves as a baseline for comparing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action.

    After weighing the impacts of the proposed action and comparing the alternative, the NRC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.71(f), sets forth its preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the NRC staff preliminarily recommends that the proposed action be approved (i.e., the NRC should issue a source material license for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project).

    The Draft SEIS is being issued for public comment. The public comment period on the Draft SEIS begins with publication of this notice and continues until August 22, 2016. Written comments should be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June, 2016.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Craig G. Erlanger, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental Review, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16104 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-0391; NRC-2016-0019] Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) to withdraw its license amendment application dated December 15, 2015, for a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-96 issued to the licensee for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 2. The proposed amendment would have revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.12, “Ice Condenser Doors.”

    DATES:

    The license amendment application was withdrawn on June 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0019 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0019. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Schaaf, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6020, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NRC has granted the Tennessee Valley Authority's request to withdraw its December 15, 2015, license amendment application (ADAMS Accession No. ML15350A250) for a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-96 issued to the licensee for operation of the WBN, Unit 2, located in Rhea County, Tennessee.

    The licensee requested to amend TS 3.6.12, “Ice Condenser Doors,” to revise the surveillance frequency of three surveillance requirements (SRs) that perform visual inspection and torque testing on the ice condenser lower inlet doors during the first cycle after receipt of the WBN, Unit 2, Facility Operating License. The purpose of the proposed amendment was to preclude an additional plant shutdown to perform surveillance testing on the ice condenser lower inlet doors based on the projected schedule for startup of WBN, Unit 2. Based on the current schedule for the startup of WBN, Unit 2, the licensee has determined that the three SRs can be performed as specified in TS 3.6.12 without requiring a unit shutdown specifically for the purpose of performing the ice condenser door SRs.

    This proposed amendment request was noticed in the Federal Register on February 2, 2016 (81 FR 5501). By letter dated June 2, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16155A071), Tennessee Valley Authority withdrew its license amendment application.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Tracy Orf, Acting Chief, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16105 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Privacy Act of 1974; Revised System of Records AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of revised system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) is revising the notice for Privacy Act system-of-records OSHRC-6. OSHRC's Privacy Act system-of-records notices are published at 72 FR 54301, 54301-03, Sept. 24, 2007, and 71 FR 19556, 19556-67, Apr. 14, 2006, with additional blanket routine uses published at 73 FR 45256, 45256-57, Aug. 4, 2008, and 80 FR 60182, 60182, Oct. 5, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by OSHRC on or before August 16, 2016. The revised system of records will become effective on that date, without any further notice in the Federal Register, unless comments or government approval procedures necessitate otherwise.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “PRIVACY ACT SYSTEM OF RECORDS” in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 606-5417.

    Mail: One Lafayette Centre, 1120 20th Street NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mailing address.

    Instructions: All submissions must include your name, return address, and email address, if applicable. Please clearly label submissions as “PRIVACY ACT SYSTEM OF RECORDS.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Bailey, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, via telephone at (202) 606-5410, or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4), requires federal agencies such as OSHRC to publish in the Federal Register notice of any new or revised system of records. As detailed below, OSHRC is revising OSHRC-6, formerly named “Case Management System/Tracking System.” The revised notice for OSHRC-6, provided below in its entirety, is as follows.

    OSHRC-6 System name:

    E-Filing/Case Management System.

    Security classification:

    None.

    System location:

    Electronic records are maintained in a private cloud within an Oracle Database, operated by MicroPact at 12901 Worldgate Drive, Suite 800, Herndon, VA 20170. Paper records are maintained by the Office of the Executive Secretary, located at 1120 20th Street NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    This system of records covers (1) ALJs; (2) Commission members and their staff; (3) OSHRC employees entering data into the e-filing/case management system, or assigned responsibilities with respect to a particular case; and (4) parties, the parties' points of contact, and the parties' representatives in cases that have been, or presently are, before OSHRC.

    Categories of records in the system:

    The electronic records contain the following information: (1) The names of those covered by the system of records and, as to parties, their points of contact; (2) the telephone and fax numbers, business email addresses, and/or business street addresses of those covered by the system of records; (3) the names of OSHRC cases, and information associated with the cases, such as the inspection number, the docket number, the state in which the action arose, the names of the representatives, and whether the case involved a fatality; (4) events occurring in cases and the dates on which the events occurred; (5) documents filed in cases and the dates on which the documents were filed; and (6) the names of OSHRC employees entering data into the e-filing/case management system, or assigned responsibilities with respect to a particular case. The paper records are hard copies of the electronic records in the e-filing/case management system.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    29 U.S.C. 661.

    Purpose(s):

    This system of records is maintained for the purpose of processing cases that are before OSHRC.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to the Blanket Routine Uses discussed in 71 FR at 19558-59, 73 FR at 45256-57, and 80 FR at 60182, when considered appropriate, records in this system may be referred to a bar association or similar federal, state, or local licensing authority for a possible disciplinary action. Also, records may be disclosed to vetted MicroPact employees in order to ensure that the e-filing/case management system is properly maintained. And, in accordance with 29 U.S.C. 661(g), OSHRC's case files may be disclosed to the public for the purpose of inspecting and/or copying the records at OSHRC.

    Disclosures to consumer reporting agencies:

    None.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    At MicroPact's secure facility, the information is stored in a database contained on a separate database server behind the application server serving the data. Paper records are stored in the records room and in file cabinets.

    Retrievability:

    Electronic records contained in the case e-filing/case management system may be retrieved by any of the data items listed under “Categories of Records in the System,” including docket number, inspection number, any part of a representative's name or the case name, and user. Paper records may be retrieved manually by docket number or case name.

    Safeguards:

    Electronic records contained in the e-filing/case management system are safeguarded as follows. Data going across the Internet is encrypted using SSL encryption. Every system is password protected. MicroPact, which stores the data in a private cloud within an Oracle Database, operates its own datacenter that is protected by physical security measures. Only authorized MicroPact employees who have both physical key and key card access to the datacenter can physically access the sites where data is stored. Only authorized and vetted MicroPact employees have access to the servers containing any PII.

    The access of parties and their representatives to electronic records in the system is limited to active files pertaining to cases in which the parties are named, or the representatives have entered appearances. The access of OSHRC employees is limited to personnel having a need for access to perform their official functions and is additionally restricted through password identification procedures.

    Paper records are maintained in a records room that can only be accessed using a smartcard or a key. Some paper records are also maintained in file cabinets. During duty hours, these records are under surveillance of personnel charged with their custody, and after duty hours, the records are secured behind locked doors. Access to the cabinets is limited to personnel having a need for access to perform their official functions.

    Retention and disposal:

    Under Records Disposition Schedule N1-455-90-1, paper case files may be destroyed 20 years after a case closes. Under Records Disposition Schedule N1-455-11-2, electronic records pertaining to those paper case files may be deleted when no longer needed for the conduct of current business.

    System manager(s) and address:

    Supervisory Information Technology Specialist (electronic records contained in the e-filing/case management system) and the Executive Secretary (all other records), OSHRC, 1120 20th Street NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals interested in inquiring about their records should notify: Privacy Officer, OSHRC, 1120 20th Street NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457. For an explanation on how such requests should be drafted, refer to 29 CFR 2400.5 (notification), and 29 CFR 2400.6 (procedures for requesting records).

    Record access procedures:

    Individuals who wish to gain access to their records should notify: Privacy Officer, OSHRC, 1120 20th Street NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457. For an explanation on how such requests should be drafted, refer to 29 CFR 2400.6 (procedures for requesting records).

    Contesting record procedures:

    Individuals who wish to contest their records should notify: Privacy Officer, OSHRC, 1120 20th Street NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457. For an explanation on the specific procedures for contesting the contents of a record, refer to 29 CFR 2400.8 (Procedures for requesting amendment), and 29 CFR 2400.9 (Procedures for appealing).

    Record source categories:

    Information in this system is derived from the individual to whom it applies or is derived from case processing records maintained by the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel, or from information provided by the parties who appear before OSHRC.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    None.

    Dated: June 29, 2016. Cynthia L. Attwood, Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16065 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7600-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. CP2016-233; CP2016-234] New Postal Products AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: July 8, 2016 (Comment due date applies to all Docket Nos. listed above)

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

    The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service has filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The requests(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

    Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

    The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

    II. Docketed Proceeding(s)

    1. Docket No(s).: CP2016-233; Filing Title: Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 6 Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 30, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Natalie R. Ward; Comments Due: July 8, 2016.

    2. Docket No(s).: CP2016-234; Filing Title: Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 1D Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 30, 2016;

    Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: July 8, 2016.

    This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16089 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78215] Order Extending a Temporary Exemption From Compliance With Rules 13n-1 to 13n-12 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 June 30, 2016. I. Introduction

    On March 18, 2016, under its authority in Section 36 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) granted a temporary exemption from compliance with Rules 13n-1 to 13n-12 (“SDR Rules”) until June 30, 2016. The Commission also granted an extension of the exemptions from Exchange Act Sections 13(n)(5)(D)(i), 13(n)(5)(F), 13(n)(5)(G), 13(n)(5)(H), 13(n)(7)(A), 13(n)(7)(B), 13(n)(7)(C) and 29(b) provided in the DFA Effective Date Order 1 (“SDR Relief”), as described in the Commission's March 18, 2016 order, such that the SDR Relief will expire on the earlier of (1) the date the Commission grants registration to an SDR and (2) June 30, 2016.2 The Commission granted the exemptions to help facilitate the potential submission of any SDR applications at the time.

    1See Temporary Exemptions and Other Temporary Relief, Together with Information on Compliance Dates for New Provisions of the Exchange Act Applicable to Security-Based Swaps, Exchange Act Release No. 64678 (June 15, 2011), 76 FR 36287 (June 22, 2011) (the “DFA Effective Date Order”).

    2See Exchange Act Release No. 77400 (Mar. 18, 2016), 81 FR 15599 (Mar. 23, 2016) (“SDR Section 36 Order”).

    Since March 18, 2016, two entities have filed applications to register with the Commission as SDRs.3 To allow the Commission additional time to review these applications prior to the compliance date for the SDR Rules and the expiration of the SDR Relief, the Commission is extending the exemptions granted in the March 18, 2016 order.

    3See Exchange Act Release No. 77699 (Apr. 22, 2016), 81 FR 25475 (Apr. 28, 2016) (“ICE Trade Vault Notice”) and Exchange Act Release No. xxxx (xx, 2016), xx FR xxxx (xx, 2016) (“DDR Notice”).

    II. Discussion

    The SDR Rules Release 4 states that SDRs were required to be in compliance with the SDR Rules by March 18, 2016. The SDR Rules Release also notes that, absent an exemption, any SDR must be registered with the Commission and in compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder (including the applicable Dodd-Frank Act provisions and all of the SDR Rules) by March 18, 2016.5

    4See Exchange Act Release No. 74246 (Feb. 11, 2015), 80 FR 14438 (Mar. 19, 2015) (“SDR Rules Release”).

    5See id., 80 FR at 14456. The SDR Rules Release also notes that all exemptions that the Commission provided in a previous release, including the exemption to provisions in Exchange Act Section 13(n), will expire on the March 18, 2016 compliance date. See id. (discussing the “DFA Effective Date Order).

    Since March 18, 2016, two entities have filed applications to register with the Commission as SDRs. ICE Trade Vault, LLC (“ICE Trade Vault”) filed with the Commission a Form SDR seeking registration as an SDR on March 29, 2016 and amended that form on April 18, 2016. The Commission's notice of ICE Trade Vault's application for registration as an SDR was published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2016.6 DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC (“DDR”) filed with the Commission a Form SDR seeking registration as an SDR on April 6, 2016 and amended that form on April 25, 2016. The Commission's notice of DDR's application for registration as an SDR was published in the Federal Register on [X, 2016].7 Rule 13n-1(c) provides that, within 90 days of the date of the publication of notice of the filing of an application for registration (or within such longer period as to which the applicant consents), the Commission will either grant the registration by order or institute proceedings to determine whether registration should be granted or denied.

    6See ICE Trade Vault Notice.

    7See DDR Notice.

    Subject to certain exceptions, Section 36 of the Exchange Act 8 authorizes the Commission, by rule, regulation, or order, to exempt, either conditionally or unconditionally, any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Exchange Act or any rule or regulation thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors. The Commission finds that it is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors, to grant a temporary exemption from compliance with the SDR Rules and an extension of the SDR Relief. The applications filed by ICE Trade Vault