Federal Register Vol. 81, No.157,

On January 15, 2016, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy published an energy conservation standards direct final rule (DFR) in the Federal Register titled, “Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces” (“January 2016 DFR”). 81 FR 2420. Since the publication of that DFR, it has come to DOE's attention that, due to a technical oversight, certain portions of the regulatory text adopted in the January 2016 DFR for 10 CFR part 431 contained editorial errors.

As part of that DFR, DOE amended 10 CFR 431.97, which addresses energy conservation standards for commercial air conditioners and heat pumps. This correction addresses editorial errors in § 431.97(b) through (d). When DOE renumbered the tables in § 431.97(b), subsequent tables in that section were correctly renumbered, but all cross-references to those tables were not properly amended. In addition, when amending paragraph (c) in regards to table numbering, DOE inadvertently reverted to the introductory text from an earlier version of the CFR, prior to the effective dates of the July 21, 2015 and September 21, 2015 final rule and correction for energy conservation standards for packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps. 80 FR 43162; 80 FR 56894. In amending paragraph (b), DOE inadvertently removed a footnote to Table 2 that was established in the July 17, 2015, final rule regarding energy conservation standards and test procedures for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water heating equipment. 80 FR 42614. Finally, in amending paragraph (b) to establish separate equipment classes for double-duct equipment (in Tables 5 and 6), DOE inadvertently omitted references to this equipment in one table heading (Table 1) and in one table (Table 6). In order to remedy these errors, DOE is issuing this technical correction. In some cases, DOE has removed the incorrect cross-references entirely, as the text is sufficiently clear without them.

As published, the adopted energy conservation standards text may potentially result in confusion regarding which standards apply to which equipment.

Because this technical correction document would simply correct errors in the regulatory text without making substantive changes to the energy conservation standards, the changes addressed in this document are technical in nature. Accordingly, DOE finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to not issue a separate notice to solicit public comment on the changes contained in this document. Issuing a separate notice to solicit public comment would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the various procedural requirements applicable to the January 2016 DFR remain unchanged for this technical correction. These determinations are set forth in the January 15, 2016 final rule. 81 FR 2420.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

Discussion

On June 21, 2016, we issued AD 2016-13-10, Amendment 39-18574 (81 FR 43483, July 5, 2016) (“AD 2016-13-10”), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2016-13-10 required repetitive external detailed inspections and nondestructive inspections to detect cracks in the fuselage skin along the chem-mill steps at stringers S-1 and S-2R, between STA 400 and STA 460, and repair if necessary. AD 2016-13-10 also required a preventive modification of the fuselage skin at crown stringers S-1 and S-2R. AD 2016-13-10 resulted from a determination that, for certain airplanes, the skin pockets adjacent to the Air Traffic Control (ATC) antenna are susceptible to widespread fatigue damage. We issued AD 2016-13-10 to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin panels at the chem-mill steps, which could result in sudden fracture and failure of the fuselage skin panels, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

Since we issued AD 2016-13-10, we have determined that certain regulatory text in AD 2016-13-10 requires clarification:

• We have revised paragraphs (h)(3) and (i) of this AD to refer to paragraph (l)(3) of this AD for the exception to the service information.

• We have also removed the sentence from paragraph (h)(3) of AD 2016-13-10 that provided existing repair information and instead we have included existing repair information in the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD.

• We have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to also refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, for locations for the modification of the chem-mill steps.

• We have revised paragraphs (j) and (l)(3) of this AD to refer to paragraph (n) of this AD for the appropriate procedures to request approval of an alternative method of compliance.

We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive external detailed inspections and non-destructive inspections to detect cracks in the fuselage skin along the chem-mill steps at stringers S-1 and S-2R, between STA 400 and STA 460, and repair of any cracking. The service information also describes procedures for a modification of the chem-mill steps at the locations identified, including related investigative actions and corrective actions, and repetitive post-mod inspections. 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.

We are issuing 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.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

We are superseding AD 2016-13-10 to clarify certain regulatory text. We have made no other changes to the requirements published in AD 2016-13-10. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include Docket No. FAA-2016-8841; and Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-115-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 186 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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.

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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

On March 28, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice proposing to remove a cutout from the description of the Syracuse Hancock International Airport, NY, Class C surface area (81 FR 17113), FR Doc. 2016-06833. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

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

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies the Syracuse Hancock International Airport Class C airspace area by removing a cutout from the Class C surface area. The cutout excluded the airspace within a 0.75-nautical mile radius of the former Michael Field/Onondaga Flight School Airport. The sole purpose of the exclusion was to allow aircraft to operate freely to and from the airport without the need to contact air traffic control. Since the former airport is now permanently closed, the purpose for the exclusion no longer exists; therefore, the FAA is removing the words “. . . excluding that airspace within a 0.75-mile radius of Michael Field/Onondaga Flight School Airport . . .;” as well as the words “Michael Field/Onondaga Flight School Airport, NY (lat. 43°10′45″ N., long. 76°07′29″ W.),” from the Class C airspace description.

Class C airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class C airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, and its agency implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Since this action does not change the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the Class C airspace area, and only amends the Syracuse Hancock International Airport, NY, Class C airspace by removing a cutout from the Class C surface area that had been incorporated to accommodate operations at the former Michael Field/Onondaga Flight School Airport which is now permanently closed, this airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAAO 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it updates the airport name and ARP geographic coordinates for the Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field airport that is contained in the Boise, ID, Class C airspace description.

Class C airspace areas are designed to improve air safety by reducing the risk of midair collisions in high volume airport terminal areas and to enhance the management of air traffic operations in that area. During a biennial review of the Boise, ID, Class C airspace, the FAA identified that the airport's name and ARP geographic coordinates in the airspace legal description did not match the information in the FAA's aeronautical database. This action updates the airport name and ARP geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database information. There are no changes to routing or air traffic control procedures resulting from this action.

Class C airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class C airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Boise, ID, Class C airspace area description. The airport formerly known as “Boise Air Terminal” is renamed “Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field” and the ARP geographic position for the airport is changed from “lat. 43°33′54″ N., long. 116°13′30″ W.” to “lat. 43°33′52″ N., long. 116°13′22″ W.” These amendments to the airport name and ARP geographic coordinates reflect the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database. Additionally, minor administrative edits to the legal description are made for clarity.

This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, and its agency implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Since this action does not change the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the Class C airspace area, and only amends the legal description to contain the current Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field airport name and updated ARP information, this airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAAO 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it updates the airport name and ARP geographic coordinates for the General Downing-Peoria International Airport that is contained in the Peoria, IL, Class C airspace description.

Class C airspace areas are designed to improve air safety by reducing the risk of midair collisions in high volume airport terminal areas and to enhance the management of air traffic operations in that area. During a recent review of the Peoria, General Downing-Peoria International Airport, IL, Class C airspace area description, the FAA identified that the airport's name and ARP geographic coordinates were incorrect. This action updates the airport name and ARP geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database information. There are no changes to routing or air traffic control procedures resulting from this action.

Class C airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class C airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Peoria, IL, Class C airspace area description. The airport formerly known as “Greater Peoria Regional Airport” is renamed “General Downing-Peoria International Airport” and the ARP geographic position for the airport is changed from “lat. 40°39′53″ N., long. 89°41′30″ W.” to “lat. 40°39′51″ N., long. 89°41′36″ W.” These amendments to the airport name and ARP geographic coordinates reflect the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database. Additionally, minor administrative edits to the legal description were made for readability.

This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, and its agency implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Since this action does not change the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the Class C airspace area, and only amends the legal description to contain the current airport name of Peoria, General Downing-Peoria International Airport, IL, and updated ARP information, this airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAAO 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2199, adopted on February 12, 2015, condemns the destruction of cultural heritage in Syria, particularly by the terrorist organizations Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al-Nusrah Front (ANF), and obligates all member nations to assist in the protection of Syria's cultural heritage. Paragraph 17 of the Resolution states that all Member States shall take appropriate steps to prevent the trade in Syrian cultural property and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific, and religious importance illegally removed from Syria since March 15, 2011, including by prohibiting cross-border trade in such items, thereby allowing for their eventual safe return to the Syrian people. The United States strongly supported this Resolution because “this resolution both cuts off a source of ISIL revenue and helps protect an irreplaceable cultural heritage, of the region and of the world.” See “Explanation of Vote at a Security Council Session on Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by Terrorist Threats,” Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, New York City, February 12, 2015.

For decades, the United States has shared the international concern for the need to protect endangered cultural property. The appearance in the United States of stolen or illegally exported artifacts from other countries where there has been pillage has, on occasion, strained our foreign and cultural relations. This situation, combined with the concerns of museum, archaeological, and scholarly communities, was recognized by the President and Congress. It became apparent that it was in the national interest of the United States to join with other countries to suppress illegal trafficking of such objects in international commerce.

The United States joined international efforts and actively participated in deliberations resulting in the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)). In 1983, pursuant to its international obligations arising under the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the United States enacted the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) (CCPIA). Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention through the CCPIA promotes U.S. leadership in achieving greater international cooperation toward preserving cultural treasures that are of importance to the nations from which they originate and greater international understanding of mankind's common heritage.

Since 1983, import restrictions have been imposed on archaeological and ethnological material from a number of States Parties to the 1970 Convention. These restrictions have been imposed as a result of requests received from those nations under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention and pursuant to provisions of the CCPIA that allow for emergency action and international agreements between the United States and other countries.

The Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act (Pub. L. 114-151) (“the Act”) directs the President to exercise the authority of the President under section 304 of the CCPIA (19 U.S.C. 2603) to impose import restrictions set forth in section 307 of the CCPIA (19 U.S.C. 2606) with respect to any archaeological or ethnological material of Syria not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Act, without regard to whether Syria is a State Party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and without the need for a formal request from the Government of Syria. Section 3(c) of the Act provides that the President is authorized to waive the import restrictions.

On August 2, 2016, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State, acting pursuant to delegated authority under the Act, made a Decision that, pursuant to the CCPIA, import restrictions be imposed with respect to any archaeological and ethnological material of Syria, as defined in the Act.

More information on import restrictions may be obtained from the Cultural Property Protection section of the Department of State's Cultural Heritage Center Web site (http://culturalheritage.state.gov/). Importation of designated archaeological and ethnological material of Syria is restricted unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met. Below is the Designated List of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Syria that describes the types of objects or categories of archaeological or ethnological material that are subject to import restrictions, if unlawfully removed from Syria on or after March 15, 2011. This list was prepared in consultation with the Department of State pursuant to section 305 of the CCPIA (19 U.S.C. 2604).

The archaeological and ethnological material of Syria represent the following periods and cultures: Paleolithic, Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages, Persian, Greco-Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic until the end of the Ottoman Period, a total span from roughly 1,000,000 BC to 1920 AD. Syria has been home to a range of diverse cultures, resulting in a vast array of archaeological and ethnological material in a variety of media. The import restriction covers all archaeological and ethnological material of Syria (as defined in section 302 of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601)), including but not limited to the following types of material.

A. Sculpture

1. Architectural elements, from temples, tombs, palaces, commemorative monuments, and domestic architecture, including columns, capitals, bases, lintels, jambs, friezes, pilasters, engaged columns, waterspouts, door leaves, mihrabs (prayer niches), fountains, and blocks from walls, floors, and ceilings. Often decorated in relief with pre-Classical (especially Neo-Hittite and Assyrian), Greco-Roman, Christian, and Islamic ornamental motifs and inscriptions. The most common architectural stones are limestone, basalt, and marble.

2. Statues, large- and small-scale, often depicting human, mythological, and animal subjects, in a great variety of styles, including but not limited to Sumerian, Assyrian, Neo-Hittite, Hellenistic, Roman, Palmyrene, and Byzantine. The most popular stones are limestone, basalt, and marble, but other types of stone are used as well.

3. Relief sculpture, large- and small-scale, including steles, wall slabs, plaques, coffins, altars, and tombstones, in a great variety of styles, including but not limited to Sumerian, Assyrian, Neo-Hittite, Hellenistic, Roman, Palmyrene, Byzantine, and Islamic. Used for commemorative, funerary, and decorative purposes. The most popular stones are limestone, basalt, and marble, but other types of stone are used as well.

4. Inlay sculpture. Large-scale examples with friezes of sculpted stone figures set into an inlaid stone or bitumen background. Small-scale examples with flat, cut-out figures in light-colored stones set against dark stone or bitumen backgrounds decorate boxes and furniture. Subjects include narrative scenes such as warfare and banqueting.

B. Seals

1. Cylinder seals: A cylindrical bead, usually ranging in size from 2 cm to 8 cm in height, with a hole pierced through its vertical axis and engraved images carved around the outer circumference. Made from a great variety of stones, including but not limited to marble, serpentine, hematite, chalcedony, lapis lazuli, agate, jasper, turquoise, garnet, carnelian, agate, quartz, onyx, sardonyx, heliotrope, jasper, rock crystal, amethyst, and goethite.

2. Stamp seals: Stones carved into animal or geometric shapes, including but not limited to square, circular, lentoid, hemispheric, gable-backed, eight-sided pyramidal, cones, cameos (carved in raised relief), ellipsoidal, and domical, with a flat surface engraved with a wide range of images. Some types have knobs on their top sides.

C. Vessels and containers—Includes conventional shapes such as bowls, cups, and jars, and vessels having the form of animals.

D. Tools and Weapons—Chipped stone (usually flint and obsidian) includes large and small blades, borers, scrapers, sickles, awls, harpoons, cores, and arrow heads. Ground stone types include mortars, pestles, millstones, querns, whetstones, choppers, axes, hammers, molds, loom weights, fishnet weights, standardized weights, and mace heads.

E. Jewelry—Jewelry of or decorated with colored and semi-precious stones, including necklaces, pendants, cameos, crowns, earrings, finger rings, bracelets, anklets, belts, girdles, pins, hair ornaments, arm bands, and beads.

F. Ostraca—Chips of stone used as surface for writing or drawing.

G. Tablets—Inscribed with pictographic, cuneiform, Phoenician, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and Arabic scripts.

A. Sculpture

1. Statues, large- and small-scale, including of deities, humans (often standing, sometimes with raised arms and/or wearing helmets), and animals (such as lions), similar to those in stone. The most common materials are bronze and copper alloys, and gold and silver are used as well.

2. Relief sculpture, including plaques and appliqués.

B. Vessels and containers—Includes conventional shapes such as bowls, cups, jars, plates, platters, cauldrons, and lamps, and vessels in the form of humans, animals, hybrids, plants, and combinations or parts thereof. Decoration includes fluting, incision, appliqué, and figurative elements (such as mythological scenes, animals, festivities, and hunting). Examples include but are not limited to:

• Shallow bronze bowls bearing concentric rings of complex imagery of animals, festivities, mythological scenes, and/or militaristic vignettes on their outside (they also occur in silver and gilt silver);

• Large bronze cauldrons and cauldron stands, some of which include cast or incised decorations in the shape of bulls, griffins, or human heads;

• Ewers with bulbous bodies, long necks and handles, dating to the Sasanian and Abbasid periods; and

• Copper-alloy metalwork in the Islamic period engraved with inscriptions and elaborate floral and geometric designs, sometimes with enamel and silver inlays. Forms include bowls, ewers, candlesticks, and astrolabes.

C. Objects of daily use

1. Musical instruments, including trumpets, clappers, and sistra; furniture parts, such as chair legs, struts, and openwork panels, cast and hammered in copper/bronze; metal mirror backs, often incised with decoration.

2. Copper/bronze weights found in a variety of shapes, including that of a recumbent lion.

3. Architectural elements in copper/bronze, including door-pivots, knobs, and nails.

D. Tools—Including but not limited to axes, adzes, saws, drills, chisels, knives, hooks, pins, needles, tongs, tweezers, awls, and scientific instruments such as astrolabes. Usually in bronze and copper alloys, later joined by iron; ceremonial forms might be in gold.

E. Weapons and armor

1. Weapons include maceheads, knives, swords, curved swords, axes (including duckbill and fenestrated types), arrows, and spears. Usually in bronze and copper alloys, later joined by iron and, by the 1st millennium AD, steel as well. Later swords may have inscriptions in Arabic on the blade and/or hilt. Ceremonial forms might be in gold. In the later Islamic periods, pistols and other firearms appear.

2. Early armor consisting of small metal scales, originally sewn to a backing of cloth or leather, later augmented by helmets, body armor, shields, and horse armor. Armor and weapons of the Islamic period can be decorated with arabesque designs and inscriptions.

F. Jewelry, amulets, and seals

1. Jewelry of gold, silver, electrum, copper, and iron for personal adornment, including necklaces, pectorals, pendants in forms such as animals and insects, spirals, wire, arm bands, rosettes, hairpins, fibulae (triangular safety pins for garments), crowns and other headdresses, earrings, bracelets, anklets, belts, and finger rings.

2. Amulets in the shape of humans, animals, hybrids, plants, and combinations or parts thereof.

G. Liturgical objects—Including censers, crosses, chalices, Bible caskets, lamps, Kiddush cups, candelabra, and Torah pointers and finials.

H. Tablets—Usually of copper-alloy, lead, gold, and silver, inscribed with cuneiform, Phoenician, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and Arabic scripts.

I. Coins—In copper or bronze, silver and gold.

1. Coins in Syria have a long history and exist in great variety, spanning the Achaemenid Persian, Hellenistic Seleucid and Ptolemaic, Roman, Sasanian, and Islamic periods. Coins from neighboring regions circulated in Syria as well. Some major mints for coinage that circulated in Syria in various periods include Emesa, Antioch, Apamea, Damascus, Beroea, and Laodicea.

2. Achaemenid coins include silver drachms stamped on the obverse with the head of the king and on the reverse with an altar.

3. Coin types and materials for coins minted or circulated in Syria during the Hellenistic Seleucid and Ptolemaic periods include gold and silver staters and obols, bronze or silver drachms, hemidrachms, tetradrachms, and smaller bronze and lead coins. These coins have a wide variety of decorative elements. Male and female busts (of kings, such as Seleucus, and queens, such as Cleopatra, or sometimes deities) are usually found on the front. Seated archers, seated gods such as Zeus, winged Victory, Tyche, and Herakles, other Greco-Roman mythological subjects, animals such as lions and elephants, palm trees, and ships are usually on the reverse of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic coins, which are often inscribed in Greek.

4. Roman coins minted and circulated in Syria during the Roman period come in a variety of denominations and weights and were struck primarily in silver and bronze, though examples (sesterces) of brass also appear. The front usually has an image of the emperor; sometimes, other notable personages (e.g., Julia Domna) might appear. Subjects shown on the reverse include seated and standing deities, wreaths, temples and altars, mythological scenes, and eagles. Inscriptions are usually in Latin, but sometimes also in Greek. Late Roman (Byzantine) coins are similar, but the reverse often shows Christian iconography (e.g., crosses), and inscriptions are in Greek.

5. Sasanian period coins are typically silver drachms with an image of the ruler on the obverse and a religious scene with a fire altar on the reverse.

6. Islamic coins are of gold, silver, bronze, and copper and include examples from the Ummayad, Abbasid, Ghaznavid, Fatimid, Ayyubid, Seljuq (including Zengid), Timurid, Mamluk, Safavid, and Ottoman periods. Most are stamped on both sides with inscriptions in Arabic, although a few types have an image on one side and an inscription on the other.

A. Sculpture

1. Terracotta figurines of humans and animals are quite common and may be highly stylized. Some examples are sculptures while others are made from molds. Also molds for making such figurines.

2. Terracotta plaques, either made from molds or sculpted, with a variety of subjects. Also terracotta molds for making such plaques.

3. Terracotta models, including furniture such as chairs and beds, chariots, boats, and buildings.

B. Architectural decorations

1. Bronze and Iron Age ceramic wall decorations, including cones (sometimes with the flat end painted) and decorated knobs.

2. Islamic architectural ornaments, including carved and molded brick, and glazed ceramic tile wall and floor ornaments and panels.

C. Vessels and containers

1. Ceramic vessels occur throughout Syria's history in a wide range of shapes, sizes, fabrics, and decorative treatments. They may be handmade or wheel-made, plain or decorated with geometric, natural, or stylized motifs, with surfaces that include but are not limited to plain, slipped, burnished, varnished, painted, combed, incised, glazed, barbotine, and/or molded relief.

2. All ceramics from the Ceramic Neolithic through the Ottoman Period. Examples include but are not limited to:

• Decorated and undecorated Pre-Classical pottery, including Halaf, Ubaid, Uruk, and local and imported Bronze and Iron Age forms;

• Greco-Roman pottery, including vessels with rilled decoration and terra sigillata, a high quality table ware made of red to reddish brown clay, and covered with a glossy slip;

• Islamic plain, glazed, molded, and painted ceramics, including Raqqa wares and lusterware;

• Bathtub, slipper-shaped, cylindrical, and rectangular coffins from all periods. Coffin lids may be modeled with human features; and

• Pilgrim flasks from all periods, characterized by flat disc-shaped sides and a single drinking spout, often flanked by stirrup handles.

D. Objects of daily use

1. Including but not limited to game pieces, loom weights, toys, and lamps.

2. Bread molds of various shapes and patterns.

3. Stamp and cylinder seals made from fired clay, faience, or a composite material related to faience.

E. Writing

1. Tablets, covered with wedge-shaped cuneiform characters or incised pictographs. They are usually unbaked and must be handled with extreme care. Shapes range from very small rounded disk forms, to small square and rectangular pillow-shaped forms, to larger rectangular tablets. They sometimes are found with an enclosing clay envelope, which is also inscribed. Both tablets and envelopes may be impressed with cylinder or stamp seals.

2. Bricks of fired clay inscribed or stamped with cuneiform inscriptions that are often placed in small frames on one of the sides. Approximately 30 × 30 × 10 cm.

3. Cones of fired clay. The large end is sometimes flat, sometimes mushroom shaped. Inscribed cuneiform characters can cover the head and/or body of the cone. Approximately 15 cm long.

4. Cylinders: Large cuneiform-inscribed objects can take the form of a multisided prism or barrel. The inscription typically covers all sides of the object. Approximately 20-30 cm high.

5. Ostraca, pottery shards used as surface for writing or drawing.

A. Architectural elements—Including carved and inlaid wooden walls, floors, panels, screens, balconies, stages, doors, ceilings, beams, altars, and vaulting and elements thereof (e.g., muqarnas), often decorated with stars, floral motifs, geometric patterns, religious iconography (e.g., crosses), and Arabic script. Elements may comprise most or all of entire rooms.

B. Religious equipment—Including pulpits (minbars) and prayer niches (mihrabs), often intricately carved and with accompanying Arabic script decoration, and sometimes inlaid; book holders, lecterns, and cabinets; smaller objects such as cases/chests.

C. Objects of daily use—Including furniture such as chairs, stools, and beds, chests and boxes, writing and painting equipment, musical instruments (e.g., ouds and rababa [fiddles]), utensils, and older game boxes and pieces.

D. Tools and Weapons—Including adzes, axes, bow drills, carpenters' levels and squares, bows, arrows, spears.

A. Late Bronze Age and Iron Age glass containers, including but not limited to bowls, bottles, and juglets, typically small and often elaborately decorated with multi-colored bands.

B. Roman vessels, often hand-blown, in a great variety of shapes, including but not limited to bottles, flasks, and pitchers.

C. Islamic vessels and containers in glass in a great variety of shapes, including but not limited to bowls, bottles, flasks, and glass and enamel mosque lamps.

A. Sculpture

1. Ivory plaques sculpted in relief are a hallmark of Syrian sculpture. They were used in particular as parts of furniture; they may also have been components of tools/weapons and placed on walls as artistic elements. Decorative motifs include animals, humans, plants, combat, hunting, feasting, mythological creatures (e.g., griffins), and mythological and religious scenes, among others. In some periods, Syrian ivories may look Egyptian (“Egyptianizing”).

2. Statuettes in the round of ivory, including human, animal, and mythological figures and parts thereof.

B. Objects of daily use

1. Ivory, bone, shell, and mother of pearl were used either alone or as inlays in luxury objects including furniture, chests and boxes (pyxis/pyxides), writing and painting equipment, musical instruments (e.g., flutes), games (e.g., dice), cosmetic containers, combs, jewelry, mirror backs and handles, amulets, fly whisk handles, and seals. Ivory objects from Islamic periods may have Arabic inscriptions.

2. Utilitarian objects of bone and ivory include but are not limited to utensils and tools such as awls and needles.

A. Plaster—Pre-Pottery Neolithic containers were often made of plaster. In later periods, painted or gilded plaster was used for jewelry and other objects in imitation of expensive materials.

B. Stucco—Islamic architectural decorations in stucco, including vegetal forms and sculptures of humans and animals.

A. Greco-Roman and Byzantine textiles and fragments in linen, wool, cotton and silk, including but not limited to garments, blankets, bags, and hangings.

B. Islamic textiles and fragments in wool, cotton, and silk, including garments, blankets, bags, hangings, and rugs.

A. Parchment

1. Manuscripts and portions thereof from the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods, including but not limited to liturgical works and Qur'ans, either on a scroll, single leaves, or bound as a book (or “codex”), and written in Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and Arabic, sometimes with painted illustrations and gold leaf, on specially prepared animal skins, known as parchment.

2. Torahs and portions thereof: Scrolls bearing Hebrew writing in black ink, wound around two wooden rods, and originally housed in a cylindrical wooden case.

B. Paper

1. Qur'ans and manuscripts, and individual pages thereof, sometimes illustrated, written on paper and bound as books.

2. Rare printed books.

3. Religious, ceremonial, literary, and administrative material, including but not limited to maps, archival materials, photographs, and other rare or important documentary or historical material.

C. Leather

1. Armor, sandals, clothing, and horse trappings from the Islamic period.

2. Early texts written on leather. Manuscripts and rare books bound in leather.

A. Wall Painting—These are usually painted on lime plaster in the fresco method. Syrian wall paintings come from many periods and depict a wide range of subjects. They are found in both religious and secular buildings.

1. Pre-classical paintings may show religious scenes, such as worshippers approaching standing and seated deities, sometimes with sacrificial animals, scenes with the ruler, mythological vignettes and creatures, and palm trees. Later paintings depict courtly and militaristic themes, as well as the ruler and high officials.

2. Classical period paintings generally show biblical and religious scenes. Christian paintings may show personages such as Jesus, Virgin Mary, the apostles, and angels, and include iconography such as crosses. Jewish paintings may include iconography such as menorahs. Paintings from the Roman and other polytheistic traditions may depict deities such as winged Victory and mythological scenes. Christian wall paintings continue into the Byzantine period.

3. Islamic period paintings may depict courtly themes (e.g., musicians, riders on horses) and city views, among other topics.

B. Byzantine panel paintings (icons)—Generally portray Jesus, Mary, Christian saints, religious images, and scenes of biblical events. Surrounding paintings may contain animal, floral, or geometric designs, including borders and bands. May be partially covered with gold or silver, sometimes encrusted with semi-precious or precious stones, and are usually painted on a wooden panel, often for inclusion in a wooden screen (iconastasis). May also be painted on ceramic.

A. Floor mosaics—Greco-Roman and Byzantine, including landscapes, humans or gods, mythological scenes, and quotidian activities such as hunting and fishing. There may also be vegetative, floral, or decorative motifs. They are made from stone cut into small pieces (tesserae) and laid into a plaster matrix.

B. Wall and ceiling mosaics—generally portray religious images, scenes of Biblical and Qur'anic events, and views of cities and buildings. Surrounding panels may contain animal, floral, or geometric designs. Similar technique to floor mosaics, but may include tesserae of both stone and glass.

On paper, parchment, leather, wood, ivory, stone, metal, textile, stucco, clay, mosaic, painting, and ceramic, in pictographic, cuneiform, Phoenician, Aramaic, Syriac, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Arabic scripts.

Under section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (5 U.S.C. 553), agencies amending their regulations generally are required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that solicits public comment on the proposed amendments, consider public comments in deciding on the final content of the final amendments, and publish the final amendments at least 30 days prior to their effective date. However, section 553(a)(1) of the APA provides that the standard prior notice and comment procedures do not apply to agency rulemaking that involves the foreign affairs function of the United States. CBP has determined that this final rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States as it implements authority granted to the President under the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act and section 304 of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2603) to impose import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological material of Syria. The Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act and this rule do no more than carry out the obligations of the United States under the 1970 UNESCO Convention and Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Accordingly, the rulemaking requirements under the APA do not apply, and this final rule will be effective upon publication.

In addition, section 553(b)(B) of the APA provides that notice and public procedure are not required when an agency for good cause finds them impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest. CBP has determined that providing prior notice and public procedure for these regulations would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary, and contemplated, in order to respond to the ongoing pillage of Syrian cultural antiquities and to avoid damage to those antiquities in Syria until hostilities have ceased. Any delay in this action will likely result in further damage to the Syrian cultural antiquities that Congress was seeking to protect with the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act.

Finally, section 553(d)(3) of the APA permits agencies to make a rule effective less than 30 days after publication when the agency finds that good cause exists for dispensing with a delayed effective date. For the reasons described above, CBP finds that good cause exists to make these regulations effective without a delayed effective date.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.

This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to customs revenue functions.

For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:

PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for September 2016.1

The September 2016 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 0.50 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for August 2016, these interest assumptions are unchanged.

PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during September 2016, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

This rule will be reported in future status updates as part of DoD's retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563 completed in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the Department's issuance Web site. Once signed, a copy of DoD's internal guidance contained in DoD Instruction 5410.20 will be made available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/541020p.pdf.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

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

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Guam has determined that potential hazards associated with vessel operations starting July 31, 2016 will be a safety concern for anyone in the vicinity of the operations. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during active vessel operations.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. on July 31, 2016 through 7 p.m. on August 31, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in the vicinity of vessel operations to include waters off of San Luis Beach out 900 yards then across to Commadores Cut, down to the Navy Restricted area and along the shore line back to San Luis Beach, restricting access to Sumay Cove to Navy and Coast Guard operational responses. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the vessel operations are ongoing. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Apra Outer Harbor in Naval Base Guam for four days of the 32 day window and vessel traffic in this area is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 32 days with an expected enforcement of only 4 days that will prohibit entry of vessels to all navigable waters in the vicinity of vessel operations to include waters off of San Luis Beach out 900 yards then across to Commadores Cut, down to the Navy Restricted area and along the shore line back to San Luis Beach and restricting access to Sumay Cove to Navy and Coast Guard operational responses. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

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

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

On July 3, 2014, (79 FR 37976), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Iowa. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Iowa's progress report SIP, a report on progress made in the first implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas that are affected by emissions from Iowa sources. This progress report SIP and accompanying cover letter also included a determination that Iowa's existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018.

On July 31, 2015, (80 FR 45631), EPA published a supplement to the NPR (SNPR) for the State of Iowa. In the SNPR, EPA addressed the potential effects on the NPR from the April 29, 2014, decision of the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) remanding to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for further proceedings and the D.C. Circuit's decision to lift the stay of CSAPR. The supplemental notice provided clarity regarding how the court cases impacted Iowa's regional haze rule.

States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The first progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. IDNR submitted its regional haze SIP on March 25, 2008, and submitted its progress report SIP revision on July 19, 2013. EPA finds that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). No comments regarding the NPR or SNPR were received during the public comment period.

On July 19, 2013, Iowa submitted a SIP revision describing the progress made toward the RPGs of Class I areas outside Iowa that are affected by emissions from Iowa's sources in accordance with requirements in the Regional Haze Rule.1 This progress report SIP also included an assessment of whether Iowa's existing regional haze SIP is sufficient to allow nearby states with Class I areas to achieve the reasonable progress goals by the end of the first planning period.

The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a progress report SIP to address seven elements. In the NPR, EPA proposed to approve the SIP as adequately addressing each element under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The seven elements and EPA's proposed conclusions in the NPR are briefly summarized below.

The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require progress report SIPs to include a description of the status of measures in the regional haze implementation plan; a summary of the emissions reductions achieved; an assessment of the visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; an analysis of the changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded visibility improvement progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; an assessment of the sufficiency of the regional haze implementation plan to enable states to meet reasonable progress goals; and a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy. As explained in detail in the NPR and the SNPR, EPA proposed Iowa's progress report SIP addressed each element and therefore satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g).

In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP revision, a determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible actions based on information in the progress report. In its progress report SIP, Iowa determined that its regional haze SIP is sufficient to meet its obligations related to the reasonable progress goals for Class I areas affected by Iowa's sources. The State accordingly provided EPA with a negative declaration that further revision of the existing regional haze implementation plan was not needed at this time. See 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1). As explained in detail in the NPR and the SNPR, EPA proposed to determine that Iowa had adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility data trends at the Class I areas impacted by Iowa's sources and the emissions trends of the largest emitters in Iowa of visibility-impairing pollutants both indicate that the reasonable progress goals for 2018 for these areas will be met or exceeded. Therefore, in our NPR and SNPR, EPA proposed to approve Iowa's progress report SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

EPA is taking final action to approve Iowa's regional haze five-year progress report and SIP revision, submitted July 19, 2013, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308 (h).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 October 14, 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).)

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

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

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

EPA is approving, and incorporating into the New Hampshire SIP, revised sections of New Hampshire's Chapter Env-A 1200 “Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT),” submitted by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) to EPA as a SIP revision on October 4, 2012. Specifically, EPA is approving New Hampshire's revised Env-A 1201.04 “Exemptions: Conditions,” revised Env-A 1203.38 definition of “minor core activity,” and revised Env-A 1222.01 “Applicability Criteria for Miscellaneous and Multicategory Stationary VOC Sources.”

EPA has established, and periodically reviews and revises, the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA published a final rule for a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), EPA designated areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and designated New Hampshire as Unclassifiable/Attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Subsequently, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292). EPA has not yet, however, issued designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

New Hampshire is also part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under Section 184(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Sections 182(b)(2) and 184 of the CAA compel states with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas, as well as areas in the OTR respectively, to submit a SIP revision requiring the implementation of RACT for sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) and for all major sources. A CTG is a document issued by EPA which establishes a “presumptive norm” for RACT for a specific VOC source category.

EPA previously approved New Hampshire's Env-A 1200 on November 8, 2012 (77 FR 66921). New Hampshire's October 4, 2012 submittal includes revisions to three sections of this regulation.

Revised Env-A 1201.04 extends by one year, from June 1, 2012 until May 31, 2013, the option for a source to voluntarily restrict their emissions to remain below the relevant applicability threshold and thus not be subject to certain requirements. Specifically, this option applies to newly regulated source categories added to Env-A 1200 on June 1, 2011. The process shall be exempt if the owner or operator files an application for a permit before May 31, 2013 and accepts an enforceable permit that limits emissions below the relevant applicability threshold and contains the necessary testing and recordkeeping and reporting requirements to demonstrate compliance.

Revised Env-A 1203.38 clarifies the definition of “minor core activity” as any core activity at a stationary source for which the VOC emissions from processes and devices are less than the relevant RACT threshold and less than 5 tons per consecutive 12-month period. The interpretation of the definition did not change but rather the language was revised to make the definition clearer.

Lastly, in revised Env-A 1222.01, a prior exemption for minor core activities has been removed. Previously, minor core activities with VOC emissions less than 5 tons per consecutive 12 month period were exempt from New Hampshire's Env-A 1222 emission control and recordkeeping requirements. In the revised regulations, minor core activities are considered in a source's applicability determination and thus, may be subject to the emission control and recordkeeping requirements in Env-A 1222.

The three revisions discussed above serve to clarify the existing regulation and are not intended to significantly impact its original interpretation. New Hampshire's Env-A 1200 VOC RACT regulation remains consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance. Therefore, the revised provisions satisfy the anti-back sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of the CAA and EPA is approving these revised provisions into the New Hampshire SIP.

EPA is approving, and incorporating into the New Hampshire SIP, revised sections of New Hampshire's Chapter Env-A 1200, “Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT),” submitted on October 4, 2012. Specifically, EPA is approving New Hampshire's revised Env-A 1201.04 “Exemptions: Conditions,” revised Env-A 1203.38 definition of “minor core activity,” and revised Env-A 1222.01 “Applicability Criteria for Miscellaneous and Multicategory Stationary VOC Sources.”

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 14, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by September 14, 2016.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 14, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the State of New Hampshire regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 14, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

This section provides a brief overview of the background for today's action. Please refer to our proposed action on reconsideration for additional background.1 On September 3, 2014, the EPA promulgated a FIP addressing certain requirements of the CAA and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule for sources in Arizona.2 Among other things, the Arizona Regional Haze FIP includes NOX emission limits achievable with selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) applicable to Clarkdale Kiln 4 and Rillito Kiln 4. In particular, the EPA established two alternative emission limits for NOX on Clarkdale Kiln 4: A 2.12 lb/ton limit or an 810 tons/year limit. The lb/ton limit equates to the installation of a SNCR system, based on a 50 percent control efficiency, while the ton/year limit could be met either by installing SNCR or by maintaining recent production levels. We set an emission limit for NOX at Rillito Kiln 4 of 3.46 lb/ton, based on a 35 percent control efficiency. The FIP also includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and a compliance deadline for the final NOX emission limits of December 31, 2018. Finally, in response to comments alleging that SNCR control efficiencies of 50 percent for Clarkdale Kiln 4 and 35 percent for Rillito Kiln 4 were unsupported and that SNCR was capable of achieving higher control efficiencies, we established requirements for control technology demonstrations (“optimization requirements”) for the SNCR systems at both kilns, which would entail the collection of data that then could be used to determine if a higher control efficiency was achievable.

PCC and CPC each submitted a petition to the EPA on November 3, 2014, seeking administrative reconsideration and a partial stay of the final FIP under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).3 In their petitions, both companies raised multiple objections to the optimization requirements in the FIP. CPC asserted that the requirements were burdensome, expensive, and unnecessary, given that CPC had already “evaluated fuels, fuel fineness, and the other characteristics listed in the Optimization Protocol” as part of its effort to reduce energy usage.4 PCC stated that the requirements “would be burdensome to implement” and “would substantially interfere with the cement manufacturing operations” at the Clarkdale Plant.5 PCC further asserted that requirements would harm the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), which relies on revenue from the Clarkdale Plant.6

The EPA sent letters to PCC and CPC on January 16, 2015 and January 27, 2015, respectively, granting reconsideration of the optimization requirements pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).7 However, the EPA did not act on the companies' request for a stay of those requirements. On June 30, 2016, the EPA issued its proposed action on reconsideration, proposing to replace the optimization requirements for both kilns with a series of revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements.8

In light of the EPA's proposed rule to replace the optimization requirements applicable to Clarkdale Kiln 4 and Rillito Kiln 4 and the fact that these provisions require implementation of various operational adjustments and submittal of protocols and reports in advance of the December 31, 2018 compliance deadline for the NOX emission limits, the EPA is now granting PCC's and CPC's petitions for a stay of the effectiveness of those requirements under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). In particular, we are staying the effectiveness of 40 CFR 52.145(k)(6) and Appendix A to 40 CFR 52.145 for a period of 90 days, which is the maximum length of a stay authorized under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The EPA anticipates that we will complete final action on reconsideration prior to the conclusion of this stay, but if we are unable to do so, we will consider granting a further stay of the optimization requirements under section 705 of the APA.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because it applies to only two facilities and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to the APA but is subject to the CAA, which does not require notice and comment rulemaking to take this action.

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.

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 in the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action stays the effectiveness of optimization requirements that currently apply to the PCC Clarkdale Plant. The profits from the Clarkdale Plant are used to provide government services to SRPMIC's members.

The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process of developing our proposed action on reconsideration of the optimization requirements to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development.9

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only 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.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not change the level of environmental protection for any affected populations.

This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability.

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

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0719 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 14, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0719, by one of the following methods:

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

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

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of November 23, 2015 (80 FR 72941) (FRL-9936-73), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10841) by Steptoe and Johnson LLP (1330 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036-1795) on behalf of the Eastman Chemical Company (200 South Wilcox Drive, Kingsport, TN 37660-5280). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910, 180.930, and 180.940 be amended to establish exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of n-butyl 3-hydroxybutyrate (CAS Reg. No. 53605-94-0); and isopropyl 3-hydroxybutyrate (CAS Reg. No. 54074-94-1) when used as inert ingredients (solvents) in pesticide formulations applied to pre- and post-harvest crops under 40 CFR 180.910; to animals under 40 CFR 180.930; and to food contact surface sanitizing solutions under 40 CFR 180.940(a). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Steptoe and Johnson on behalf of Eastman Chemical Company, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit V.B.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for n-butyl 3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl 3-hydroxybutyrate including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with n-butyl 3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl 3-hydroxybutyrate follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by n-butyl 3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl 3-hydroxybutyrate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

n-Butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate are structurally similar chemical entities differing only in one methyl group (CH3). Therefore the toxicity of these two chemicals is expected to be similar. Since there are no adequate data available for each one individually, the Agency utilizes read-across data to fill data gaps.

n-Butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate both exhibit very low levels of acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity each with LD50 values >5,000 mg/kg. n-Butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate is moderately irritating to the rabbit eye and is slightly irritating to rabbit skin. Isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate is not irritating to rabbit skin. n-Butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate are not dermal sensitizers.

In a 28-day subchronic feeding study in rats which included a reproduction/developmental screening assessment, exposure to isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate resulted in no adverse test item-related toxicological effects on clinical observations, no adverse effects seen in FOB assessments, no adverse effects on motor activity evaluations, no adverse effects seen in gross necropsy observations, male or female reproductive performance, or neurobehavioral parameters. The no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for reproductive toxicity was 1,000 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 1,000 mg/kg/day. In the absence of effects on the general physical condition of F1 pups, the NOAEL for neonatal toxicity was 1,000 mg/kg/day.

n-Butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate were negative in reverse gene mutation assays. Isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate was negative in a chromosome aberration assay and a gene mutation assay.

There were no neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity studies available. However, there was no evidence of adverse neurotoxic effects noted during the FOB evaluations and the motor activity evaluations. There was no evidence of immunotoxicity in the available database.

Based on the negative responses seen in the genotoxicity and lack of systemic toxicity in the reproductive and developmental screening study, n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate are considered unlikely to be carcinogenic.

n-Butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate both have a low solubility; therefore, it is unlikely that either material will be absorbed by the body and become systemically bioavailable. Both compounds are expected to hydrolyze quickly and completely in vivo, and the resulting hydrolysis products are very close in structure or are the same, depending on the specific hydrolysis product. The available in vitro data suggests that isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate can undergo fast hydrolysis by enzymes in the plasma and liver to produce n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate, which is perhaps further metabolized. Isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate concentration decreased from approximately 70 μM to below the limit of detection (<6.68 μM) in plasma within 2 hours and in rat liver S9 fraction within 30 minutes. Although stable in phosphate buffer, isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate concentration levels decreased from 70 μM to below the LOD within 30 minutes with ONLY slight increases in beta-hydroxybutyate levels indicating that either it is formed in small quantity (minor pathway) and/or rapidly metabolized and removed from the circulation.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

An acute effect was not found in the database therefore an acute dietary assessment is not necessary. In the 28-day subchronic oral toxicity study in rats with neurotoxicity measurements, no toxicity was observed at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. Therefore, the Agency concluded that it is not necessary to conduct a quantitative risk assessment.

1. Dietary exposure from food, feed uses and drinking water. In evaluating dietary exposure to n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate in food and drinking water as follows: Dietary exposure can occur from eating foods or ingesting drinking water containing residues of n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate. Because no hazard endpoint of concern was identified for the acute and chronic dietary assessment (food, feed and drinking water uses, a quantitative dietary exposure risk assessment was not conducted

2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

n-Butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate may be used in inert ingredients in products that are registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and round the home. However, since no endpoint of concern identified in the available database, it is not necessary to conduct a quantitative residential exposure assessment.

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

EPA has not found n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

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

As part of its qualitative assessment, EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA considers the toxicity database to be sufficient to evaluate risk and has identified no residual uncertainty with regard to prenatal and postnatal toxicity or exposure. No hazard was identified based on the available studies; therefore, EPA concludes that there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children, or adults from n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate. As a result, EPA concludes that no additional margin of exposure (safety) is necessary.

Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to residues of n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate will not pose a risk to the U.S. population, including infants and children, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate residues.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate in or on any food commodities. EPA is not establishing a limitation on the amount of n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate that may be used in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops.

Two generic comments objecting to the use of chemicals in food were submitted to the docket for this action. Neither of the comments contained any specific information bearing on the Agency's safety finding for these chemicals. The Agency understands the commenters' concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. The comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are established under 40 CFR 180.910, 40 CFR 180.930, and 40 CFR 180.940(a) for n-butyl-3-hydroxybutyrate (CAS Reg. No. 53605-94-0) and isopropyl-3-hydroxybutyrate (CAS Reg. No. 54074-94-1) when used as inert ingredients (solvents) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest (40 CFR 180.910); to animals (40 CFR 180.930); or to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils (40 CFR 180.940(a)).

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

The FAST Act instructs the Secretary of Transportation to issue conforming regulatory amendments immediately or soon after the FAST Act's date of enactment (December 4, 2015). Because the actions taken in this final rule simply codify these non-discretionary statutory mandates, PHMSA finds that timely execution of agency functions would be impeded by the procedures of public notice that are normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, PHMSA sees no reason to delay regulatory action, as we are simply implementing the non-discretionary provisions contained in Sections 7304, 7305, and 7306 of the FAST Act. PHMSA finds that public notice is impracticable and is implementing these changes under the “good cause” exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), thus amending the regulations without advance notice and opportunity for public comment.

On May 8, 2015, PHMSA (also “we” or “us”), in consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), published the final rule “Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains” (hereafter “HM-251 final rule”). The HM-251 final rule was an integral part of the Department's comprehensive approach to ensure the safe transportation of energy products. Specifically, the HM-251 final rule amended the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) by defining certain trains transporting large volumes of Class 3 flammable liquids as “high-hazard flammable trains” (HHFT) and imposing certain operational restrictions, such as speed restrictions, braking systems, and routing.1 The HM-251 final rule also adopted requirements into the HMR for sampling and testing programs to ensure the proper classification of unrefined petroleum-based products transported under the HMR. Furthermore, the rule codified new tank car design standards—namely the DOT Specification 117 (DOT-117), DOT Specification 117P (DOT-117P), and DOT Specification 117R (DOT-117R)—and established a phase-out schedule for existing DOT Specification 111 (DOT-111) tank cars by requiring use of either a DOT-117, DOT-117P, or DOT-117R tank car by certain dates for the transport of Class 3 flammable liquids in an HHFT.2 For more information on the HM-251 final rule, please refer to its publication in the Federal Register [80 FR 26643; May 8, 2015], as well as the information under Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082 at the Federal eRulemaking Portal, www.regulations.gov.

On December 4, 2015, President Barack Obama signed legislation entitled “Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015,” or the “FAST Act.” See Public Law 114-94. The FAST Act includes the “Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2015” (see Sections 7001 through 7311) and instructs the Secretary of Transportation (hereafter “Secretary”) to make specific regulatory amendments to the tank car design standards and phase-out schedule codified in the HM-251 final rule.

Section 7304 of the FAST Act mandates a commodity-specific phase-out of all DOT-111 tank cars used to transport Class 3 flammable liquids. Specifically, paragraph (a) mandates the phase-out regardless of train composition and requires that, by the dates specified in paragraph (b), all tank cars used to transport Class 3 flammable liquids meet the DOT-117, DOT-117P, or DOT-117R requirements. Paragraph (b) of Section 7304 mandates a commodity-specific phase-out schedule for DOT-111 tank cars used to transport unrefined petroleum products and ethanol—irrespective of the Packing Group (PG) 3 assigned—as well as other Class 3 flammable liquids based on their PGs.

The phase-out schedule mandated in paragraph (b) outlines various compliance end-dates, on or after which the DOT-111 tank car (including DOT-111 tank cars built to the Association of American Railroads' (AAR) Casualty Prevention Circular 1232 standard (CPC-1232)) is no longer authorized to transport Class 3 flammable liquids. Please refer to Section III, “Section-by-Section Review,” in this rule for more information on the applicable end-dates of the new phase-out schedule. See Table 1 below for a comparison of the retrofit schedule of the HM-251 final rule with the schedule imposed by the FAST Act:

The requirements of Section 7304 of the FAST Act differ from the HM-251 final rule in two ways. First, the HM-251 final rule required Class 3 flammable liquids to be transported in DOT-117, DOT-117P, or DOT-117R tank cars only if these tank cars are used in an HHFT, whereas the FAST Act removed the linkage between tank car specification and train composition, instead mandating that any Class 3 flammable liquid be transported in a DOT-117, DOT-117P, or DOT-117R tank car by the dates specified. (The FAST Act does not change the HM-251 final rule's definition of HHFT as it applies to the operational controls specified in the rule.) Second, the phase-out schedule in the HM-251 final rule was based on the PG of the Class 3 flammable liquid, among other factors, whereas the phase-out schedule imposed by the FAST Act is commodity-specific for unrefined petroleum products (including crude oil) and ethanol and based on a commodity's PG only for other Class 3 flammable liquids.

Paragraph (d)(1)(A) of Section 7304 requires the Secretary to take immediate action to revise the date-specific deadlines in the HMR to align with those in the FAST Act. This rule responds to that mandate.

Section 7305 of the FAST Act requires tank cars built to meet the DOT-117 specification and each non-jacketed tank car retrofitted to meet the DOT-117R specification be equipped with an “insulating blanket” at least half inch thick and approved by the Secretary in accordance with 49 CFR 179.18(c). Paragraph (a) of § 179.18 requires tank cars required to be equipped with thermal protection to be equipped with a thermal protection system meeting a certain performance standard (i.e., a pool fire for 100 minutes; and a torch fire for 30 minutes) and paragraph (b) contains the technical requirements for conducting a thermal analysis to verify a system's compliance with paragraph (a)'s performance standard. As paragraph (c) of § 179.18 indicates, the Department maintains a list of thermal protection systems already verified to meet the performance standard and for which completion of a thermal analysis is not required. PHMSA maintains the list and for a thermal protection system to be added to the list, a manufacturer must first conduct the qualification tests in Appendix B to Part 179 of the HMR. The manufacturer must then provide the test procedures and results to PHMSA, which in consultation with FRA reviews the submitted test procedures and results. If the agencies find that the tests and results demonstrate that the system meets the performance standard of paragraph (a), the thermal protection system is added to the referenced list of tank car thermal protection systems that do not require test verification.

PHMSA notes, that while the FAST Act refers to the blanket as an “insulating blanket,” for the purposes of clarity within the HMR, PHMSA is using the term “thermal protection blanket.” The FAST Act intends for the blanket to be designed and approved to withstand fire conditions as opposed to being “insulating material” that is designed solely to maintain the temperature of the lading during transportation and neither designed nor approved to withstand fire conditions.

The HM-251 final rule did not specifically require that these tank car specifications include a thermal protection blanket as part of the thermal protection system; rather, it required that the specification tank cars meet the performance standard specified in § 179.18 of the HMR, which requires that a tank car have sufficient thermal resistance so that there will be no release of tank car lading, except through the pressure relief device, when subjected to a pool fire for 100 minutes and a torch fire for 30 minutes. Section 179.18 does not require the use of a thermal protection blanket for a tank car that is required to be equipped with thermal protection, nor does it prohibit their usage, provided the thermal protection blanket meets the section's performance requirement. In drafting the HM-251 final rule, PHMSA and FRA projected that a thermal protection blanket would be the likely option chosen for a DOT-117 tank car to comply with the thermal protection requirement, and the use of thermal protection blankets is consistent with the HM-251 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which assumed the thermal blanket would be the method used to achieve the thermal protection requirements in 179.18.8 Although PHMSA and FRA acknowledged that new alternate technologies to thermal protection blankets may become available for meeting the performance requirement of that rule, the analysis projected that thermal protection blankets would be the technology of choice and included their cost, along with the removal and replacement of jackets (for jacketed DOT-111 cars), in the retrofit costs.

The FAST Act takes a slightly different approach and instructs the Secretary to require a thermal protection blanket of at least 1/2-inch-thick material on both cars built to meet the DOT-117 standard and non-jacketed DOT-117R cars. This constitutes a prescriptive standard for a thermal protection blanket that meets the performance standard specified in § 179.18. This rule implements this statutory requirement in conformance with the FAST Act; therefore, a thermal protection blanket meeting § 179.18(c) is now a requirement for the DOT-117, as well as for the DOT-117R if the tank car undergoing retrofitting is non-jacketed.

Paragraph (a) of Section 7305 requires the Secretary to amend the HMR to reflect these thermal protection requirements within 180 days of the FAST Act's enactment. This rule responds to that mandate.

Section 7306(a) of the FAST Act specifies minimum requirements for top fittings protection on tank cars built to meet the DOT-117R. The HM-251 final rule did not require top fittings protection as part of the DOT-117R retrofit requirement because the costs involved appeared to be greater than the expected safety benefits.9 PHMSA noted in the preamble to the HM-251 final rule that a task force of the AAR Tank Car Committee was evaluating potential advancements in existing top fittings protections that could prove cost effective and, along with the FRA, urged industry to consider enhancements that would apply to both new and retrofitted tank cars.

The FAST Act outlines self-executing performance standards for protective housings and pressure relief valves and does not mandate a rulemaking for these requirements. However, the statutory language mandates minimum requirements for top fittings protections for the DOT-117R tank car not currently in the HMR. Codifying these statutorily-mandated minimum requirements in the HMR provides greater clarity for the regulated community and ensures that the HMR is consistent with the FAST Act.

As a result of the FAST Act, the U.S. retrofit schedule for DOT-111 tank cars is more closely aligned with the schedule that Transport Canada has set.10 Prior to the FAST Act, certain differences existed between the tank car provisions of the HMR and Transport Canada's corresponding Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Regulations. Specifically, in the HM-251 final rule, the U.S. retrofit schedule was based on several factors, including the Class 3 flammable liquid's PG assignment and tank car construction (e.g., whether the tank car is jacketed or non-jacketed). However, the HM-251 final rule was not commodity-specific; the applicable phase-out date for DOT-111 tank cars transporting crude oil or ethanol in an HHFT could vary significantly depending on the material's PG assignment. For example, under the HM-251 final rule, tank cars transporting PG I crude oil in an HHFT would need to be retrofitted or newly manufactured DOT-117R, DOT-117P, or DOT-117 tank cars at an earlier date than tank cars in an HHFT transporting crude oil assigned to PG II or PG III. Moreover, per the HM-251 final rule, a train transporting crude oil or ethanol but not meeting the definition of an HHFT is not required to utilize retrofitted or newly manufactured tank cars conforming to the DOT-117R, DOT-117P, or DOT-117.

Conversely, Transport Canada implemented a phase-out schedule that was commodity-specific (in addition to consideration of tank car design factors). The TDG Regulations mandate that flammable liquid commodities identified as crude oil or ethanol cannot be transported in a TC/DOT-111 in accordance with Canada's phase-out schedule, irrespective of PG assignment. For example, in order to be used to transport crude oil, TDG Regulations require retrofit of a non-jacketed TC/DOT-111 tank car by Canada's first compliance date (May 1, 2017), regardless of the crude oil's PG assignment. Furthermore, under the TDG Regulations, the TC/DOT-117 applies to a single tank car. Transport Canada's TDG Regulations do not include a definition for an HHFT.

As mandated by the FAST Act, in this final rule, PHMSA is implementing a commodity-specific phase-out schedule for the transport of unrefined petroleum products and ethanol in DOT-111 tanks cars, irrespective of the PG assigned. Moreover, the FAST Act mandates the complete phase out of DOT-111 cars for flammable liquids, as opposed to just tank cars transported in HHFTs. Therefore, with respect to being commodity-specific and the applicability of the new standards to a single tank car, this final rule amends the HMR to further align with Transport Canada's corresponding TDG Regulations. There are, however, still some differences between the HMR and TDG Regulations related to tank car standards and the retrofit schedule. For additional discussion of international harmonization issues, please refer to Subsection K, “Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis.”

PHMSA is issuing this final rule without an opportunity for public notice and comment as is normally provided under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. The APA authorizes agencies to dispense with certain notice and comment procedures if the agency finds good cause that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In this instance, PHMSA finds that there is good cause to dispense with notice and comment because it would be impracticable and unnecessary.

“Good cause” exists in impracticable situations when notice unavoidably prevents due and required execution of agency functions or when an agency finds that due and timely execution of its functions would be impeded by the notice otherwise required by the APA. The FAST Act requirements covered in this rulemaking are all non-discretionary, and two of the three FAST Act sections addressed in this rulemaking are self-executing (see Sections 7304 and 7306). PHMSA's actions in this final rule merely codify in the HMR these FAST Act requirements based on the authority of the Secretary to implement the statute.11 This final rule addresses congressional mandates that lay out specific requirements or instruct the Secretary to issue conforming regulatory amendments immediately or soon after the FAST Act's date of enactment. Given the statute's timeline for issuing conforming regulations, PHMSA finds that due and timely execution of agency functions would be impeded by the process of public notice and comment. As such, notice and comment procedures are “impracticable” within the meaning of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Furthermore, in making these ministerial and technical amendments PHMSA is not exercising discretion in a way that could be informed by public comment. The FAST Act does not provide PHMSA the flexibility to withdraw, change or revise this rule in response to adverse public comment. As such, notice and comment procedures are “unnecessary” within the meaning of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

This final rule is effective on the day of publication in the Federal Register. The APA requires agencies to delay the effective date of regulations for 30 days after publication, unless the agency finds good cause to make the regulations effective sooner. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). In addition to the previously discussed good cause to publish this rulemaking without advance notice and opportunity for public comment to implement the specific and non-discretionary mandates of the FAST Act, PHMSA finds good cause to make the regulations effective prior to 30 days.

The DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures [44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979] provide that, to the maximum extent possible, DOT operating administrations should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice. Per the criteria specified in this policy, PHMSA finds that providing an opportunity for public comment cannot reasonably be anticipated to result in the receipt of useful information. This rule simply implements certain non-discretionary measures of the FAST Act; therefore, PHMSA is unable to adjust the text of the rule to account for any public comment. Section 7304 (expanding the tank car requirements to all flammable liquids) and Section 7306 (requiring top fittings protection) are self-executing and do not technically require regulatory action; Section 7304 (adjusting the retrofit timeline) is non-discretionary and required immediately; and Section 7305 (requiring 1/2 inch thermal protection) is non-discretionary and required no later than 180 days from the FAST Act's enactment. Further, due to the non-discretionary nature of Sections 7304, 7305, and 7306 of the FAST Act, PHMSA is without authority to withdraw, change or revise this rule in response to adverse public comment. For these reasons, PHMSA is not providing an opportunity for public comment.

Section 173.241 provides the bulk packaging requirements for certain low hazard (i.e., PG III) liquid and solid materials. Specifically, paragraph (a) provides the specifications of rail tank cars that may be used to transport hazardous materials when directed to this section by Column (8C) of the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT). To execute the mandate in Section 7304 of the FAST Act, in this final rule we are revising paragraph (a) to prohibit the use of DOT-111 tank cars (including CPC-1232 tank cars) for Class 3 (flammable liquid) material in PG III, regardless of whether the cars are in HHFT service, unless they meet the DOT-117P performance standard or the DOT-117R retrofit standard. The phase-out must occur by the date in Table 2:

Section 173.242 provides the bulk packaging requirements for certain medium hazard (i.e., PG II and III) liquid and solid materials. Specifically, paragraph (a) provides which specifications of rail tank cars may be used to transport hazardous materials when directed to this section by Column (8C) of the § 172.101 HMT. Consistent with the mandate in Section 7304 of the FAST Act, in this final rule we are revising paragraph (a) to prohibit the use of DOT-111 tank cars for Class 3 (flammable liquids) in PG II and III, regardless of whether the cars are in HHFT service, unless they meet the DOT-117P performance standard or the DOT-117R retrofit standard. The phase-out must occur by the dates in Table 3 according to material type and tank car design factors:

Section 173.243 provides the bulk packaging requirements for certain high hazard (i.e., PG I) liquids and dual hazard materials. Specifically, paragraph (a) provides which specifications of rail tank cars may be used to transport hazardous materials when directed to this section by Column (8C) of the § 172.101 HMT. Consistent with the mandate in Section 7304 of the FAST Act, in this final rule we are revising paragraph (a) to prohibit the use of DOT-111 tank cars for Class 3 (flammable liquids) in PG I, regardless of whether the cars are in HHFT service, unless they meet the DOT-117P performance standard or the DOT-117R retrofit standard. The phase-out must occur by the dates in Table 4 according to material type and tank car design factors:

Background

The Atlantic spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) fishery is jointly managed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils through the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission also manages the spiny dogfish fishery in state waters from Maine to North Carolina through an interstate plan. Additional information on the FMP is available at http://www.mafmc.org/fisheries/fmp/dogfish. Information on the interstate FMP can be reviewed at http://www.asmfc.org/species/spiny-dogfish.

On June 22, 2016, we proposed new spiny dogfish specifications (81 FR 40650), which include catch limits, commercial quotas, and possession limits for fishing years 2016-2018. Additional information on how specifications are set can be reviewed through the FMP links provided above or the proposed rule for this action.

We are implementing the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and annual catch limits (ACLs) outlined in our proposed rule (see Table 1 below).

Although the stock remains healthy and is not overfished or subject to overfishing, the survey index of spawning stock biomass has recently decreased. This decline was not unexpected and is primarily due to (1) high variance in the survey, and (2) poor spiny dogfish pup production (i.e., recruitment to the dogfish stock). These specifications are consistent with the best scientific information available and the Council's and their Scientific and Statistical Committee recommendations. Additional information that explains the status of the spiny dogfish stock and describes the 2016-2018 catch limits is available in the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

We are approving a trip limit increase from 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) to 6,000 lb (2,722 kg). Because of the proposed harvest reductions (see Table 1), the Councils initially recommended maintaining the current spiny dogfish trip limit of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg). However, after recognizing that the reduced 2016-2018 quotas are still significantly higher than landings in recent years, both Councils and the Commission requested that we increase the trip limit to 6,000 lb (2,722 kg). We specifically solicited public comment on this request in the proposed rule (81 FR 40650; June 22, 2016). We received several comments in support of the trip limit increase. There were two comments opposed to a trip limit increase that provided no specific detail on why the increase would be harmful. Considering this, and understanding that the stock remains healthy, underharvested, and has in place rigid management controls to prevent exceeding the commercial quota, we have elected to increase the trip limit.

We received five public comments on the proposed rule during the 15-day comment period.

Comment 1: Two commenters suggested that the trip limit should be reduced to protect the stock and prevent the fishery from becoming overfished.

Response 1: As explained in the proposed rule, the ACLs are being reduced in response to a recent stock assessment update that shows anticipated declines in stock size following a few years of lower pup production. Despite the reduced ACLs, the fishery is not considered overfished or subject to overfishing. The FMP provides authority to close the fishery if the commercial quota will be reached as well as a pound-for-pound overage repayment system should catch in any one year exceed the established quota. Female spawning stock biomass is 6 percent above the target maximum sustainable yield biomass proxy of 351 million lb (159,288 mt). Fishing mortality remains low and the fishery is underutilized—it is not at risk of overfishing or becoming overfished. As a result, it is not necessary to reduce the trip limit to keep the fishery within its catch limits. Should the increased trip limits result in higher harvests than recent years, appropriate management tools are available to prevent overharvesting. In addition, decreasing the trip limit would make it less likely that the fishery could achieve optimum yield.

Comment 2: Both Councils and Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries requested that we increase the spiny dogfish trip limit.

Response 2: We agree. This healthy stock remains greatly underutilized. Increasing the trip limit provides an opportunity for the fishery to better harvest optimum yield and provide increased revenue. For these reasons, in addition to those detailed above, we are increasing the trip limit.

The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that the 2016-2018 specifications to the FMP are necessary for the conservation and management of the spiny dogfish fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. Maintaining the 30-day delay in effective date is contrary to the public interest for several reasons. First, increasing the dogfish possession limit from 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) to 6,000 lb (2722 kg) will enhance fishing opportunities and the change is anticipated to increase landings and associated fishing revenue for members of the fishing industry. Therefore, this final rule relieves an economic hardship while allowing the fishery to more effectively achieve optimum yield. Delaying this action for 30 days would result in foregone economic benefits that could not be recovered. Second, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council did not submit these Specifications and the accompanying environmental assessment until March 11, 2016, making it virtually impossible to solicit public comment through a proposed rule and implement a final rule prior to the start of the fishing year, which began on May 1, 2016. Therefore, this delay has already resulted in missed fishing opportunities and revenue for fishermen and implementation should not be further delayed. Third, keeping an unnecessarily restrictive possession limit would result in fishermen wastefully discarding fish that could have been retained with the higher possession limit approved under this rule. Maintaining the lower catch limit and requiring unnecessary discarding contradicts the best available science and would prevent the fishery from achieving optimum yield. Lastly, because this rule imposes no further restrictions on the fishery that would alter existing fishing practices or require affected entities to acquire additional equipment, there is no need to delay implementation of this action to provide affected entities additional time to prepare for or comply with the implementation of this action. For these reasons, a 30-day delay in effective date is both contrary to the public interest and unnecessary.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purpose of E.O. 12866.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments. A copy of this analysis is available (see ADDRESSES).

A description of the final rule, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this rule were contained in the preamble of the proposed rule for this action (81 FR 40650; June 22, 2016) and are not repeated here. The public did not provide any comments on the IRFA; therefore, there are no changes made in this final rule with regards to the economic analyses and impacts.

This final rule would affect fishing vessels, including commercial fishing entities. In 2014, there were 2,473 vessels that held an open access spiny dogfish permit. Cross-referencing those permits with vessel ownership data revealed that 1,830 business entities owned those vessels.

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 compliance purposes (80 FR 81194). 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) previous 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, respectively, of the U.S. commercial fishing industry.

An IRFA was developed for this regulatory action prior to July 1, 2016, using SBA's previous size standards. Under the SBA's size standards, 18 of the 1,830 (about 1 percent) spiny dogfish fishing entities were determined to be large. Of the 1,812 entities deemed to be small business entities by the SBA criteria, 570 were finfish, 580 were shellfish, and 244 were for-hire small entities. Further, 418 small entities had no revenue in 2014.

NMFS has qualitatively reviewed the analyses prepared for this final rule using the new size standard. The new standard could result in a few more commercial shellfish businesses being considered small (due to the increase in small business size standards). In addition, the new standard could result in fewer commercial finfish businesses being considered small (due to the decrease in size standards). On average, for small entities, spiny dogfish is responsible for a small fraction of total landings, and active participants derive a small share of gross receipts from the spiny dogfish fishery. As a result, it is unlikely that these size-standard changes would have any impact on the previously conducted analyses.

This final rule does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

These specifications include management measure alternatives for (1) the spiny dogfish ACLs and associated commercial quotas, and (2) spiny dogfish trip limits.

We do not anticipate any significant economic impacts on small entities to result from this action. While there is an overall reduction in the ACLs, analyses for this action indicate that spiny dogfish landings have been substantially less than the specifications we are approving for fishing years 2016-2018. It is unlikely that potential revenue losses would be directly equal to with the ACL reductions. By contrast, maintaining the status quo ACL is inconsistent with the stated objectives because it does not represent the best available science or the goals and objectives of the FMP.

Regarding spiny dogfish trip limits, this final rule increases trip limits from 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) to 6,000 lb (2,722 kg). In general, higher trip limits could result in greater immediate revenue per trip. There is some risk that increasing trip limits could increase the potential for an abbreviated season if the quota or processing capacity is reached. Also, it is possible that a large trip limit increase could lower ex-vessel prices and/or make prices more unstable. Given the low overall demand for spiny dogfish, trip limits may not have a large effect on overall revenue across the fishery. Therefore, increasing the trip limit may help minimize economic impacts, but only if prices remain relatively stable and demand increases.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), and the compliance guide, i.e., permit holder letter, will be sent to all holders of permits for the skate fishery. The guide and this final rule will be posted or publically available on the GARFO Web site (see ADDRESSES).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows: