Federal Register Vol. 81, No.199,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 199 (October 14, 2016)

Page Range70923-71323
FR Document

81_FR_199
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 71113 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 71123 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Additional ItemPDF
81 FR 71095 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 71043 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 71181 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 71166 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 71166 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of an Approved Information Collection: Designation of Agents, Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight ForwardersPDF
81 FR 71173 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 71095 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 71179 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 71178 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection Request: Unified Registration System, FMCSA Registration/Updates.PDF
81 FR 71176 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 70970 - Isofetamid; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency ExemptionsPDF
81 FR 71171 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 71168 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of an Approved Information Collection: Training Certification for Drivers of Longer Combination VehiclesPDF
81 FR 71169 - Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) and Medical Review Board (MRB) Meetings: Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 71199 - Designation of Four Individuals and Nine Entities Pursuant to Executive Order 13581, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations”PDF
81 FR 71002 - Amendments To Implement Grants Provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation ActPDF
81 FR 71164 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 71170 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 71016 - General Technical, Organizational, Conforming, and Correcting Amendments to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 71157 - Mississippi Disaster # MS-00092PDF
81 FR 71077 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries; Notice That Vendor Will Provide 2017 Cage TagsPDF
81 FR 71076 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Essential Fish HabitatPDF
81 FR 71157 - Iowa Disaster #IA-00068PDF
81 FR 70980 - Medicare Program; Explanation of FY 2004 Outlier Fixed-Loss Threshold as Required by Court Rulings; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 71093 - Board of Scientific Counselors Executive Committee; Notification of Public Teleconference and Public CommentPDF
81 FR 70942 - Safety Zones; San Francisco, CAPDF
81 FR 71093 - Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC); Sustainable and Healthy Communities Subcommittee Meeting-November 2016PDF
81 FR 71100 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 71161 - New Orleans Public Belt Railroad-Temporary Trackage Rights Exemption-Illinois Central Railroad CompanyPDF
81 FR 71057 - Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 71044 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the South Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network and Notice of Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 71088 - Membership of the Performance Review BoardPDF
81 FR 71048 - United States Investment Advisory Council: Meeting of the United States Investment Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 71094 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 71025 - Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies [RICs] and Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs]; HearingPDF
81 FR 71045 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 277-Western Maricopa County, Arizona; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; IRIS USA, Inc. (Plastic Household Storage/Organizational Containers); Surprise, ArizonaPDF
81 FR 71087 - Procurement List; DeletionsPDF
81 FR 71086 - Procurement List Proposed DeletionsPDF
81 FR 71159 - Department of State Performance Review Board MembersPDF
81 FR 71158 - Certification Pursuant to Section 7045(A)(3)(B) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2016PDF
81 FR 71089 - Accrediting Agencies Under Review for Recognition by the U.S. Secretary of EducationPDF
81 FR 71088 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; NPEFS 2016-2018: Common Core of Data (CCD) National Public Education Financial SurveyPDF
81 FR 71163 - Notice of Availability of the Federal Aviation Administration Record of Decision and Adoption of Department of Navy's Final Environmental Impact Statement for Military Readiness Activities at the Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, OregonPDF
81 FR 70931 - IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 71117 - Conduct of OperationsPDF
81 FR 71159 - Soo Line Railroad Company-Abandonment of Trackage Located in Burleigh County, N.D.PDF
81 FR 71116 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels; Cancellation of the October 21, 2016, ACRS Subcommittee MeetingPDF
81 FR 71090 - William B. Ruger, Jr.; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 71092 - Aclara Meters, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 71091 - Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 71091 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
81 FR 70935 - Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection ActPDF
81 FR 71095 - CentraCare Health System; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
81 FR 71086 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 71084 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 71160 - The Indiana Rail Road Company-Trackage Rights Exemption-CSX Transportation, Inc.PDF
81 FR 71085 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 71119 - In the Matter of Power Resources, Inc.PDF
81 FR 71159 - Elkhart & Western Railroad Co.-Amended Lease and Operation Exemption Containing Interchange Commitment-Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyPDF
81 FR 70923 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Portable Air Conditioners; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 71040 - New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 71017 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meetings for the Circulator Pumps Working Group To Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for Energy Conservation Standards and Test ProceduresPDF
81 FR 71183 - Notice of Rights and Protections Available Under the Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection LawsPDF
81 FR 71185 - Guidance on State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory CommitteesPDF
81 FR 71161 - WRL, LLC-Acquisition Exemption-City of Tacoma, Department of Public WorksPDF
81 FR 71116 - Site Characteristics and Site ParametersPDF
81 FR 71019 - Electronic Notice of LiquidationPDF
81 FR 71182 - Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2008 Chevrolet Silverado Trucks are Eligible for ImportationPDF
81 FR 71039 - Fremont-Winema National Forest; Bly and Chiloquin Ranger Districts; Oregon; East Hills Project Environmental Impact StatementPDF
81 FR 71112 - Filing of Plats of Survey, NebraskaPDF
81 FR 71164 - Notice of Funding Opportunity for Accelerated Innovation Deployment DemonstrationPDF
81 FR 71078 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Maintenance, Repair, and Decommissioning of a Liquefied Natural Gas Facility off MassachusettsPDF
81 FR 71085 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 71116 - Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 71099 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 71098 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 71108 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Evaluation and Initial Assessment of HRSA Teaching Health CentersPDF
81 FR 71150 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, to System Functionality Necessary To Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 71122 - Destra Capital Advisors LLC, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 71129 - The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association and The Bank of New York Mellon; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 71127 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.35P To Provide for Widened Price Collar Thresholds for the Core Open Auction on Volatile Trading DaysPDF
81 FR 71146 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.PDF
81 FR 71131 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New Rules To Govern the Trading of Complex OrdersPDF
81 FR 71153 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Delete Outdated or Unnecessary Rule LanguagePDF
81 FR 71123 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3, to System Functionality Necessary to Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 71143 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3, to System Functionality Necessary To Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 71041 - Notice of Availability of the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project and Equitrans Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the USFS Draft Associated Land and Resource Management Plan AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 70933 - Amendments to the Export Administration Regulations: Reporting Requirements Optional Electronic Filing of Reports of Requests for Restrictive Trade Practice or BoycottPDF
81 FR 71157 - The Entire United States and U.S. TerritoriesPDF
81 FR 71104 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 71042 - Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 71158 - North Carolina Disaster #NC-00079PDF
81 FR 71156 - Florida Disaster Number FL-00119PDF
81 FR 71200 - Office of the General Counsel; Appointment of Members of the Legal Division to the Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue ServicePDF
81 FR 71103 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 71046 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 71200 - Appointment of Members of the Legal Division to the Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue ServicePDF
81 FR 71068 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 71199 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2016-30PDF
81 FR 71043 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Questionnaire for Building Permit OfficialPDF
81 FR 71049 - Phosphor Copper From the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical CircumstancesPDF
81 FR 70987 - Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family ResidencesPDF
81 FR 71104 - Advisory Committee; Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, RenewalPDF
81 FR 71051 - Truck and Bus Tires From the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 71101 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 71102 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 71110 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request NCI's Center for Cancer Training Application Form for Graduate Student Recruitment Program (National Cancer Institute)PDF
81 FR 70940 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying BenefitsPDF
81 FR 71106 - Advisory Committee; Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee, RenewalPDF
81 FR 71061 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
81 FR 71107 - Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and ChildrenPDF
81 FR 71109 - CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and TreatmentPDF
81 FR 71105 - Software as a Medical Device: Clinical Evaluation; International Medical Device Regulators Forum; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 71109 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 71111 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 71110 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 71111 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 71074 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 71059 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
81 FR 71056 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014PDF
81 FR 71071 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
81 FR 71162 - WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States-Certain Measures Relating to the Renewable Energy SectorPDF
81 FR 70925 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan EnginesPDF
81 FR 70929 - Airworthiness Directives; Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating EnginesPDF
81 FR 71113 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 70980 - Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Emergency Order ProceduresPDF
81 FR 70966 - Air Plan Approval; KY; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery ProgramPDF
81 FR 70968 - Air Plan Approval; NC Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2PDF
81 FR 71017 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Healy, AKPDF
81 FR 70928 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron HelicoptersPDF
81 FR 71114 - Requests for Petitions for Duty Suspensions and ReductionsPDF
81 FR 70925 - Farm Credit Administration Board Policy StatementsPDF
81 FR 71025 - Election To Take Disaster Loss Deduction for Preceding YearPDF
81 FR 70938 - Election To Take Disaster Loss Deduction for Preceding YearPDF
81 FR 71029 - Tebufenozide; Proposed Pesticide TolerancePDF
81 FR 71026 - General Regulations; Areas of the National Park System, Sale and Distribution of Printed Matter and Other Message Bearing ItemsPDF
81 FR 71244 - Retrospective Review-Improving the Previous Participation Reviews of Prospective Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Programs ParticipantsPDF
81 FR 71111 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 71035 - Notice of Proposed Supplementary Rules for Public Lands in Colorado: Cache Creek Placer AreaPDF
81 FR 70974 - Pyridaben; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 71202 - Clearing Requirement Determination Under Section 2(h) of the Commodity Exchange Act for Interest Rate SwapsPDF
81 FR 71278 - Procedures for Reestablishing a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship With the Native Hawaiian CommunityPDF
81 FR 70944 - General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Six Source CategoriesPDF

Issue

81 199 Friday, October 14, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Questionnaire for Building Permit Official, 71043-71044 2016-24819 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 71098-71100 2016-24845 2016-24846 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Explanation of FY 2004 Outlier Fixed-Loss Threshold as Required by Court Rulings; Correction, 70980 2016-24917 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 71100-71103 2016-24813 2016-24814 2016-24910 Chemical Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 71043 2016-24970 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Quarterly Financial Report, 71103 2016-24824 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Financial Report for Tribes, 71104 2016-24829 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: San Francisco, CA, 70942-70944 2016-24915 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

First Responder Network Authority

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 71086-71088 2016-24898 2016-24899 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission RULES Clearing Requirement Determination under the Commodity Exchange Act for Interest Rate Swaps, 71202-71241 2016-23983 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Membership of the Performance Review Board, 71088 2016-24904 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Accrediting Agencies under Review for Recognition by the U.S. Secretary of Education, 71089-71090 2016-24893 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Common Core of Data (CCD) National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) 2016-2018, 71088-71089 2016-24891 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Programs: Test Procedures for Portable Air Conditioners; Correction, 70923-70925 2016-24869 PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures: Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee; Open Meetings for the Circulator Pumps Working Group, 71017 2016-24867
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Kentucky; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program, 70966-70968 2016-24779 North Carolina; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 70968-70969 2016-24778 General Permits and Permits by Rule: Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Six Source Categories, 70944-70966 2016-23178 Pesticide Tolerances: Pyridaben, 70974-70980 2016-24089 Pesticide Tolerances; Exemptions: Isofetamid, 70970-70974 2016-24932 PROPOSED RULES Pesticide Tolerances: Tebufenozide, 71029-71035 2016-24650 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 71094-71095 2016-24902 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors Executive Committee; Teleconference, 71093 2016-24916 Board of Scientific Counselors Sustainable and Healthy Communities Subcommittee, 71093-71094 2016-24913 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration RULES Board Policy Statements, 70925 2016-24680 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bell Helicopter Textron Helicopters, 70928-70929 2016-24741 Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines, 70929-70931 2016-24794 General Electric Co. Turbofan Engines, 70925-70928 2016-24795 Instrument Flight Rules Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments, 70931-70933 2016-24889 PROPOSED RULES Class E Airspace; Establishments: Healy, AK, 71017-71019 2016-24773 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Military Readiness Activities at the Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, OR, 71163-71164 2016-24890 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 71095 2016-24969 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Applications: Aclara Meters, LLC, 71092 2016-24883 Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, 71091 2016-24882 William B. Ruger, Jr., 71090-71091 2016-24884 Staff Attendances, 71091-71092 2016-24881 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Accelerated Innovation Deployment Demonstration; Correction, 71164 2016-24851 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 71095 2016-24975 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 71095 2016-24946 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Amendments to Implement Grants Provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, 71002-71016 2016-24925 General Technical, Organizational, Conforming, and Correcting Amendments; Correction, 71016 2016-24922 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Designation of Agents, Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders, 71166 2016-24963 Training Certification for Drivers of Longer Combination Vehicles, 71168-71169 2016-24928 Unified Registration System, 71178-71179 2016-24934 Meetings: Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee and Medical Review Board, 71169-71170 2016-24927 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 2016-24923 2016-24924 2016-24930 2016-24933 71164-71168, 71170-71173, 71176-71177, 71179-71182 2016-24943 2016-24965 2016-24967 Vision, 71173-71176 2016-24960 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission RULES Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act, 70935-70938 2016-24880 NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: CentraCare Health System, 71095-71098 2016-24879 FIRSTNET First Responder Network Authority NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: South Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, 71044-71045 2016-24906 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee; Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee, 71106-71107 2016-24810 Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, 71104-71105 2016-24816 Guidance: Software as a Medical Device—Clinical Evaluation, 71105-71106 2016-24805 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 71199 2016-24926 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: IRIS USA, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 277, Western Maricopa County, AZ, 71045-71046 2016-24900 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Fremont-Winema National Forest; Bly and Chiloquin Ranger Districts; OR; East Hills Project, 71039-71040 2016-24854 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Equitrans Expansion Project, and the U.S. Forest Service Draft Associated Land and Resource Management Plan, 71041-71042 2016-24833 Meetings: Northern New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee, 71040 2016-24868 Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Advisory Council, 71042-71043 2016-24828 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation and Initial Assessment of HRSA Teaching Health Centers, 71108-71109 2016-24843 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, 71107-71108 2016-24808 CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment, 71109 2016-24807 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Retrospective Review: Improving the Previous Participation Reviews of Prospective Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Programs Participants, 71244-71275 2016-24619 NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 71111-71112 2016-24618 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Export Administration Regulations: Optional Electronic Filing of Reports of Requests for Restrictive Trade Practice or Boycott, 70933-70935 2016-24831 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

RULES Procedures for Reestablishing a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship with the Native Hawaiian Community, 71278-71323 2016-23720
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Election to Take Disaster Loss Deduction for Preceding Year, 70938-70940 2016-24664 PROPOSED RULES Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies and Real Estate Investment Trusts; Hearing, 71025 2016-24901 Election to Take Disaster Loss Deduction for Preceding Year, 71025-71026 2016-24674 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 71199-71200 2016-24820 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: August Anniversary Dates, 71061-71068 2016-24809 Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71046-71048 2016-24823 Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China, 71068-71071 2016-24821 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea, 71074-71076 2016-24800 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 71071-71074 2016-24797 Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan, 71057-71059 2016-24907 New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China, 71056-71057 2016-24798 Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, 71059-71061 2016-24799 Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea, 71049-71051 2016-24818 Truck and Bus Tires from the People's Republic of China, 71051-71056 2016-24815 Meetings: United States Investment Advisory Council, 71048-71049 2016-24903 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Mobile Device Holders and Components Thereof, 71113-71114 2016-24793 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 71113 2016-25076 Requests for Petitions for Duty Suspensions and Reductions, 71114-71116 2016-24690 Land Land Management Bureau PROPOSED RULES Public Lands: Colorado, Cache Creek Placer Area, 71035-71038 2016-24610 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Equitrans Expansion Project, and the U.S. Forest Service Draft Associated Land and Resource Management Plan, 71041-71042 2016-24833 Plats of Survey: Nebraska, 71112-71113 2016-24852 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Import Eligibility: Nonconforming Model Year 2008 Chevrolet Silverado Trucks, 71182-71183 2016-24855 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 71110-71111 2016-24812 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 2016-24801 71110-71111 2016-24802 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 71111 2016-24803 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 71109-71110 2016-24804 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 71085-71086 2016-24849 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Essential Fish Habitat; Public Hearings, 71076-71077 2016-24919 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries Vendor-Provided Cage Tags, 71077 2016-24920 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 2016-24874 2016-24875 71084-71086 2016-24877 2016-24878 Takes of Marine Mammals: Incidental to Maintenance, Repair, and Decommissioning of a Liquefied Natural Gas Facility off Massachusetts, 71078-71084 2016-24850 National Park National Park Service PROPOSED RULES Areas of the National Park System, Sale and Distribution of Printed Matter and Other Message Bearing Items, 71026-71029 2016-24641 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering, 71116 2016-24848 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: South Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, 71044-71045 2016-24906 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Confirmatory Orders: Power Resources, Inc., 71119-71122 2016-24872 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels; Cancellation, 71116 2016-24885 Standard Review Plans: Conduct of Operations, 71117-71119 2016-24887 Site Characteristics and Site Parameters; Revision, 71116-71117 2016-24859 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans: Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits, 70940-70942 2016-24811 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Emergency Order Procedures, 70980-70987 2016-24788 Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences, 70987-71002 2016-24817 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., National Association and Bank of New York Mellon, 71129-71131 2016-24840 Destra Capital Advisors LLC, et al., 71122-71123 2016-24841 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 71123 2016-24988 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 71146-71149 2016-24838 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 71131-71143 2016-24837 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 71150-71153 2016-24842 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 71123-71127, 71153-71156 2016-24835 2016-24836 Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 71143-71146 2016-24834 NYSE Arca, Inc., 71127-71129 2016-24839 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Florida; Amendment 1, 71156 2016-24826 Iowa, 71157-71158 2016-24918 Mississippi, 71157 2016-24921 North Carolina, 71158 2016-24827 Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans: Entire United States and U.S. Territories, 71157 2016-24830 State Department State Department NOTICES Certifications Pursuant to the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 71158-71159 2016-24894 Performance Review Board Members, 71159 2016-24895 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Soo Line Railroad Co., Burleigh County, ND, 71159-71160 2016-24886 Acquisition Exemptions: WRL, LLC from Tacoma, WA, Department of Public Works, 71161 2016-24861 Amended Leases and Operation Exemptions: Elkhart and Western Railroad Co. from Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 71159 2016-24870 Trackage Rights Exemptions: Indiana Rail Road Co., CSX Transportation, Inc., 71160 2016-24876 New Orleans Public Belt Railroad; Illinois Central Railroad Co., 71161 2016-24909 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings: Certain Measures Relating to the Renewable Energy Sector, 71162-71163 2016-24796 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NOTICES Guidance: State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory Committees, 71185-71198 2016-24862 Rights and Protections Available Under the Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection Laws, 71183-71185 2016-24863
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

PROPOSED RULES Electronic Notice of Liquidation, 71019-71025 2016-24858 NOTICES Appointment of Members of the Legal Division to the Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service, 2016-24822 71200 2016-24825
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection PROPOSED RULES Electronic Notice of Liquidation, 71019-71025 2016-24858 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 71202-71241 2016-23983 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 71244-71275 2016-24619 Part IV Interior Department, 71278-71323 2016-23720 Reader Aids

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

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

81 199 Friday, October 14, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-TP-0014] RIN 1904-AD22 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Portable Air Conditioners; Correction AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule in the Federal Register on June 1, 2016, establishing test procedures for portable air conditioners. This correction addresses typographical errors in that final rule that were included in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix CC. Neither the errors nor the corrections in this document affect the substance of the rulemaking or any of the conclusions reached in support of the final rule.

DATES:

This correction is effective October 14, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email: [email protected].

Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mailstop GC-33, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 1, 2016, DOE published a final rule (the “June 2016 final rule”) to establish test procedures for portable air conditioners. 81 FR 35241. DOE has since found that the June 2016 final rule contained minor typographical errors in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix CC. This final rule correction revises appendix CC to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, to correct these typographical errors. Specifically, in section 4.1.1, DOE is correcting the following errors: An incorrect subscript for the variable Tduct_SD_j in the Qduct_SD equation and missing subscripts “j” on the Tduct variables in the equations for Qduct_95 and Qduct_83. In section 4.1.2, DOE is correcting the following errors: A missing equals sign and parenthesis; incorrect subscripts for the variable Cp_da and the infiltration air variables in the Qs_95 equation; incorrect subscripts in the infiltration air variables in the Qs_83 equation; missing equals signs in the Ql_95 and Ql_83 equations; and missing “Q” variables and incorrect subscripts for the Ql_95 and Ql_83 variables in the Qinfiltration_95 and Qinfiltration_83 equations.

DOE also found that the summation symbols in the two dual-duct Qduct equations in section 4.1.1 were not properly represented in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR).

Neither the errors nor the corrections in this document affect the substance of the rulemaking or any of the conclusions reached in support of the final rule. 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 corrections contained in this final rule as doing so would be impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), DOE finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the various procedural requirements to the June 2016 final rule that originally codified DOE's test procedures for portable air conditioners remain unchanged for this final rule technical correction. 81 FR 35241. The amendments from that final rule became effective July 1, 2016. Id.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Small businesses.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 7, 2016. Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations by making the following correcting amendments:

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2. Appendix CC to subpart B of part 430 is amended by revising sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 to read as follows: Appendix CC to Subpart B of Part 430- Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Portable Air Conditioners

4. * * *

4.1.1. Duct Heat Transfer. Measure the surface temperature of the condenser exhaust duct and condenser inlet duct, where applicable, throughout the cooling mode test. Calculate the average temperature at each individual location, and then calculate the average surface temperature of each duct by averaging the four average temperature measurements taken on that duct. Calculate the surface area (Aduct_j) of each duct according to:

Aduct_j = π × dj × Lj
Where: dj = the outer diameter of duct “j”, including any manufacturer-supplied insulation. Lj = the extended length of duct “j” while under test. j represents the condenser exhaust duct and, for dual-duct units, the condenser exhaust duct and the condenser inlet duct.

Calculate the total heat transferred from the surface of the duct(s) to the indoor conditioned space while operating in cooling mode for the outdoor test conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, as follows. For single-duct portable air conditioners:

Qduct_SD = h × Aduct_j × (T duct_SD_jT ei) For dual-duct portable air conditioners: Qduct_95 = ∑j{h × Aduct_j × (T duct_95_jT ei)} Qduct_83 = ∑j{h × Aduct_j × (T duct_83_jT ei)} Where: Qduct_SD = for single-duct portable air conditioners, the total heat transferred from the duct to the indoor conditioned space in cooling mode when tested according to the test conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, in Btu/h. Qduct_95 and Qduct_83 = for dual-duct portable air conditioners, the total heat transferred from the ducts to the indoor conditioned space in cooling mode, in Btu/h, when tested according to the 95 °F dry-bulb and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor test conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, respectively. h = convection coefficient, 3 Btu/h per square foot per °F. Aduct_j = surface area of duct “j”, in square feet. Tduct_SD_j = average surface temperature for the condenser exhaust duct of single-duct portable air conditioners, as measured during testing according to the test condition in Table 1 of this appendix, in °F. Tduct_95_j and Tduct_83_j = average surface temperature for duct “j” of dual-duct portable air conditioners, as measured during testing according to the two outdoor test conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, in °F. j represents the condenser exhaust duct and, for dual-duct units, the condenser exhaust duct and the condenser inlet duct. Tei = average evaporator inlet air dry-bulb temperature, in °F.

4.1.2 Infiltration Air Heat Transfer. Measure the heat contribution from infiltration air for single-duct portable air conditioners and dual-duct portable air conditioners that draw at least part of the condenser air from the conditioned space. Calculate the heat contribution from infiltration air for single-duct and dual-duct portable air conditioners for both cooling mode outdoor test conditions, as described in this section. Calculate the dry air mass flow rate of infiltration air according to the following equations:

ER14OC16.001

For dual-duct portable air conditioners:

ER14OC16.002

Where:

m SD = dry air mass flow rate of infiltration air for single-duct portable air conditioners, in pounds per minute (lb/m). m 95 and m 83 = dry air mass flow rate of infiltration air for dual-duct portable air conditioners, as calculated based on testing according to the test conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, in lb/m. Vco_SD, Vco_95, and Vco_83 = average volumetric flow rate of the condenser outlet air during cooling mode testing for single-duct portable air conditioners; and at the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor conditions for dual-duct portable air conditioners, respectively, in cubic feet per minute (cfm). Vci_95, and Vci_83 = average volumetric flow rate of the condenser inlet air during cooling mode testing at the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor conditions for dual-duct portable air conditioners, respectively, in cfm. ρco_SD, ρco_95, and ρco_83 = average density of the condenser outlet air during cooling mode testing for single-duct portable air conditioners, and at the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor conditions for dual-duct portable air conditioners, respectively, in pounds mass per cubic foot (lbm/ft3). ρci_95, and ρci_83 = average density of the condenser inlet air during cooling mode testing at the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor conditions for dual-duct portable air conditioners, respectively, in lbm/ft3. ωco_SD, ωco_95, and ωco_83 = average humidity ratio of condenser outlet air during cooling mode testing for single-duct portable air conditioners, and at the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor conditions for dual-duct portable air conditioners, respectively, in pounds mass of water vapor per pounds mass of dry air (lbw/lbda). ωci_95, and ωci_83 = average humidity ratio of condenser inlet air during cooling mode testing at the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor conditions for dual-duct portable air conditioners, respectively, in lbw/lbda.

For single-duct and dual-duct portable air conditioners, calculate the sensible component of infiltration air heat contribution according to:

Q s _95 = m × 60 × [c p_da × (T ia_95T indoor)) + (c p _wv × (ωia_ 95 × T ia_ 95 − ωindoor × T indoor))] Q s_ 83 = m × 60 × [(c p_da × T ia_ 83T indoor + (c p_wv × (ωia_ 83 × T ia_ 83 − ωindoor × T indoor))] Where: Qs_95 and Qs_83 = sensible heat added to the room by infiltration air, calculated at the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, in Btu/h. m = dry air mass flow rate of infiltration air, m SD or m 95 when calculating Qs_95 and m SD or m 83 when calculating Qs_83, in lb/m. cp_da = specific heat of dry air, 0.24 Btu/lbm − °F. cp_wv = specific heat of water vapor, 0.444 Btu/lbm − °F. Tindoor = indoor chamber dry-bulb temperature, 80 °F. Tia_95 and Tia_83 = infiltration air dry-bulb temperatures for the two test conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, 95 °F and 83 °F, respectively. ωia_95 and ωia_83 = humidity ratios of the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb infiltration air, 0.0141 and 0.01086 lbw/lbda, respectively. ωindoor = humidity ratio of the indoor chamber air, 0.0112 lbw/lbda. 60 = conversion factor from minutes to hours.

Calculate the latent heat contribution of the infiltration air according to:

Ql_95 = m × 60 × H fg × (ωia_ 95 − ωindoor) Ql_ 83 = m × 60 × H fg × (ωia_ 83 − ωindoor) Where: Ql_95 and Ql_83 = latent heat added to the room by infiltration air, calculated at the 95°F and 83°F dry-bulb outdoor conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, in Btu/h. m = mass flow rate of infiltration air, m SD or m 95 when calculating Ql_95 and m SD or m 83 when calculating Ql_83, in lb/m. Hfg = latent heat of vaporization for water vapor, 1061 Btu/lbm. ωia_95 and ωia_83 = humidity ratios of the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb infiltration air, 0.0141 and 0.01086 lbw/lbda, respectively. ωindoor = humidity ratio of the indoor chamber air, 0.0112 lbw/lbda. 60 = conversion factor from minutes to hours.

The total heat contribution of the infiltration air is the sum of the sensible and latent heat:

Q infiltration_95 = Q s_ 95 + Q l_ 95 Q infiltration_ 83 = Q s_ 83 + Q 83 Where: Qinfiltration_95 and Qinfiltration_83 = total infiltration air heat in cooling mode, calculated at the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, in Btu/h. Qs_95 and Qs_83 = sensible heat added to the room by infiltration air, calculated at the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, in Btu/h. Ql_95 and Ql_83 = latent heat added to the room by infiltration air, calculated at the 95 °F and 83 °F dry-bulb outdoor conditions in Table 1 of this appendix, in Btu/h.
[FR Doc. 2016-24869 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Chapter VI Farm Credit Administration Board Policy Statements AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION:

Notice of policy statements and index.

SUMMARY:

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA), as part of its annual public notification process, is publishing for notice an index of the 18 Board policy statements currently in existence. Most of the policy statements remain unchanged since our last Federal Register notice on November 2, 2015, except for one as discussed below on Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity.

DATES:

October 14, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to Board, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056; or Mary Alice Donner, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 883-4020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A list of the 18 FCA Board policy statements is set forth below. FCA Board policy statements may be viewed online at www.fca.gov/handbook.nsf.

On August 8, 2016, the FCA Board updated FCA-PS-62 on, “Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity.” The policy was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53482). The policy was slightly edited at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's recommendation to indicate that FCA begins prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations within 10 days of receiving notice of harassment allegations.

The FCA will continue to publish new or revised policy statements in their full text.

FCA Board Policy Statements FCA-PS-34 Disclosure of the Issuance and Termination of Enforcement Documents FCA-PS-37 Communications During Rulemaking FCA-PS-41 Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution FCA-PS-44 Travel FCA-PS-53 Examination Philosophy FCA-PS-59 Regulatory Philosophy FCA-PS-62 Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity FCA-PS-64 Rules for the Transaction of Business of the Farm Credit Administration Board FCA-PS-65 Release of Consolidated Reporting System Information FCA-PS-67 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Agency Programs and Activities FCA-PS-68 FCS Building Association Management Operations Policies and Practices FCA-PS-71 Disaster Relief Efforts by Farm Credit Institutions FCA-PS-72 Financial Institution Rating System (FIRS) FCA-PS-77 Borrower Privacy FCA-PS-78 Official Names of Farm Credit Institutions FCA-PS-79 Consideration and Referral of Supervisory Strategies and Enforcement Actions FCA-PS-80 Cooperative Operating Philosophy—Serving the Members of Farm Credit System Institutions FCA-PS-81 Ethics, Independence, Arm's-Length Role, Ex Parte Communications and Open Government Dated: October 6, 2016. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. 2016-24680 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5872; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-11-AD; Amendment 39-18681; AD 2016-20-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70C/P2, -1B70/75/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines with engine assembly, part number (P/N) 2447M10G01 or P/N 2447M10G02, installed. This AD was prompted by a report of a significant fan rub event. This AD requires rework of the engine fan stator module assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fan blades and the load reduction device, loss of power to one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective November 18, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5872.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5872; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all GE GEnx-1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70C/P2, -1B70/75/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines with engine assembly, P/N 2447M10G01 or P/N 2447M10G02, installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28777). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a significant fan rub event. The NPRM proposed to require rework of the engine fan stator module assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fan blades and the load reduction device, loss of power to one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

Request To Add Terminating Action

Japan Airlines and United Airlines requested that the airplane flight manual (AFM) limitations mandated by AD 2016-08-12, Amendment 39-18488 (81 FR 23581, April 22, 2016) (“AD 2016-08-12”), be removed from an aircraft that has complied with the fan case grind procedure mandated in this AD. They reason that once the fan case grind is completed on both engines installed on an airplane, there is no longer an unsafe condition.

We agree. Once the fan case grind has been completed on both engines installed on an airplane, the unsafe condition no longer exists. With agreement from the Transport Airplane Directorate (TAD), we added a terminating action paragraph to this AD.

Request To Add Compliance Methods

Japan Airlines requested that alternate service documents be approved as compliance to AD 2016-06-08, Amendment 39-18439 (81 FR 14704, March 18, 2016) (“AD 2016-06-08”). They reason that the service documents provide the same procedure and the same post-rework configuration.

We disagree. AD 2016-06-08 is a separate AD issued by the TAD, which includes aircraft-level corrective actions. The commenter must contact the TAD to request a change to AD 2016-06-08. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change Applicability

GE requested that the applicability explicitly state that engine assembly, P/N 2447M10G03, is not applicable to this AD. They reason that engine assembly, P/N 2447M10G03, is a new production part that does not contain the unsafe condition.

We disagree. Since engine assembly, P/N 2447M10G03, is not listed in the applicability of this AD, it is not applicable to this AD. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change Compliance Method

GE requested that another procedure included within a new service bulletin, GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0317 R00, dated June 29, 2016, be added as a means of compliance to this AD. They reason that this new procedure achieves the same configuration as the proposed procedure.

We agree. The new procedure in GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0317 R00, dated June 29, 2016, also corrects the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. We added GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0317 R00, dated June 29, 2016, as a means of compliance in this AD.

Request To Change Compliance Time

GE requested that we move the action specified in paragraph (f) Credit for Previous Action, to compliance paragraph (e) of this AD. They reason that this action is an equivalent method of performing the fan case rework.

We agree. The action is equivalent to the current compliance, but located within a different service document. We revised paragraph (f) and paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Change Affected ADs

United Airlines requested that we list AD 2016-06-08 and AD 2016-08-12 in this AD. They reason that AD 2016-06-08 and AD 2016-08-12 address the same unsafe condition as this AD and also mandate a fan case rework.

We agree. AD 2016-06-08 and AD 2016-08-12 address the same unsafe condition as this AD. We list AD 2016-06-08 and AD 2016-08-12 in paragraph (h) of this AD.

Request To Change Affected ADs

United Airlines requested that we supersede AD 2016-08-12 with this AD. They reason that AD 2016-06-08 and AD 2016-08-12 address the same unsafe condition of the engine and mandate a fan case rework procedure.

We disagree. An AD that mandates engine-level corrective actions, “this AD”, cannot supersede an AD, “AD 2016-08-12” that mandates aircraft-level corrective actions. AD 2016-08-12 mandates aircraft limitations in addition to the engine rework procedure that can only be mandated at the aircraft level, not the engine level. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change Operating Procedures

United Airlines requested that we revise the operating procedures that require the ice removal procedure to be done every 5 minutes, rather than the preferred every 5 minutes or less, allowing the pilot to do the procedure prior to 5 minutes after Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) notification. United Airlines suggests the 5 minute requirement does not allow pilots to effectively manage the cockpit within reasonable parameters or room to operate.

We disagree. The AFM operating procedures are mandated by aircraft-level AD 2016-06-08 and AD 2016-08-12, which were issued by the TAD. The commenter must contact the TAD to request a change to AD 2016-06-08 or AD 2016-08-12. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change Compliance Time

United Airlines requested that we allow installation of engine assembly, P/N 2477M10G03, by using GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0317 to modify the engine instead of using the fan grind rework procedure as compliance to AD 2016-08-12. They reason that the procedure in GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0317 achieves the same engine outcome as the currently mandated compliance.

We disagree. AD 2016-08-12 was issued by the TAD. The commenter must contact the TAD to request a change to AD 2016-08-12. We did not change this AD.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0314 R00, dated April 1, 2016. The SB describes procedures for increasing the clearance of the fan stator module assembly. We also reviewed GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0309 R00, dated March 11, 2016. That SB describes procedures for increasing the clearance of the fan stator module assembly. We also reviewed GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0317 R00, dated June 29, 2016. That SB releases a new fan stator module assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 89 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 40 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $302,600.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-20-15 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-18681; Docket No. FAA-2016-5872; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-11-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective November 18, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70C/P2, -1B70/75/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines with engine assembly, part number (P/N) 2447M10G01 or P/N 2447M10G02, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by a report of a significant fan rub event. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fan blades and the load reduction device, loss of power to one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(1) Modify the fan stator module assembly, with one of the following methods, before December 31, 2016.

(i) Use paragraphs 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(6) or 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(6) of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0314 R00, dated April 1, 2016, to do the modification.

(ii) Use paragraphs 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(6) or 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(6) of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0309 R00, dated March 11, 2016, to do the modification.

(iii) Use paragraph 3.A. of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0317 R00, dated June 29, 2016, to do the modification.

(2) Reserved.

(f) Terminating Action

Compliance with this AD constitutes terminating action for AD 2016-06-08, Amendment 39-18439 (81 FR 14704, March 18, 2016) (“AD 2016-06-08”) and AD 2016-08-12, Amendment 39-18488 (81 FR 23581, April 22, 2016) (“AD 2016-08-12”), provided that all of the airplanes within the operator's fleet that have engines identified in paragraph (c) of this AD are modified as specified in paragraph (e) of this AD. After fleet incorporation of this AD, do not install any engine listed in paragraph (c) of this AD unless the engine is modified as specified in paragraph (e) of this AD, or AD 2016-06-08, or AD 2016-08-12.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(h) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

(2) AD 2016-06-08 and AD 2016-08-12 pertain to the subject of this AD.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0309 R00, dated March 11, 2016.

(ii) GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0314 R00, dated April 1, 2016.

(iii) GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0317 R00, dated June 29, 2016.

(3) For GE service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected]

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 30, 2016. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24795 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6551; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-070-AD; Amendment 39-18682; AD 2016-21-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Helicopters AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bell Helicopter Textron (Bell) Model 430 helicopters. This AD requires establishing a life limit for a certain main rotor hub attachment bolt (bolt) and removing from service each bolt that has met or exceeded its life limit. This AD was prompted by a documentation error that omitted the life limit of a certain part-numbered bolt from the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual. The actions of this AD are intended to establish a life limit for a certain part-numbered bolt to prevent failure of a bolt, failure of a main rotor hub, and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter.

DATES:

This AD is effective November 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6551; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the Transport Canada AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

On May 10, 2016, at 81 FR 28766, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered Bell Model 430 helicopters with bolt part number (P/N) MS21250-08083 installed. The NPRM proposed to require, within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the applicable maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by establishing a life limit of 5,000 hours TIS for each bolt P/N MS21250-08083, determining the number of hours TIS for each bolt and using the helicopter's hours if the hours TIS of a bolt is unknown, and removing from service each bolt that has reached or exceeded its life limit. The proposed requirements were intended to establish a life limit for the bolt to prevent failure of a bolt, failure of a main rotor hub, and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter.

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD No. CF-2013-26, dated September 24, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for certain serial-numbered Bell Model 430 helicopters. Transport Canada advises that bolt P/N MS21250-08083, which replaced bolt P/N 20-065-08083 in 2009, has a retirement life of 5,000 hours. However, the retirement life for the replacement bolt was inadvertently omitted from the limitations section of the Bell 430 maintenance manual. Transport Canada advises that this situation, if not corrected, could result in failure of a bolt and loss of control of the helicopter. Transport Canada AD No. CF-2013-26 requires reviewing the helicopter records to determine if bolt P/N MS21250-08083 is installed, creating a historical service record, and establishing an airworthiness life of 5,000 hours air time.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (81 FR 28766, May 10, 2016).

FAA's Determination

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

Differences Between This AD and the Transport Canada AD

This AD requires compliance within 10 hours TIS, while the Transport Canada AD requires compliance within 60 days.

Related Service Information

We reviewed Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 430-12-47, dated November 14, 2012 (ASB). The ASB states that original bolt P/N 20-065-08083 has a retirement life of 5,000 hours but has been replaced by standard bolt P/N MS21250-08083, which does not have a life limit listed in the maintenance manual. The purpose of the ASB is to establish a life limit of 5,000 hours for the replacement bolt. Bell specifies reviewing the aircraft records back to January 2009 to determine which part-numbered bolts are installed. If a replacement bolt P/N MS21250-08083 is installed, the ASB specifies using data from aircraft records to create a historical service record for the replacement bolts and reflecting the 5,000 hours life limit. The ASB also specifies updating the Bell 430 maintenance manual.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 43 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to comply with this AD. At an average labor cost of $85 per work-hour, we estimate reviewing and revising the records requires 1 work-hour for a cost of about $85 per helicopter and $3,655 for the U.S. fleet. We estimate replacing a bolt that has exceeded its life limit requires 0.5 work-hour plus $290 for a replacement bolt, for a total cost of $333 per bolt.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-21-01 Bell Helicopter Textron: Amendment 39-18682; Docket No. FAA-2016-6551; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-070-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Model 430 helicopters, serial number 49001 through 49129, with a main rotor head attachment bolt (bolt) part number (P/N) MS21250-08083 installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a bolt remaining in service beyond its fatigue life. This condition could result in failure of a bolt, failure of the main rotor hub and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective November 18, 2016.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS):

(1) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the applicable maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to establish a life limit of 5,000 hours TIS for each bolt P/N MS21250-08083.

(2) Determine the number of hours TIS for each bolt and update the helicopter's historical records. If the hours TIS is unknown, calculate the number of hours TIS by counting the helicopter's hours TIS beginning January 1, 2009.

(3) Remove from service each bolt that has reached or exceeded its life limit.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

(g) Additional Information

(1) Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 430-12-47, dated November 14, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this final rule. For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD No. CF-2013-26, dated September 24, 2013. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2016-6551.

(h) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220 Main Rotor Head.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 3, 2016. Lance T. Gant, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24741 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0069; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-01-AD; Amendment 39-18685; AD 2016-21-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) TSIO-550-K, TSIOF-550-K, TSIO-550-C, TSIOF-550-D, and TSIO-550-N reciprocating engines. This AD was prompted by a report of an uncommanded in-flight shutdown (IFSD) resulting in injuries and significant airplane damage. This AD requires replacing the oil cooler cross fitting assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the oil cooler cross fitting and engine, IFSD, and loss of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective November 18, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Continental Motors, Inc., 2039 Broad Street, Mobile, Alabama 36615; phone: 800-326-0089; Internet: http://www.continentalmotors.aero. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0069; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Hopper, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5535; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain CMI TSIO-550-K, TSIOF-550-K, TSIO-550-C, TSIOF-550-D, and TSIO-550-N reciprocating engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2016 (81 FR 12833). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an uncommanded IFSD resulting in injuries and significant airplane damage. The NPRM proposed to require replacing the oil cooler cross fitting assembly. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Change to Cost of Compliance

We increased our estimate of the cost of the affected parts in this AD from $0 to $261 per engine and increased the number of labor hours to perform the replacement from 1 to 2 hours. This increased the overall estimated cost of compliance from $111,095 to $563,317.

Update to Service Information

We revised our reference in this AD from CMI Critical Service Bulletin (CSB) CSB15-7, Revision A, dated November 10, 2015 (also referred to as CMI CSB CSB15-7A, dated November 10, 2015) to CMI CSB CSB15-7, Revision B, dated April 26, 2016 (also referred to as CMI CSB CSB15-7B) to reflect the latest service information published by CMI.

Clarification of Part Number

We clarified in this AD that the affected oil cooler cross fitting has a part number AN918-1J or AN918-2J.

Conclusion

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

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

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

Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

We reviewed CMI CSB CSB15-2, Revision C, dated November 9, 2015 (also referred to as CMI CSB CSB15-2C, dated November 9, 2015), and CMI CSB CSB15-7, Revision B, dated April 26, 2016 (also referred to as CMI CSB CSB15-7B, dated April 26, 2016). The CSBs describe detailed procedures for replacing oil cooler cross fittings, nipples, and bushings with a redesigned oil cooler cross fitting. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 1,307 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Parts cost about $261 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $563,317. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-21-04 Continental Motors, Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by Teledyne Continental Motors) Reciprocating Engines: Amendment 39-18685; Docket No. FAA-2016-0069; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-01-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective November 18, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) TSIO-550-K, TSIOF-550-K, TSIO-550-C, TSIOF-550-D, and TSIO-550-N reciprocating engines with an engine serial number below 1012296 and an oil cooler cross fitting, part number AN918-1J or AN918-2J, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by a report of an uncommanded in-flight shutdown (IFSD) resulting in injuries and significant airplane damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the oil cooler cross fitting and engine, IFSD, and loss of the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(1) Within 12 months or 100 flight hours after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first, replace the oil cooler cross fitting, nipple, and bushing. Use the Action Required paragraphs III.1 through III.8 of CMI Critical Service Bulletin (CSB) CSB15-2, Revision C, dated November 9, 2015 (also referred to as CMI CSB CSB15-2C, dated November 9, 2015), or the Action Required paragraphs III.1 through III.8 of CMI CSB CSB15-7, Revision B, dated April 26, 2016 (also referred to as CMI CSB15-7B, dated April 26, 2016), to perform the replacement.

(2) Reserved.

(f) Credit for Previous Actions

You may take credit for the replacement that is required by paragraph (e) of this AD, if the replacement was performed before the effective date of this AD using CMI CSB CSB15-2B, dated November 6, 2015 or earlier versions; or CSB CSB15-7A, dated November 10, 2015 or earlier version.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Atlanta Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.

(h) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Scott Hopper, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5535; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) Critical Service Bulletin (CSB) CSB15-2, Revision C, dated November 9, 2015 (also referred to as CMI CSB CSB15-2C, dated November 9, 2015).

(ii) CMI CSB CSB15-7, Revision B, dated April 26, 2016 (also referred to as CMI CSB CSB15-7B, dated April 26, 2016).

(3) For CMI service information identified in this AD, contact Continental Motors, Inc., 2039 Broad Street, Mobile, Alabama 36615; phone: 800-326-0089; Internet: http://www.continentalmotors.aero.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 7, 2016. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24794 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 95 [Docket No. 31102; Amdt. No. 529] IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK, 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125). Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The Rule

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95

Airspace, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 7, 2016. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016.

PART 95—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.

2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows: Revisions to IFR Altitudes & Changeover Point [Amendment 529 effective date November 10, 2016] From To MEA § 95.6001 Victor Routes-U.S. § 95.6021 VOR Federal Airway V21 Is Amended To Read in Part CUT BANK, MT VORTAC U.S. CANADIAN BORDER 6300 § 95.6023 VOR Federal Airway V23 Is Amended To Read in Part LINDEN, CA VOR/DME SACRAMENTO, CA VORTAC 2300 § 95.6025 VOR Federal Airway V25 Is Amended To Read in Part YAKIMA, WA VORTAC * ELLENSBURG, WA VOR/DME 5900 * 6800—MCA ELLENSBURG, WA VOR/DME, N BND ELLENSBURG, WA VOR/DME * WENATCHEE, WA VOR/DME 8900 * 7400—MCA WENATCHEE, WA VOR/DME, S BND § 95.6028 VOR Federal Airway V28 Is Amended To Read in Part HAIRE, CA FIX LINDEN, CA VOR/DME * 3000 * 2100—MOCA LINDEN, CA VORTAC * KATSO, CA FIX 5000 * 12400—MCA KATSO, CA FIX, NE BND KATSO, CA FIX * SPOOK, CA FIX ** 13000 * 15000—MCA SPOOK, CA FIX, N BND ** 12100—MOCA § 95.6048 VOR Federal Airway V48 Is Amended To Read in Part BURLINGTON, IA VOR/DME PEORIA, IL VORTAC 2500 § 95.6071 VOR Federal Airway V71 Is Amended To Read in Part MONROE, LA VORTAC EL DORADO, AR VOR/DME 2200 § 95.6108 VOR Federal Airway V108 Is Amended To Read in Part OAKEY, CA FIX LINDEN, CA VOR/DME 2300 § 95.6113 VOR Federal Airway V113 Is Amended To Read in Part LINDEN, CA VOR/DME * KATSO, CA FIX 5000 * 12400—MCA KATSO, CA FIX, NE BND KATSO, CA FIX SPOOK, CA FIX * 13000 * 12100—MOCA § 95.6120 VOR Federal Airway V120 Is Amended To Read in Part MASON CITY, IA VORTAC * AREDA, IA FIX 3000 * 4500—MRA § 95.6212 VOR Federal Airway V212 Is Amended To Read in Part INDUSTRY, TX VORTAC NAVASOTA, TX VOR/DME 2200 § 95.6295 VOR Federal Airway V295 Is Amended To Read in Part VIRGINIA KEY, FL VOR/DME STOOP, FL FIX * 5000 * 2000—MOCA § 95.6336 VOR Federal Airway V336 Is Amended To Read in Part ELLENSBURG, WA VOR/DME * QUINT, WA FIX 7100 * 6500—MCA QUINT, WA FIX, SW BND § 95.6365 VOR Federal Airway V365 Is Amended To Read in Part CHOTE, MT FIX CUT BANK, MT VORTAC 7000 § 95.6459 VOR Federal Airway V459 Is Amended To Read in Part FRIANT, CA VORTAC BAGBY, CA FIX * 8500 * 6600—MOCA BAGBY, CA FIX LINDEN, CA VOR/DME 7000 § 95.6485 VOR Federal Airway V485 Is Amended To Read in Part FELLOWS, CA VOR/DME * REDDE, CA FIX ** 7000 * 7000—MCA REDDE, CA FIX, SE BND ** 6100—MOCA
[FR Doc. 2016-24889 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 760 [Docket No. 160303188-6188-01] RIN 0694-AG92 Amendments to the Export Administration Regulations: Reporting Requirements Optional Electronic Filing of Reports of Requests for Restrictive Trade Practice or Boycott AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to permit electronic submission as an additional method available to United States persons for reporting requests they receive to take certain actions in furtherance or support of an unsanctioned foreign boycott, as required under the restrictive trade practices or boycotts provisions of the EAR. These amendments are administrative changes to those provisions' reporting requirements, which currently permit reporting of such requests solely by mail. BIS is making these amendments consistent with U.S. Government policy to modernize regulatory requirements and promote efficiency. This rule also makes conforming regulatory changes.

DATES:

This rule is effective October 14, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathleen Ryan, Director, Office of Antiboycott Compliance, by telephone at (202) 482-0520 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Restrictive Trade Practices or Boycotts

Part 760 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) is entitled “RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES OR BOYCOTTS,” otherwise referred to as the antiboycott provisions of the EAR. These provisions apply to, and may prohibit, certain activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States undertaken by United States persons (defined in § 760.1(b)) with intent to comply with, further or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott (see § 760.1(e)). In addition, § 760.5(a)(1), Scope of Reporting Requirements, requires United States persons to report to the Department of Commerce (Department) certain requests they receive to take any “action which has the effect of furthering or supporting a restrictive trade practice or boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country against a country friendly to the United States or against any United States person. . . .” (boycott-related requests). Section 760.5(b), Manner of Reporting, specifies the required reporting procedures; specifically, § 760.5(b)(4)—(b)(7) prescribe the manner of submission of the report to the Department. Failure to report such boycott-related requests in the manner prescribed may constitute a violation of the EAR.

Prior to this rule, § 760.5(b)(4) and (5) of the EAR required United States persons to prepare reports of boycott-related requests on form BIS 621-P (single transaction) or on form BIS 6051-P (multiple transactions), both available on-line through the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) page of the BIS Web site (OAC Web page) in a fillable PDF format, and to submit the reports in duplicate paper copy to OAC postmarked by the last day of the month following the calendar quarter in which the request was received (or, if received outside the United States, by the last day of the second month following the calendar quarter in which the request was received).

Electronic Submission of Report of Request for Restrictive Trade Practice or Boycott

While United States persons may continue to submit paper reports by mail consistent with § 760.5(b)(4)—(b)(7), this final rule amends the EAR to allow submission of reports electronically, with the same deadlines, through the OAC Web page.

These revisions amend only the manner of reporting by offering an alternative method of submitting the report; in all other respects, the reporting requirements remain unchanged. Electronic filing offers the recipient of a boycott-related request a faster and less burdensome method to fulfill the regulatory reporting requirement than paper submission by mail. This action is consistent with the Administration's ongoing efforts to modernize regulatory requirements. Information on both paper and electronic submissions is available through the OAC Web page at http://bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac?id=300.

United States persons who choose to submit reports electronically may access the electronic form via a link on the OAC Web page. Once all required fields are completed and the report has been submitted electronically, an electronic “Submission Confirmation” notification, confirming the date and time of receipt of the submission by OAC, will automatically be displayed on the reporting person's screen. Additional guidance on accessing and completing electronic reports is available on the OAC Web page or by contacting OAC at 202.482.2448.

Amendments to Part 760 of the EAR to Establish the Electronic Filing Option for Report of Request for Restrictive Trade Practice or Boycott

In this rule, BIS amends § 760.5 (Reporting Requirements) by revising paragraph (b) to provide United States persons with the option to submit reports of boycott-related requests electronically through the OAC Web page, as described above. Specifically, in this rule, BIS authorizes the electronic reporting option by amending paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6) and (b)(7) of § 760.5 of the EAR.

Export Administration Act of 1979

The Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov), has been in lapse since August 21, 2001. The President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

Rulemaking Requirements

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

2. This rule involves a collection previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0694-0012, “Report of Requests for Restrictive Trade Practice or Boycott—Single or Multiple Transactions,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 71 minutes to prepare and submit. Total burden hours associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) and the aforementioned OMB Control Number are expected to decrease slightly as a result of the addition of an electronic method to submit required reports of boycott requests through the OAC Web page pursuant to § 760.5 (Reporting Requirements) of the EAR. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to, or may be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

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

4. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b), BIS finds that publication of this rule in other than final form is unnecessary because the amendments in this rule are administrative changes. They are provided to notify the public that an electronic filing option is available as a result of the technical update of the capabilities of OAC's information technology system. These administrative changes will not affect the rights of the public to continue to use the report filing option that existed prior to these changes. They do not change the existing regulatory requirement that United States persons report requests they receive to take certain actions in support of restrictive trade practices or boycotts. They only offer an option to use a second method, electronic reporting, as an alternative to reporting by mail. Offering this second method may facilitate compliance with the reporting requirements.

Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the Federal Register. BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) because the delay would be contrary to the public interest. The delay in effectiveness delays the availability to the public of the additional method of filing reports. BIS is simply amending the EAR to provide a second reporting method. Further, this rule is an administrative change to assist the public in complying with reporting requirements. Delaying this action would not serve any other practical purpose. Delaying the notice to the public of the new report filing option is contrary to the interest of establishing methods of making regulatory compliance efficient, and, therefore, less burdensome.

No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required under the APA or by any other law, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 760

Boycotts, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, part 760 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PART 760—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 760 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016).

2. Section 760.5 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) through (7) to read as follows:
§ 760.5 Reporting requirements.

(b) * * *

(4) Reports may be submitted by mail or electronically. Mailed paper reports must be submitted in duplicate to: Report Processing Staff, Office of Antiboycott Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 6098, Washington, DC 20230. Electronic reports must be submitted in duplicate, by following the prompts on the screen, through the Office of Antiboycott Compliance Web page of the BIS Web site, http://bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac?id=300. Each submission, whether paper or electronic, must be made in accordance with the following requirements:

(i) Where the person receiving the request is a United States person located in the United States, each report of requests must be postmarked or electronically date-stamped by the last day of the month following the calendar quarter in which the request was received (e.g., April 30 for the quarter consisting of January, February, and March).

(ii) Where the person receiving the request is a United States person located outside the United States, each report of requests must be postmarked or electronically date-stamped by the last day of the second month following the calendar quarter in which the request was received (e.g., May 31 for the quarter consisting of January, February, and March).

(5) Mailed paper reports may, at the reporting person's option, be submitted on either a single transaction form (Form BIS-621P, Report of Request for Restrictive Trade Practice or Boycott, Single Transaction, (revised 10-89)) or on a multiple transaction form (Form BIS-6051P, Report of Request for Restrictive Trade Practice or Boycott, Multiple Transactions, (revised 10-89)).

Electronic reports may be submitted only on the single transaction form, which will electronically reproduce the reporting person's identifying information to facilitate reporting of multiple transactions.

(6) Reports, whether submitted on the paper single transaction form or on the paper multiple transaction form, or submitted electronically, must contain entries for every applicable item on the form, including whether the reporting person intends to take or has taken the action requested. If the reporting person has not decided what action he will take by the time the report is required to be filed, he must later report the action he decides to take within 10 business days after deciding. In addition, anyone filing a report on behalf of another must so indicate and identify that other person.

(7) Each report of a boycott request, whether submitted by mail or electronically, must be accompanied by two copies of the relevant page(s) of any document(s) in which the request appears (see, paragraph (c)(2) of this section). For mail submissions, the relevant pages shall be attached in paper format to the report form; for electronic submissions, the relevant pages shall be attached in PDF format to the electronic submission. Reports, whether paper or electronic, may also be accompanied by any additional information relating to the request as the reporting person desires to provide concerning his response to the request. For electronic submissions, such additional information should be provided as a PDF attachment.

Dated: October 7, 2016. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-24831 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 304 RIN 3084-AB34 Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

As part of its regular review of all its Rules and Guides, and in response to Congressional amendments to the Hobby Protection Act (“Hobby Act” or “Act”), the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) amends its Rules and Regulations under the Hobby Protection Act (“Rules”).

DATES:

This rule is effective November 16, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joshua S. Millard, (202) 326-2454, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

As part of its ongoing regulatory review program, the Commission published a Federal Register Notice in 2014 1 seeking comment on the costs, benefits, and overall impact of the Rules. After the comment period closed, in December 2014, Congress enacted amendments to the Hobby Act. In response, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) earlier this year addressing the comments it received, proposing amendments to the Rules to track Congress' changes to the Hobby Act, and posing additional questions.2 The NPRM asked, in particular, whether the proposed amendments would appropriately implement Congressional changes to the Act, and what regulatory burden the proposed amendments might impose. The Commission did not receive substantive comments in response to this NPRM, and the record supports amending the Rules as proposed. Accordingly, this Notice describes the background of the Commission's regulatory review, summarizes the record, and explains the grounds for amendments to the Rules. Additionally, it provides analyses required by the Regulatory Flexibility and Paperwork Reduction Acts and sets forth the amended Rules provision.

1 79 FR 40691 (July 14, 2014).

2 81 FR 23219 (Apr. 20, 2016).

II. Background

On November 29, 1973, President Nixon signed the Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2101-2106. The Hobby Act requires manufacturers and importers of “imitation political items” 3 to “plainly and permanently” mark them with the “calendar year” the items were manufactured. Id. 2101(a). The Hobby Act also requires manufacturers and importers of “imitation numismatic items” 4 to “plainly and permanently” mark these items with the word “copy.” Id. 2101(b). The Act further directed the Commission to promulgate regulations for determining the “manner and form” that imitation political items and imitation numismatic items are to be permanently marked with the calendar year of manufacture or the word “copy.” Id. 2101(c).

3 An imitation political item is “an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original political item, or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original political item.” 15 U.S.C. 2106(2). The Hobby Act defines original political items as being any political button, poster, literature, sticker or any advertisement produced for use in any political cause. Id. 2106(1).

4 An imitation numismatic item is “an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.” 15 U.S.C. 2106(4). The Hobby Act defines original numismatic items to include coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals which have been part of a coinage or issue used in exchange or used to commemorate a person or event. Id. 2106(3).

In 1975, the Commission issued Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act, 16 CFR part 304.5 The Rules track the definitions used in the Hobby Act and implement that Act's “plain and permanent” marking requirements by establishing where the item should be marked, the sizes and dimensions of the letters and numerals to be used, and how to mark incusable and nonincusable items.6 In 1988, the Commission amended the Rules to provide additional guidance on the minimum size of letters for the word “copy” as a proportion of the diameter of coin reproductions.7

5 40 FR 5459 (Feb. 6, 1975).

6 Incusable items are items that can be impressed with a stamp.

7 53 FR 38942 (Oct. 4, 1988). Before this amendment, if a coin were too small to comply with the minimum letter size requirements, the manufacturer or importer had to request a variance from those requirements from the Commission. Because imitation miniature coins were becoming more common, the Commission determined that it was in the public interest to allow the word “copy” to appear on miniature imitation coins in sizes that could be reduced proportionately with the size of the item.

The Commission reviewed the Rules in 2004. That review yielded many comments proposing that the Commission expand coverage to products beyond the scope of the Hobby Act and address problems involving the selling (or passing off) as originals of reproductions of antiques and other items not covered by the Act. However, the Commission retained the Rules without change, noting that it did not have authority under the Hobby Act to expand the Rules as requested.8

8 69 FR 9943 (Mar. 3, 2004).

In 2014, the Commission again requested public comment on the Rules' costs, benefits, and overall impact.9 That comment period closed on September 22, 2014.

9 79 FR 40691 (July 14, 2014).

On December 19, 2014, President Obama signed into law H.R. 2754, the Collectible Coin Protection Act (“CCPA”), a short set of amendments to the Hobby Act. The CCPA amends the Act's scope to address not only the distribution by manufacturers and importers of imitation numismatic items, but also “the sale in commerce” of such items. CCPA, Public Law 113-288, section 2(1)(A) (2014). Additionally, the CCPA makes it a violation of the Hobby Act “for a person to provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller if that person knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is engaged in any act or practice” violating the marking requirements of the Act. Public Law 113-288, section 2(1)(B).10

10 The CCPA also amends the Hobby Act to expand the permissible venue (i.e., location) for private actions seeking injunctions or damages for violations of the Hobby Act. Previously, a proper venue was “any United States District Court for a district in which the defendant resides or has an agent.” Proper venue now extends to any U.S. District Court for a district in which the defendant transacts business, or wherever venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391. Public Law 113-288, section 2(2)(A)-(B). Further, the CCPA amends the Hobby Act to state that in cases of violations of the Act involving unauthorized use of a trademark of a collectible certification service, the owners of such trademarks also have rights provided under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1116 et seq. Public Law 113-288, section 2(2)(C).

III. Summary of Comments and Analysis A. Initial Request for Comments (2014)

The Commission received six comments 11 in response to its 2014 FRN: Four from members of the general public; one from a self-identified professional coin and paper money dealer; and one from an attorney with asserted experience pertaining to coins and other collectibles.

11 The comments are available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-577.

1. Support for the Rules

All of the commenters who addressed the issue supported the Rules; none advocated rescinding them. For example, one commenter stated, “there [is] a continuing need for the Rules as currently promulgated because . . . they do protect consumers.” 12 Another described the Act as “a boon to collectors of legitimate numismatic and political items,” and stated: “Over the years the presence of the law and supporting regulations has provided guidance for makers of replicas.” 13 A dealer stated that the Act “is a brilliant effort to help protect the consumer from fraud, and . . . is well thought of across all [l]egitimate [d]ealers.” 14

12 Comment of Luke Burgess, available at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/09/comment-00008.

13 Comment of Roger Burdette, available at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/09/comment-00007; see also Comment of Kenneth Tireman of NC Coppers, available at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/07/30/comment-00004.

14 Comment of Kenneth Tireman, supra.

2. Suggested Rules Modifications

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.15 Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,16 expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,17 or ban such items altogether.18 One commenter specifically suggested expanding the Rules' scope to incorporate the provisions of the CCPA before Congress adopted it and sent it to the President for his signature.19

15See Comment of Luke Burgess, supra (offering example of Roosevelt dime altered to read “1945,” noting that Roosevelt dime was not introduced until 1946, and noting that such coins are not intended to be used as currency).

16See id.

17See Comment of Daniel Carr, available at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/17/comment-00010; Comment of Armen Vartian, available at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011.

18See Comment of Luke Burgess, supra.

19See Comment of Armen Vartian, supra.

3. Analysis of Public Comments

From the responses to its 2014 request for public comment, the Commission concluded that there was a continuing need for the Rules, and that the costs they impose on businesses were reasonable.20 Commenters who addressed the subject supported the Rules, and no dealer or business expressed the view that they should be rescinded or revised to reduce costs. Further, the Commission noted that after the comments period closed, Congress expanded the Hobby Act's scope (addressing, among others, persons who substantially assist or support manufacturers, importers, or sellers that violate the Act's marking requirements). This change evinces Congress' conclusion that the Rules did not impose undue costs upon businesses or the public. The Commission thus concluded that both the record and Congressional action supported retaining the Rules.

20 81 FR 23219, 23220.

Additionally, the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises.21 Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.22

21 81 FR 23220.

22See 92 F.T.C. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit' of an `or[i]ginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy.' ”).

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking With Request for Comments (2016)

While the Commission found it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to regulate specific collectible items, it observed that amendments to the Rules were necessary to bring them into harmony with Congress' expansion of the Hobby Act. Hence, in April 2016, it solicited public comment on proposed amendments to the Rules.23

23 81 FR 23219, 23220, 23223.

The Commission proposed to align its Rules with the amended Hobby Act by: (1) Extending the Rules' scope to cover persons or entities engaged in “the sale in commerce” of imitation numismatic items; and (2) stating that persons or entities violate the Rules if they provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller of imitation numismatic items, or any manufacturer or importer of imitation political items, when they know, or should have known, that such person is engaged in any act or practice violating the marking requirements set forth in the Hobby Act and the Rules. The Commission solicited comment on the regulatory burden the amended Rules might impose.24

24 81 FR 23220-21.

1. No Public Comments or Objections to Proposed Amendments

The Commission received no substantive comments in response.25 Thus, no member of the public objected to the proposed amendments, which incorporate Congress' changes to the Hobby Act. Significantly, no commenter objected that the amendments would impose undue costs upon businesses or would not properly implement Congress' changes to the Act. As previously noted, Congress' expansion of the Hobby Act's scope appears to evince Congressional sentiment that the Act has not, and will not, impose undue costs upon businesses or the public. Having published the proposed amendments for comment and received no objection, the Commission concludes that the regulatory burden that the amendments might impose on businesses, including small businesses, is minimal.

25 The Commission received six comments that were non-germane; none of these comments referred or related to the Hobby Act or Rules, the proposed amendments to the Rules, numismatic or political items, or imitations thereof. The comments expressed dissatisfaction with unwanted phone calls, used profane language, or were unintelligible.

IV. Final Amendments

The record supports modifying the Rules as the Commission proposed. As the CCPA's amendments to the Hobby Act require conforming changes in the Rules, and the record supports amending the Rules as proposed, the Commission accordingly amends the Rules' “Applicability” section, set forth at 16 CFR 304.3. The revised text of this provision is set forth at the end of this FRN.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The amendments to the Rules do not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 (“PRA”). The amendments incorporate changes made to the Hobby Act pursuant to the enactment of the CCPA. Prior to those changes, the Hobby Act already required manufacturers and importers of imitation political items and imitation numismatic items to mark such replica items (with the calendar year of manufacture or the word, “copy,” respectively) so they may be identified as replicas. The disclosure requirement under the existing Rules and the amendments are not a PRA “collection of information” for which “burden” is evaluated and estimated as they specify the wording for proper disclosure (here, the year of manufacture or the word “copy”). See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2) (“The public disclosure of language of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public is not included within [the definition of a `collection of information.']”). Moreover, extending this disclosure requirement to sellers of imitation numismatic items should not increase the burden of compliance to the extent they are selling items previously marked in compliance with the Hobby Act by manufacturers or importers. The amendments do not impose any new burden upon manufacturers and importers who produce replica items covered by the Hobby Act and Rules. Nor do the amendments impose any burden beyond that imposed by the CCPA's changes to the Hobby Act.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to provide an initial and final analysis of the anticipated economic impact of amendments on small entities. The RFA provides that such an analysis is not required if the agency certifies that the regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603-605. As discussed below, the Commission believes that the amendments will not have a significant economic impact upon small entities that manufacture or import imitation political items or manufacture, import, or sell imitation numismatic items, although they may affect a substantial number of small entities.

In the April 2016 NPRM, the Commission's staff estimated that approximately 5,000 retailers, manufacturers, and importers of imitation numismatic items are subject to the Rules. 81 FR 23219, 23221. FTC staff further estimated that there are fewer manufacturers and importers of imitation political items, from 500 to 2,500. Id. The Commission invited members of the public to estimate how many retailers, manufacturers, and importers are subject to the Rules, and received no comments in response. Commission staff understands from a prominent political memorabilia membership organization, the American Political Items Collectors, that a disclosure that an item is an imitation is built into the manufacturing process. Entities compliant with the Rules mark replica coins with “COPY,” and replica political items with the date of manufacture, when those items are made. The entities subject to these burdens will be classified as small businesses if they satisfy the Small Business Administration's relevant size standards, as determined by the Small Business Size Standards component of the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”).26 Potentially relevant NAICS size standards, which are either minimum annual receipts or number of employees, are as follows:

26 The standards are available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.

NAICS industry title Small business size standard Sign Manufacturing 500 employees Fastener, Button, Needle and Pin Manufacturing 500 employees Miscellaneous Manufacturing 500 employees Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 750 employees Rubber Product Manufacturing 500 employees Miscellaneous Wood Product Manufacturing 500 employees Leather Good and Allied Product Manufacturing 500 employees Commercial Printing 500 employees Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers 100 employees Book, Periodical, and Newspaper Merchant Wholesalers 100 employees Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 100 employees Hobby, Toy and Game Stores $27.5 million Souvenir Stores $7.5 million Political Organizations $7.5 million Electronic Shopping $32.5 million Electronic Auctions $38.5 million Mail-Order Houses $38.5 million

From the record of this proceeding, the Commission is unable to conclude how many of the above-listed entities qualify as small businesses. The record does not contain information regarding the size of the entities subject to the Rules. Moreover, the relevant NAICS categories include many entities that do not engage in activities covered by the Rules. Therefore, estimates of the percentage of small businesses in those categories would not necessarily reflect the percentage of small businesses subject to the Rules in those categories.

Even absent this data, however, the Commission does not expect that the amendments will have a significant economic impact on small entities. As discussed above in Section V, the amendments do not impose any new costs upon persons or entities engaged in commerce concerning items that comply with the marking requirements of the Hobby Act and Rules. This document serves as notice to the Small Business Administration of the agency's certification of no effect. The Commission has nonetheless determined that it is appropriate to publish the following final regulatory flexibility analysis to ensure that the economic impact of the amendments on small entities is fully addressed.

(1) Need for, and objectives of, the amendments to the Rules.

As explained above, the amendments are intended to harmonize the Rules with the Hobby Act, as amended by the CCPA. Amending 16 CFR 304.3 extends the Rules' coverage to persons engaged in the sale in commerce of imitation numismatic items, and persons or entities that provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller of covered items under certain circumstances. The legal basis for this amendment is the CCPA, which expanded the scope of the Hobby Act.

(2) Significant issues raised by comments in response to the proposed amendments to the Rules.

The Commission received no substantive comments from the public and no comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Consequently, no significant issues have arisen from comments, and no changes have been made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of comments.

(3) A description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the Rules will apply.

As noted earlier, staff estimates that approximately 5,000 retailers, manufacturers, and importers of imitation numismatic items are subject to the Rules, and from 500 to 2,500 manufacturers and importers of imitation political items are subject to the Rules.

(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements.

The Rules impose a disclosure (marking) burden, currently estimated at 5 hours annually. The amendment is not expected to increase this burden on any person or entity subject to and in compliance with the Rules. The additional burden imposed by the amendment will result solely from the expanded scope of the Rules to cover certain additional persons and entities, consistent with the Hobby Act, as amended. As noted earlier, the disclosure burden imposed by the Rules is normally addressed in the manufacturing process, which requires graphic or other design skills for the die, cast, mold or other process used to manufacture the item.

(5) Steps taken by the agency to minimize the significant economic impact, if any, on small entities, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes.

Commission staff have not identified any significant alternatives that would accomplish the statute's objectives while minimizing any significant economic impact on small entities. The amendment, as explained earlier, is intended to bring the scope of the Rules in line with the scope of the Hobby Act, as amended by the CCPA. Neither the Act nor the Rules exempt small entities, or impose lesser or different requirements on such entities. Such exemptions or alternative requirements would undermine the purpose and effect of the Act and the Rules, to the extent that Congress has determined by law that covered items, regardless of the size of the entity that manufactures, imports or sells them, require markings (i.e., disclosures) under certain circumstances for the protection of consumers who may purchase such items.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 304

Hobbies, Labeling, Trade practices.

For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Trade Commission amends 16 CFR part 304 as follows:

PART 304—RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER THE HOBBY PROTECTION ACT 1. The authority citation for this part continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.

2. Revise § 304.3 to read as follows:
§ 304.3 Applicability.

Any person engaged in the manufacturing, or importation into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, of imitation political or imitation numismatic items shall be subject to the requirements of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Any person engaged in the sale in commerce of imitation numismatic items shall be subject to the requirements of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. It shall be a violation of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder for a person to provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller of imitation numismatic items, or to any manufacturer or importer of imitation political items, if that person knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is engaged in any practice that violates the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24880 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9789] RIN 1545-BM03 Election To Take Disaster Loss Deduction for Preceding Year AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final and temporary regulations.

SUMMARY:

This document contains final and temporary regulations relating to the election to accelerate the timing of a loss sustained by a taxpayer attributable to a federally declared disaster. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations (REG-150992-13) set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register.

DATES:

Effective Date: These regulations are effective October 13, 2016.

Applicability Dates: For dates of applicability, see § 1.165-11T(i).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Cassano (202) 317-7011 (not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 165(i) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) regarding the election to deduct a loss attributable to a federally declared disaster for the taxable year prior to the year in which the disaster occurred.

Under section 165, a loss from a federally declared disaster is a form of casualty loss. A casualty loss is generally allowed as a deduction only for the taxable year in which the loss is sustained (disaster year). Section 165(i) provides an exception to the general timing rule by allowing a taxpayer to elect to treat an allowable loss occurring in a disaster area and attributable to a federally declared disaster as sustained in the taxable year immediately prior to the taxable year in which the disaster occurred (preceding year).

Taxpayers make the election under section 165(i) by clearly indicating on an original return, an amended return, or a refund claim, that the election has been made. The existing regulations under section 165(i) provide that the original return, amended return, or refund claim must be filed on or before the later of: (1) The due date of the taxpayer's income tax return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return) for the disaster year; or (2) the due date of the taxpayer's income tax return (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing the return) for the preceding year. Thus, taxpayers typically have until the unextended due date of the return for the disaster year to make the section 165(i) election.

Concerns have been raised that the due date for making the section 165(i) election may not always provide sufficient time for taxpayers affected by disasters to consider whether to make the election. These concerns led the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS to issue notices postponing the due date in the wake of a number of federally declared disasters in the last ten years. Notice 2006-17, 2006-1 C.B. 559, postponed the due date for victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma to make a section 165(i) election for their disaster losses to October 16, 2006. Notice 2013-21, 2013-15 I.R.B. 903, postponed the due date for victims of Hurricane Sandy to make a section 165(i) election for their disaster losses to October 15, 2013. Notice 2014-20, 2014-16 I.R.B. 937, postponed the due date for victims of a major Colorado flooding event to make a section 165(i) election for their disaster losses to October 15, 2014.

Explanation of Provisions 1. Definitions

These temporary regulations add a paragraph that defines the following terms for purposes of the temporary regulations: Federally declared disaster; federally declared disaster area; disaster loss; disaster year; and preceding year. A federally declared disaster means any disaster subsequently determined by the President of the United States to warrant assistance by the Federal Government under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act or a successor enactment. A federally declared disaster area is the area determined to be eligible for assistance pursuant to the Presidential declaration in paragraph (b)(1) of the section. A disaster loss is a loss occurring in a federally declared disaster area that is attributable to a federally declared disaster and that is otherwise allowable as a deduction for the disaster year under section 165(a) and §§ 1.165-1 through 1.165-10 of the Income Tax Regulations. The disaster year is defined as the taxable year in which a taxpayer sustains a loss attributable to a federally declared disaster. The preceding year is the taxable year immediately prior to the disaster year.

2. Time and Manner of Making the Section 165(i) Election

These temporary regulations generally provide that the due date for making the section 165(i) election is six months after the due date for filing the taxpayer's federal income tax return for the disaster year (determined without regard to any extension of time to file). This amount of time is comparable to the length of the postponements of the due dates for making the election granted in the notices identified in the Background section of this preamble.

These temporary regulations also authorize the Treasury Department and the IRS to issue additional guidance regarding the time and manner for making the section 165(i) election. The authorization in these temporary regulations will permit the Treasury Department and the IRS to act quickly to adapt to both taxpayer needs and the needs of tax administration as future disasters occur.

Contemporaneously with these temporary regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing Rev. Proc. 2016-53, I.R.B 2016-44, which specifies how a taxpayer makes a section 165(i) election and incorporates the due date for making the election provided in these temporary regulations.

3. Revocations of a Section 165(i) Election

These temporary regulations extend the period of time for revoking a section 165(i) election to ninety (90) days after the due date for making the election. This change conforms to the rule established by the United States Tax Court in Matheson v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 836 (1980), acq., AOD-1980-177. These temporary regulations also authorize the Treasury Department and the IRS to issue additional guidance regarding the time and manner of revoking the election. Rev. Proc. 2016-53 specifies how a taxpayer revokes a section 165(i) election and incorporates the due date for revoking the election provided in these temporary regulations.

4. Consistent Return Positions

These temporary regulations reflect rules established elsewhere in federal tax law that a taxpayer cannot deduct the same loss in more than one taxable year. Taxpayers must amend the return for the disaster year in order to make the section 165(i) election for a disaster loss if the taxpayer has deducted such loss for the disaster year. Similarly, taxpayers must amend the preceding year return to revoke a section 165(i) election before filing a return or amended return to deduct the loss in the disaster year. Rev. Proc. 2016-53 contains further guidance for taxpayers in amending returns and taking consistent return positions to minimize the administrative burden on the IRS in ensuring the prompt processing of refunds.

5. Immediate Effect

These temporary regulations are effective immediately because they provide relief to taxpayers who suffer casualty losses attributable to federally declared disasters and the Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate a significant number of casualty losses arising from recent instances of flooding in areas located throughout the United States, including Texas and Louisiana.

Special Analyses

Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), please refer to the cross-referencing notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these temporary regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

Drafting Information

The principal authors of these regulations are Daniel Cassano and Christopher Wrobel of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

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

26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.165-11 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1.165-11 Election in respect of losses attributable to a disaster.

(a) through (j) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.165-11T(a) through (j).

Par. 3. Section 1.165-11T is added to read as follows:
§ 1.165-11T Election to take disaster loss deduction for preceding year (temporary).

(a) In general. Section 165(i) allows a taxpayer who has sustained a loss attributable to a federally declared disaster in a taxable year to elect to deduct that disaster loss in the preceding year. This section provides rules and procedures for making and revoking an election to claim a disaster loss in the preceding year.

(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this section:

(1) A federally declared disaster means any disaster subsequently determined by the President of the United States to warrant assistance by the Federal Government under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act or a successor enactment.

(2) A federally declared disaster area is the area determined to be eligible for assistance pursuant to the Presidential declaration in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(3) A disaster loss is a loss occurring in a federally declared disaster area that is attributable to a federally declared disaster and that is otherwise allowable as a deduction for the disaster year under section 165(a) and §§ 1.165-1 through 1.165-10.

(4) The disaster year is the taxable year in which a taxpayer sustains a loss attributable to a federally declared disaster.

(5) The preceding year is the taxable year immediately prior to the disaster year.

(c) Scope and effect of election. An election made pursuant to section 165(i) for a disaster loss attributable to a particular disaster applies to the entire loss sustained by the taxpayer from that disaster during the disaster year. If the taxpayer makes a section 165(i) election with respect to a particular disaster occurring during the disaster year, the disaster to which the election relates is deemed to have occurred, and the disaster loss to which the election applies is deemed to have been sustained, in the preceding year.

(d) Requirement to file consistent returns. A taxpayer may not make a section 165(i) election for a disaster loss if the taxpayer claims a deduction (as a loss, as cost of goods sold, or otherwise) for the same loss for the disaster year. If a taxpayer has claimed a deduction for a disaster loss for the disaster year and the taxpayer wishes to make a section 165(i) election with respect to such loss, the taxpayer must file an amended return to remove the previously deducted loss on or before the date that the taxpayer makes the section 165(i) election for such loss. Similarly, if a taxpayer has claimed a deduction for a disaster loss for the preceding year based on a section 165(i) election and the taxpayer wishes to revoke that election, the taxpayer must file an amended return to remove the loss for the preceding year on or before the date the taxpayer files the return or amended return for the disaster year that includes the loss.

(e) Manner of making election. An election under section 165(i) to deduct a disaster loss for the preceding year is made on an original federal tax return for the preceding year or an amended federal tax return for the preceding year in the manner specified by guidance issued pursuant to these regulations. See paragraph (h) of this section.

(f) Due date for making election. The due date for making the section 165(i) election is six months after the due date for filing the taxpayer's federal income tax return for the disaster year (determined without regard to any extension of time to file).

(g) Revocation. Subject to the requirements in paragraph (d) of this section, a section 165(i) election may be revoked on or before the date that is ninety (90) days after the due date for making the election.

(h) Additional guidance. The time and manner for making and revoking a section 165(i) election under paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this section may be modified through guidance published in the Federal Register or in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d) of this chapter).

(i) Effective/applicability date. This section is effective October 13, 2016 and applies to elections, revocations, and any other related actions that can be made or taken on or after October 13, 2016.

(j) Expiration date. The section expires October 13, 2019.

John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: September 19, 2016. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016-24664 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4022 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits AGENCY:

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in November 2016. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.

DATES:

Effective November 1, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah C. Murphy ([email protected]), Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4400 ext. 3451. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4400 ext. 3451.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 November 2016.1

1 Appendix B to PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes interest assumptions for valuing benefits under terminating covered single-employer plans for purposes of allocation of assets under ERISA section 4044. Those assumptions are updated quarterly.

The November 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 October 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 November 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).

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022

Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority:

29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.

2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 277 is added to the table to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities (percent) i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 277 11-1-16 12-1-16 0.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 277 is added to the table to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities (percent) i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 277 11-1-16 12-1-16 0.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    Judith Starr, General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24811 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0154] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; San Francisco, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is amending several permanent safety zones located in the Captain of the Port San Francisco zone that are established to protect public safety during annual firework displays. These amendments are necessary to update listed events to accurately reflect the firework display locations. This regulation prohibits the movement of vessels within the established firework display areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0154 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone 415-399-3585, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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

    On April 19, 2016 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; San Francisco, CA, in the Federal Register (81 FR 22946), to amend several permanent safety zones located in the Captain of the Port San Francisco zone that are established to protect public safety during annual firework displays. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to the amended fireworks safety zones. We received no comments on the NPRM nor did we receive a request for public meeting. A public meeting was not held.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the current outdated fireworks locations, if not updated, pose safety concerns for event crew, spectators, participants of the event, participating vessels, and other users and vessels of the waterway.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on April 19, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule amends Table 1 in § 165.1191 to update three events to reflect the current event locations. These events are listed numerically in Table 1 of this section: (7), (8), (22).

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of each safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around each safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the COTP San Francisco zone for less than 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Local Notice to Mariner and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zones lasting less than 1 hour that would prohibit entry within 1,000 feet of a fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. In § 165.1191, in Table 1 to § 165.1191, revise items 7, 8, and 22, to read as follows:
    § 165.1191 Northern California and Lake Tahoe Area Annual Fireworks Events. Table 1 to § 165.1191 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7. San Francisco Independence Day Fireworks Sponsor The City of San Francisco. Event Description Fireworks Display. Date July 4th. Location 1 A barge located approximately 1000 feet off San Francisco Pier 39 at approximately 37°48′49″ N., 122°24′46″ W. Location 2 A barge located at the end of the San Francisco Municipal Pier at Aquatic Park at approximately 37°48′39″ N., 122°25′37″ W. Regulated Area 1 1. 100-foot radius around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, setup, and until the commencement of the scheduled display. Increases to a 1,000-foot radius upon commencement of the fireworks display. Regulated Area 2 2. 100-foot radius around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, setup, and until the commencement of the scheduled display. Increases to a 1,000-foot radius upon commencement of the fireworks display. 8. Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina Sponsor Berkeley Marina. Event Description Fireworks Display. Date July 4th. Location A barge located near Berkeley Pier at approximately 37°51′40″ N., 122° 19′19″ W. Regulated Area 100-foot radius around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, setup, and until the commencement of the scheduled display. Increases to a 1,000-foot radius upon commencement of the fireworks display. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 22. Monte Foundation Fireworks Sponsor Monte Foundation Fireworks. Event Description Fireworks Display. Date Second Saturday in October. Location Capitola Pier in Capitola, CA. Regulated Area 1,000-foot safety zone around the navigable waters of the Capitola Pier. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: September 15, 2016. Anthony J. Ceraolo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24915 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 49 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151; FRL-9952-86-OAR] RIN 2060-AR98 General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Six Source Categories AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing general permits for use in Indian country pursuant to the Federal Minor New Source Review (NSR) Program in Indian Country for new or modified minor sources in the following six source categories: concrete batch plants; boilers and emergency engines; stationary spark ignition engines; stationary compression ignition engines; graphic arts and printing operations; and sawmill facilities.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Stoneman, Outreach and Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, (C-304-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0823, facsimile number (919) 541-0072, email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “Reviewing Authority,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

    Table of Contents I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Overview of the Final Rule III. Background A. Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country B. General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country—Proposed Rule IV. Final Rulemaking Action A. Permitting Documents and Implementation Tools B. Issues Concerning Aspects of Finalizing a General Permit/Permit by Rule for Graphic Arts and Printing Operations C. Proposed Rule Change to the Federal Indian Country Minor New Source Review Rule in One Area: Shortening the General Permit Application Review Process From 90 to 45 Days for Graphic Arts and Printing Operations D. Control Technology Review E. Setback Requirements F. Requirements Relating to Threatened or Endangered Species and Historic Properties G. Use of Throughput Limits and Capacity Limits V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this final action consist of owners and operators of facilities included in the following source categories that are located, or planning to locate, in an Indian reservation or in another area of Indian country (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151) over which an Indian tribe, or the EPA, has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction where there is no EPA-approved program in place and that are subject to the requirements of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.

    Table 1—Source Categories Industry categories North
  • American
  • industry
  • classification
  • categories
  • Examples of regulated industries
    Boilers and Emergency Engines 11 Agriculture, Greenhouses. 2211 Electric Power Generation. 321 Wood Product Manufacturing (Except Sawmill Facilities). 311 Food Manufacturing. 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing (Except Ready-Mix Concrete). 424 Wholesale Trade, Nondurable Goods. 611110 Elementary and Secondary Schools. 611210 Junior Colleges. 611310 Colleges, Universities and Professional Schools. 62 Health Care and Social Assistance. 721120 Casino Hotels. 813110 Religious Organizations. 92 Public Administration. Concrete Batch Plants 327320 Concrete Batch Plants (including temporary). 327320 Central-Mixed Concrete Manufacturing. 327320 Truck-Mixed Concrete Manufacturing. 327320 Transit-Mixed Concrete Manufacturing. 327320 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing and Distribution. 327331 Concrete Manufacturing: All Types of Blocks and Bricks. 327332 Concrete Manufacturing: All Types of Pipes and Conduit. 327390 Concrete Block and Brick. Engines 622110 Medical and Surgical Hospitals. 2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution. Graphic Arts and Printing 323111 Printing: Flexographic, Rotogravure, Gravure, Letterpress, Lithographic, Digital. 323113 Commercial Printing, Newspapers, Print Shops. 323117 Printing Books. Sawmill Facilities 321113 Sawmill Facilities.

    This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be potentially affected by this action. You should examine the applicability criteria in the Federal Minor NSR Program in Indian Country (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 49.153) to determine whether your facility could be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final rule is posted on the tribal minor NSR home page at https://www.epa.gov/tribal-air/tribal-minor-new-source-review.

    II. Overview of the Final Rule

    In July 2011, the EPA issued the Federal Minor NSR Program in Indian Country rule 1 that established, among other things, the requirements and process for the preconstruction permitting of minor sources in Indian country. Under the rule, on or after 3 years from the effective date of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule (September 2, 2014), an owner or operator must obtain a preconstruction permit from the Reviewing Authority,2 if the owner or operator intends to construct a new true minor source 3 or modify an existing true minor source in Indian country. The rule also specifies the process and requirements for using general permits as a streamlined permitting approach to authorize construction and modification of true minor sources. General permits streamline the preconstruction permitting of new or modified true minor sources because they involve the issuance of one permit that can apply to multiple stationary sources that have similar emissions units.

    1 “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/01/2011-14981/review-of-new-sources-and-modifications-in-indian-country.

    2 In this document, Reviewing Authority refers to an EPA Regional office. However, tribes can become reviewing authorities if they decide to assist the EPA with implementing the minor NSR program in their area through a delegation agreement.

    3 True minor source means a source that emits, or has the potential to emit, regulated NSR pollutants in amounts that are less than the major source thresholds under either the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program at 40 CFR 52.21, or the Major NSR program for Nonattainment Areas in Indian Country at 40 CFR 49.166-49.173, but equal to or greater than the minor NSR thresholds in 40 CFR 49.153, without the need to take an enforceable restriction to reduce its Potential to Emit (PTE) to such levels. The PTE includes fugitive emissions, to the extent that they are quantifiable, only if the source belongs to one of the 28 source categories listed in part 51, appendix S, paragraph II.A.4(iii) or 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii), as applicable.

    In this action, the EPA is finalizing general permits for the following six source categories for the permitting of affected emissions units and emissions-generating activities: concrete batch plants; boilers and emergency engines; stationary spark ignition engines; stationary compression ignition engines; graphic arts and printing operations; and sawmill facilities. We are providing the following implementation documents and tools for all of the permits we are finalizing today: questionnaires; instructions; potential to emit (PTE) calculators; background documents; and Request for Coverage Forms (applications). For all of these permits, the implementation tools and documents are available at either: https://www.epa.gov/tribal-air/tribal-minor-new-source-review or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151.

    Five prior actions are also relevant to this action. First, in a final rulemaking signed May 22, 2014, and published June 16, 2014,4 the EPA amended the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country rule by finalizing the following three actions:

    4 “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country Amendments to the Registration and Permitting Deadlines for True Minor Sources,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 79 FR 34231, June 16, 2014, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-16/pdf/2014-14030.pdf.

    1. Extending the minor NSR permitting deadline for true minor sources in the oil and natural gas sector located, or planning to locate, in Indian country (§ 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B));

    2. Adjusting the registration deadline to conform to the extended permitting deadline for true minor sources in the oil and natural gas sector (§§ 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(A) and 49.160(c)(1)(ii) and (iii)); and

    3. Eliminating a requirement for all true minor sources that begin construction before September 2, 2014, and are eligible to construct pursuant to a general permit, to obtain a minor NSR permit 6 months after the EPA publishes the relevant general permit. No general permits had been finalized by the date 6 months prior to September 2, 2014, so the provision was moot (§ 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B)).

    Second, on May 1, 2015, the EPA published a final rule, “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source Categories,” to simplify the Clean Air Act (CAA) permitting process for certain smaller sources of air pollution commonly found in Indian country.5 In the action, the EPA finalized general permits for use in Indian country for new or modified minor sources in the following two source categories: hot mix asphalt plants and stone quarrying, crushing and screening facilities. The EPA also finalized permits by rule for use in Indian country for new or modified minor sources in three source categories: auto body repair and miscellaneous surface coating operations; gasoline dispensing facilities; and petroleum dry cleaning facilities. The EPA also took final action authorizing the use of general permits established under the program to create synthetic minor sources.

    5 “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source Categories,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 80 FR 25068, May 1, 2015, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-05-01/pdf/FR-2015-05-01-FrontMatter.pdf.

    Third, on September 18, 2015, the EPA proposed a federal implementation plan (FIP) 6 that would apply to new true minor sources and minor modifications at existing true minor sources in the production segment of the oil and natural gas sector that are locating or expanding in Indian reservations or in other areas of Indian country over which an Indian tribe, or the EPA, has demonstrated the tribe's jurisdiction. The FIP was proposed to satisfy the minor source permitting requirement under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.

    6 “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country: Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions from True Minor Sources Engaged in Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian Country,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 81 FR 56554, September 18, 2015, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-21025.pdf.

    Fourth, on February 24, 2016, we finalized three amendments to the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule that we proposed in our September 18, 2015, proposal, along with the FIP:

    1. We revised the deadline under § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B) by which new and modified true minor sources in the oil and natural gas sector that are located in (or planning to locate in) reservation areas of Indian country or other areas of Indian country for which tribal jurisdiction has been demonstrated must obtain a minor NSR permit prior to beginning construction. We extended the deadline from March 2, 2016, to October 3, 2016, for all new and modified true minor sources within the oil and natural gas sector located in Indian country.

    2. We revised § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(A) to conform the registration deadline to the extended permitting deadline in § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B).

    3. We revised § 49.160(c)(1)(ii) to conform the registration deadline to the extended permitting deadline in § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B).

    Finally, on June 3, 2016, the EPA published the final FIP for true minor sources in the oil and natural gas sector (and associated amendments to the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule).7 The final FIP applies to the true minor sources in Indian country engaged in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector.

    7 “Federal Implementation Plan for True Minor Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector; Amendments to the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country to Address Requirements for True Minor Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 81 FR 35944, June 3, 2016, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-03/pdf/2016-11969.pdf.

    III. Background A. Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country 1. What is the Federal Indian Country minor NSR rule?

    On August 21, 2006, the EPA proposed the regulation: “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country” (i.e., Indian Country NSR rule).8 Within this regulation, the EPA proposed to protect air quality in Indian country by establishing a FIP program to regulate the modification and construction of minor stationary sources consistent with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(c) of the CAA. (The proposal also included a major source NSR program for areas of Indian country designated as nonattainment.) The minor source part of the program is officially titled Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country, but we generally refer to it as the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. Under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule, we proposed to fill a regulatory gap and to provide a mechanism for issuing preconstruction permits for the construction of new minor sources and minor modifications at major and minor sources in Indian country. We promulgated final rules on July 1, 2011,9 and the FIP became effective on August 30, 2011.

    8 “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 71 FR 48696, August 21, 2006, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-08-21/html/06-6926.htm.

    9 “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/01/2011-14981/review-of-new-sources-and-modifications-in-indian-country.

    The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule applies to new and modified minor stationary sources and to minor modifications at existing major stationary sources located in Indian country 10 where there is no EPA-approved program in place. Beginning September 2, 2014, any new stationary sources that will emit, or will have the potential to emit, a regulated NSR pollutant in amounts that will be: (1) Equal to or greater than the minor NSR thresholds established in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule; and (2) less than the amount that would qualify the source as a major source or a major modification for purposes of the PSD Program or nonattainment major NSR, must apply for and obtain a minor NSR permit before beginning construction of the new source.

    10 The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule defines “Indian country” to include three categories of lands consistent with 18 U.S.C. 1151, i.e., Indian reservations, dependent Indian communities, and Indian allotments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the rule with respect to non-reservation areas of Indian country (i.e., dependent Indian communities and Indian allotments) (Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). The court held that the state, not tribes or the EPA, has initial primary responsibility for implementation plans under CAA section 110 in non-reservation areas of Indian country in the absence of a demonstration of tribal jurisdiction by the EPA or a tribe. The rule, therefore, does not apply in non-reservation areas of Indian country unless a tribe or the EPA has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction in a particular non-reservation area of Indian country.

    Likewise, any existing stationary source (minor or major) must apply for and obtain a minor NSR permit before beginning construction of a physical or operational change that will increase the allowable emissions of the stationary source by more than the specified minor source threshold amounts, if the change does not otherwise trigger the permitting requirements of the PSD or nonattainment major NSR program(s).11

    11 A source may, however, be subject to certain monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting (MRR) requirements under the major NSR programs, if the change has a reasonable possibility of resulting in a major modification. A source may be subject to both the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Program and the “reasonable possibility” MRR requirements of the major NSR program(s).

    Among other things, the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule created a framework for the EPA to streamline the issuance of preconstruction permits to true minor sources by using general permits.

    2. What is a true minor source and how does it differ from a synthetic minor source?

    “True minor source” under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule means a source that emits, or has the PTE, regulated NSR pollutants in amounts that are less than the major source thresholds under either the PSD Program at 40 CFR 52.21, or the Major NSR Program for Nonattainment Areas in Indian Country at 40 CFR 49.166-49.173, but equal to or greater than the minor NSR thresholds in § 49.153, without the need to take an enforceable restriction to reduce its PTE to such levels. A source's PTE includes fugitive emissions, to the extent that they are quantifiable, only if the source belongs to one of the 28 source categories listed in part 51, appendix S, paragraph II.A.4(iii) or § 52.21(b)(1)(iii) of 40 CFR, as applicable. By contrast, “synthetic minor source” means a source that otherwise has the PTE regulated NSR pollutants in amounts that are at or above those for major sources, but that has taken a restriction so that its PTE is less than such amounts. Such restrictions must be enforceable as a legal and practical matter.

    3. What is a general permit?

    The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule specifies the process and requirements for using general permits to authorize construction and modifications at true minor sources as a streamlined permitting approach. A general permit, for purposes of this action, is a permit document that contains standardized requirements that multiple stationary sources can use. The EPA may issue a general permit for categories of emissions units or stationary sources that are similar in nature, have substantially similar emissions, and would be subject to the same or substantially similar permit requirements.12 “Similar in nature” refers to size, processes, and operating conditions. The purpose of a general permit is to provide for protection of air quality, while simplifying the permitting process for similar minor sources. General permits offer a cost-effective means of issuing permits and provide a quicker and simpler mechanism for permitting minor sources than the source-specific permitting process.

    12 “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 76 FR 38770, July 1, 2011, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/01/2011-14981/review-of-new-sources-and-modifications-in-indian-country.

    While the final Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule contemplated issuance of general permits by the EPA Regional offices, we have determined, for the permits we are finalizing here, that a nationwide action is appropriate. Through this action, we are finalizing general permits to serve as preconstruction permit authorizations that contain emission limitations and other restrictions to govern how specified sources construct, modify and operate.

    B. General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country—Proposed Rule 1. What was in the proposed rule?

    On July 17, 2014, the EPA published a proposed rule, “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country,” to simplify the CAA permitting process for certain smaller sources of air pollution commonly found in Indian country.13 The proposed action was intended to facilitate the implementation of the Federal Indian Country Minor Source NSR rule issued by the EPA in July 2011 in a manner that minimized the administrative and time burden associated with the permitting process, while at the same time adequately protecting air quality in Indian country.

    13 “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 79 FR 41846, July 17, 2014, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-07-17/pdf/2014-16814.pdf.

    As its preferred approach, the EPA made available draft general permits for use in Indian country pursuant to the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule for new or modified true minor sources in the following six source categories: Concrete batch plants; boilers; stationary spark ignition engines; stationary compression ignition engines; graphic arts and printing operations; and sawmill facilities. In the alternative, the EPA also proposed a permit by rule for use in Indian country for new or modified true minor sources in one of the six source categories: graphic arts and printing operations.

    We requested comment on the following areas:

    1. All aspects of the permit documents and implementation tools for the six source categories:

    • Concrete batch plants;

    • Boilers; 14

    14 In the proposal for this action (79 FR 41846, July 17, 2014), the title for the source category for boilers did not include emergency engines; in this final rule, we are adding emergency engines to the source category title so that it encompasses boilers and emergency engines.

    • Stationary spark ignition engines;

    • Stationary compression ignition engines;

    • Graphic arts and printing operations; and

    • Sawmill facilities;

    2. The appropriateness of using a streamlined general permit/permit by rule application for one source category: graphic arts and printing operations;

    3. Various aspects of the EPA's conclusion on its control technology review that the measures in the draft/proposed permits are technically and economically feasible and cost effective because they are currently used by similar sources in other areas of the country;

    4. Setback requirements, which are provisions related to the location of the emitting activities and the source property boundary and certain nearby structures;

    5. The process for sources to address threatened or endangered species and historic properties with respect to the six categories in the proposal;

    6. Use of throughput limits and capacity limits as surrogates for tons per year (tpy) allowable emission limitations, or, alternatively, establishment of annual allowable emission limitations for each pollutant, and the use of throughput limits as surrogate monitoring measures to demonstrate compliance with tpy annual allowable emission limitations;

    7. Finalizing both permitting mechanisms for graphic arts and printing operations by providing authorization to construct or modify true minor sources in this category via permits by rule and by providing enforceable limitations to create synthetic minor sources in this category via general permits; and

    8. A proposed rule change to the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule: shortening the general permit application review process from 90 to 45 days for graphic arts and printing operations.

    IV. Final Rulemaking Action

    This section outlines the major areas where we sought comment in the July 17, 2014, proposal, highlights our responses to major comments received and describes our final action. We received 11 comments from industry (or their representatives), 12 comments from tribes (or their representatives), 1 comment from a local air quality agency and 1 comment from a state environmental agency. The Response to Comments (RTC) Document can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151 and is available online at: https://www.epa.gov/tribal-air/tribal-minor-new-source-review. It contains more detailed descriptions of the comments we received and our responses to them.

    A. Permitting Documents and Implementation Tools 1. Proposed Rule

    As our preferred approach, the EPA made available draft general permits for use in Indian country pursuant to the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule for new or modified minor sources in the following six source categories: Concrete batch plants; boilers; stationary spark ignition engines; stationary compression ignition engines; graphic arts and printing operations; and sawmill facilities. In the alternative, we also proposed a permit by rule for use in Indian country for new or modified minor sources in the graphic arts and printing operations source category. Overall, we sought comment on all aspects of the permit documents and implementation tools for these source categories. Specifically, Section VI of the July 17, 2014, proposal provided a summary of the specific terms and conditions of the general permits and indicated specific areas where we requested comment.

    2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action

    The following sections provide an abbreviated summary of changes to the implementation tools, as well as significant comments on the draft general permits for the six source categories in this final rule and our responses. Detailed responses to the comments on the permits and related tools and documents are addressed in the RTC Document. In our final action, based on comments, we have made substantive changes to the terms and conditions of all of the draft permits and the related implementation tools in several areas, including the following: setback requirements; throughput limits; various control requirements; and enhancements and clarifications to the implementation tools.

    a. Overview of Changes to Permits and Implementation Tools

    In direct response to public comments (and upon further review), we are revising the draft general permits and implementation tools in many areas, including as follows:

    (1) Expanding the scope of the draft boilers general permit to include emergency engines so that the final general permit is titled: “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country”;

    (2) Removing emissions limitations for emergency engines from the general permits for the following three source categories: Sawmill facilities, graphic arts and printing operations and concrete batch plants, as discussed below with respect to the final engines general permits (we did so because we expect that emergency engines that are not located at sources covered by a general permit or permit by rule that we have already developed, and that are not otherwise exempt consistent with § 49.153 of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule,15 will be located at a source with one or more boilers and, thus, will be covered by the “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country”);

    15 Under 40 CFR 49.153(c)(9), emergency generator engines at a single source are “exempt” if the combined maximum horsepower (hp) rating of all emergency generator engines is below 1,000 hp in attainment areas or 500 hp in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or lower. If your source consists of only exempt equipment, then you are not required to obtain a minor NSR permit.

    (3) Recalculating maximum capacity ratings for certain boilers in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country” based on non-greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutants (e.g., nitrogen oxides (NOX)) to reflect the change in GHG permitting requirements resulting from the U.S. Supreme Court's June 23, 2014, ruling 16 and to ensure minor source status for eligible sources;

    16 In setting the permitting capacity limits in the draft boilers general permit, the “controlling” regulated pollutant considered in our evaluation was GHGs. This pollutant was regarded as primarily a factor for units emitting higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), a GHG. Therefore, the draft maximum capacity ratings for certain size boilers were set for GHGs at levels sufficiently low to keep eligible sources below the major source permitting threshold of 100,000 tpy of CO2 equivalent. On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sources are no longer required to obtain a PSD permit solely based on their GHG emissions. This means that a source must trigger the major source PSD permitting requirements for non-GHG pollutants, either as a newly constructed source or as a modification at a major source, in order to be subject to NSR Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review for GHGs. Therefore, the minor sources covered under the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country” can be required to obtain a permit based only on their emissions of non-GHG pollutants.

    (4) Revising and reconfiguring control options for the following three general permits to accommodate their use by sources seeking synthetic minor status: “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country,” “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Compression Ignition Engines in Indian Country” and “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country”; 17

    17 This approach is consistent with the policy we finalized on May 1, 2015, that allows for the use of general permits in Indian country to create synthetic minor sources. “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source Categories,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 80 FR 25068, May 1, 2015, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-05-01/pdf/FR-2015-05-01-FrontMatter.pdf.

    (5) Revising the titles of all six general permits in this action, to make it clear that they are all available for true minor and synthetic minor sources (including all of the implementation tools), by removing the words “true minor” (and adding clarifying text to the Request for Coverage Forms to reflect this expanded coverage of source types);

    (6) Adjusting the definition of “promptly” for reporting deviations under the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country” and the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Concrete Batch Plants in Indian Country” to conform to the definition of this term in the general permits that the EPA has already completed for hot mix asphalt plants and stone quarrying, crushing and screening facilities;

    (7) Adjusting the condition concerning the timing and location for records retention in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Concrete Batch Plants in Indian Country” to conform to the corresponding condition in the general permits the EPA has already completed for hot mix asphalt plants and stone quarrying, crushing and screening facilities;

    (8) Revising the general permit for sawmill facilities to accommodate sources that may trigger the major source threshold for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) prior to reaching the 80 ton per year/12-month rolling emission limits in the permit and that, thus, may need to seek synthetic minor status for HAP emissions;

    (9) Revising the throughput limits in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country” to match the revised input data provided in the sawmill facilities PTE calculator (from thousand board-feet (Mbf) to wood log inputs expressed in tons);

    (10) Correcting the board-foot throughput limit in the “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country” to reflect corrections made to the sawmill facilities PTE calculator;

    (11) Adding a separate throughput limit to the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country” for Serious PM10 (particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter) nonattainment areas and PM2.5 (particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter) nonattainment areas;

    (12) Clarifying in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country” that gaseous and liquid-fueled auxiliary heaters up to 10 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hour) are allowed, separate from the 30 MMBtu/hr boiler limit, which can include solid fuels like biomass;

    (13) Revising the boiler and auxiliary heater capacity limits for Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country” to allow for larger boiler capacity;

    (14) Adding a condition to the “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country” that restricts all emergency engines in Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas to units that are model year 2006 or later to ensure the sources' emissions stay below major source levels;

    (15) Changing the permitting tools (e.g., background documents) for the source categories to reflect changes made to permit requirements in areas such as setbacks and treatment of emergency engines;

    (16) Retitling the implementation tools for the boilers and emergency engines source category to match the change in the title of the general permit;

    (17) Clarifying each of the implementation tools for the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country” and the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Compression Ignition Engines in Indian Country” to better identify the types of sources likely to be eligible for these permits and to clarify the requirements, including reflecting the removal of the emergency engines provisions from these permits;

    (18) Removing the list of eligibility criteria at the front of the questionnaires, to avoid confusion and redundancy with the eligibility criteria provided in the Request for Coverage Forms;

    (19) Changing the instructions and questionnaires to reflect changes made to the Request for Coverage Forms;

    (20) Revising the Request for Coverage Form for the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Concrete Batch Plants in Indian Country” to:

    • Clarify that the source may seek approval for multiple locations and that additional locations may be added in the future; and

    • Add a section allowing a source to list multiple source locations in cases where a portable source is planning to relocate and for which it wants Reviewing Authority approval;

    (21) Adding to the Request for Coverage Forms for the general permits a request for estimates of PTE and, at existing sources, actual emissions, to satisfy the minor source registration requirement of § 49.160, and clarifying that sources covered by the general permits must also register under § 49.160 (submittal of the Request for Coverage Form satisfies that requirement);

    (22) Adding standards for non-engine combustion units to the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country”;

    (23) Revising the Request for Coverage Form for the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country” to require more detailed information from the applicant that is appropriate for a general permit that is being made available for both true minor and synthetic minor sources;

    (24) Revising the threatened and endangered species and historic properties screening procedures in the Request for Coverage Forms to reflect changes made to those same procedures in response to comments that we received on the January 14, 2014, proposal that we also reflected in the final rule “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source Categories,” published on May 1, 2015; 18

    18 “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source Categories,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 80 FR 25068, May 1, 2015, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-05-01/pdf/FR-2015-05-01-FrontMatter.pdf.

    (25) Correcting an error on the “Input” page for the PTE calculator for the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country” that did not properly sum emissions for all of the small, auxiliary heaters and boilers, and adjusting the MMBtu/hr limit for boilers and hp for engines for Extreme ozone nonattainment areas once we corrected the error; 19 and

    19 The draft spreadsheet underestimated emissions for this source category and the correction and adjustment had the greatest effect on emissions estimates for sources in Extreme ozone nonattainment areas.

    (26) Adding the following caveat to the PTE calculators for the six source categories in this action: “If you have one or more of the following units that are exempt from the Indian Country Minor NSR Program,20 please contact your EPA Regional office before you use this calculator to determine whether you need to obtain a minor NSR permit:

    20 All units/categories listed under § 49.153(c), including the ones listed below, are exempt from the Federal Minor NSR Program in Indian Country and emissions from such sources are, therefore, not counted in calculating a source's PTE for the purpose of determining whether the source's PTE exceeds the minor source permitting thresholds. However, emissions from the units/categories listed under § 49.153(c) shall be included when calculating a source's PTE for the purpose of determining whether the source is a major source under either PSD or nonattainment NSR programs.

    • Internal combustion engines used for landscaping purposes;

    • Emergency generators, designed solely for the purpose of providing electrical power during power outages:

    ○ In nonattainment areas classified as Serious or lower, the total maximum manufacturer's site-rated hp of all units shall be below 500;

    ○ In attainment areas, the total maximum manufacturer's site-rated hp of all units shall be below 1,000;

    • Stationary internal combustion engines with a manufacturer's site-rated hp of less than 5; and

    • Furnaces or boilers used for space heating that use only gaseous fuel, with a total maximum heat input (i.e., from all units combined) of:

    ○ In nonattainment areas classified as Serious or lower, 5 MMBtu/hr or less;

    ○ In nonattainment areas classified as Severe or Extreme, 2 MMBtu/hr or less; and

    ○ In attainment areas, 10 MMBtu/hr or less.”

    In addition, we made some changes in the general provisions that are included in all of the final permits from this final action and the May 1, 2015, final action. One commenter stated that the condition in the draft general permits concerning Notification of Change in Ownership is unclear in establishing whether it is the responsibility of the new permittee or the old permittee to comply with the notification requirements. The same commenter requested that certain conditions of the draft general permit be clarified to cover situations in which there is a change of operator, but the ownership of the equipment is the same. In response to the comments, the EPA has clarified in the permits for the six source categories covered by this action that it is the responsibility of the new permittee to submit a written or electronic notice to the Reviewing Authority within 90 days before or after the change in ownership is effective. For all of the permits, we have also modified the two conditions related to changes in ownership that appear in Sections 5 and 6 to include the word “operator” to clarify that these conditions cover a change in either ownership or operator where the equipment is the same.21

    21 The conditions are: Notification of Change in Ownership or Operator (Section 5) and Change in Ownership or Operator (Section 6).

    One commenter stated that the term “Responsible Official” should be defined to ensure truth, accuracy and completeness of required reports. The EPA agrees and, in response to the comment, we have added a definition of “Responsible Official” to each of the final permits.

    Two commenters supported the proposed rule's approach of requiring each source to post the current Approval of the Request for Coverage and to label each affected emissions unit and associated air pollution control technology with the identification numbers listed in the approval. One commenter recommended that the general permit and the most current approval of the request for coverage for the permitted source “must be made available immediately upon request,” as opposed to “must be posted.” The commenter stated that it was not necessary to label the air pollution control equipment, as the description and serial numbers are provided in the application. The EPA acknowledges the support of the commenters with respect to posting the Approval of the Request for Coverage. Upon review of comments received related to the posting of the general permit in addition to the Approval of the Request for Coverage, the EPA is revising the permits to exclude the requirement that the general permits must be posted. Posting of the Approval of the Request for Coverage is required under 40 CFR 49.156(e)(6), but general permits themselves are not required under the regulation to be posted and only need to be available on site as needed. Regarding the labeling of emission units and air pollution control equipment, identification and labeling of these units is needed to facilitate identification by inspectors of equipment covered under a general permit without the need to refer to the application. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the labeling requirements as proposed.

    Three commenters supported incorporating the Approval of the Request for Coverage into the general permit, in order to ensure that the revision procedures in 40 CFR 49.159 would apply to revisions a Reviewing Authority may need to make to a previously issued Approval of a Request for Coverage. Two commenters recommended that the EPA consider amending 40 CFR 49.156 to include a provision that specifically allows for revisions to a previously issued Approval of a Request for Coverage under a general permit. Upon review of comments received related to incorporating the Approval of the Request for Coverage into the general permits, the EPA is finalizing each general permit to include the proposed language in the draft general permits related to incorporating the Approval of the Request for Coverage into each permit.

    In addition, we have added a provision to all of the permits to address those circumstances that can cause a permit to become invalid under 40 CFR 49.156(e)(8). In the general permits in this action, the provision can be found in Section 6.

    b. Comments and Responses Concerning General Permits for Concrete Batch Plants

    One commenter objected to the visible emissions 10 percent opacity limit included in the draft concrete batch plants general permit. The commenter argued that the limit would create an unequal playing field with existing concrete batch facilities subject to the Federal Air Rules for Reservations' (FARR) requirements for limiting visible emissions (40 CFR 49.124). The EPA acknowledges that the draft visible emissions opacity limit in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Concrete Batch Plants” (10 percent) is more stringent than the opacity limit provided for facilities in the FARR.22 The opacity limit in the FARR is a generally applicable requirement that applies to any person who owns or operates an air pollution source, regardless of whether the equipment is existing, new, or modified. This limit was not specifically developed for concrete batch plants. The EPA's general permit for concrete batch plants applies to new or modified concrete batch plants, for which we have determined a 10 percent opacity limit is achievable. In our Background Document 23 for this permit, our review of state general permits for this source category indicated a range of opacity limits. For all of the states researched, the limits ranged from no visible emissions allowed to 25 percent, with only one state having a 40 percent opacity limit. Furthermore, the opacity limit is consistent with the opacity limits for the “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Stone Quarrying, Crushing, and Screening Facilities in Indian Country” (7-12 percent) and less than the opacity limit for the “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Hot Mix Asphalt Plants in Indian Country” (20 percent or greater), both made available in the final rule on April 17, 2015.24 We continue to believe that a 10 percent opacity limit is achievable for new or modified concrete batch plant sources and, as a result, we are not revising the opacity limit for the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Concrete Batch Plants in Indian Country.”

    22 The FARR is limited in scope to Indian Reservations in EPA Region 10. The opacity limit in the FARR at 40 CFR 49.124(d) is the visible emissions from an air pollution source must not exceed 20% opacity, averaged over any consecutive six-minute period, unless paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of 49 CFR 49.124(d) applies to the air pollution source.

    23 Background Document: General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Concrete Batch Plants in Indian Country, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151, https://www.epa.gov/tribal-air/tribal-minor-new-source-review.

    24 “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source Categories,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 80 FR 25068, May 1, 2015, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-05-01/pdf/FR-2015-05-01-FrontMatter.pdf.

    Another commenter recommended that the EPA consider the requirements in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1155—Particulate Matter from Control Devices (used to establish requirements for permitted PM air pollution control devices) and Rule 1157—PM10 Emission Reductions From Aggregate and Related Operations (which includes general performance standards and work practice requirements for opacity, unloading, loading and transferring operations, storage piles and related equipment), in establishing provisions in the draft concrete batch general permit. The commenter also requested that the general permit include certain BACT 25 requirements related to controlling PM10. One commenter specifically requested that the EPA consider certain control devices for either wet central mix plants or transit mix plants. The EPA considered SCAQMD rules when developing some of the nonattainment area emission requirements and a review of the requirements suggested by the commenter and those in the draft general permit indicate that the draft permit conditions are already at least as stringent as those suggested by the commenter. Therefore, no changes in this regard were made to the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Concrete Batch Plants in Indian Country.”

    25 For federal purposes, BACT is a requirement for major sources under the PSD Program. However, here and elsewhere in this document where responses to comments are discussed, the term is being used as it is used by the SCAQMD air program in the context of minor source NSR permitting in nonattainment areas.

    One commenter supported the use of the draft general permit for concrete batch plants to authorize relocation of a concrete batch plant to a pre-approved site location. The EPA recognizes that concrete batch plants are portable and may require the flexibility to relocate to additional areas in the future. We have revised the Request for Coverage Form for the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Concrete Batch Plants in Indian Country” to clarify that the facility may seek up-front approval of multiple locations and that additional locations may be added in the future.

    c. Comments and Responses Concerning General Permits for Boilers

    One commenter requested that the EPA consider the requirements in three SCAQMD Rules that apply to boilers, including Rule 1146—Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters; Rule 1146.1—Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Small Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters; and Rule 1146.2—Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers and Process Heaters. The commenter stated that these rules limit emissions of NOX and carbon monoxide (CO) and have requirements for initial and periodic testing, monitoring and recordkeeping. The EPA considered SCAQMD rules when developing some of the nonattainment area emission requirements and a review of the requirements suggested by the commenter and those in the draft general permit indicates that the draft permit conditions are generally consistent with those suggested by the commenter for Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas. For example, the emission limits for NOX and CO of the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country” are consistent with SCAQMD Rules 1146 and 1146.1. For each boiler rated at or above 2 MMBtu/hr in a Severe or Extreme ozone nonattainment area, the final permit is consistent with SCAQMD Rules 1146 and 1146.1 by containing a limit of nine parts per million (ppm) at 3 percent oxygen for NOX and a limit of 400 ppm at 3 percent oxygen for CO. However, for boilers rated below 2.0 MMBtu/hr in Severe or Extreme ozone nonattainment areas, we did not apply the requirement in SCAQMD Rule 1146.2 for owner/operators to purchase SCAQMD “compliant” boilers. As this is a nationally applicable regulation, we did not find it appropriate to require SCAQMD-compliant boilers in applicable areas everywhere due to their uncertain availability outside of the South Coast region of California. Instead, emissions from these small boilers and auxiliary heaters (those rated less than 2.0 MMBtu/hr) are restricted by limiting the combined rating of all small boilers and auxiliary heaters to a total of 10 MMBtu/hr in Extreme ozone nonattainment areas and 20 MMBtu/hr in all other areas.

    We disagree that these boiler requirements should apply in all areas, as suggested by the commenter. The limits suggested by the commenter are not typically associated with attainment areas or Marginal, Moderate, or Serious ozone nonattainment areas. No changes were made to the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country,” as a result of this comment.

    d. Comments and Responses Concerning General Permits for Stationary Spark Ignition and Compression Ignition Engines

    Two commenters expressed confusion regarding the reference to Table 1 of the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, in the draft spark ignition engines general permit. One commenter noted that it is unclear whether the EPA is limiting the use of engines ≥100 hp to only those manufactured after the dates incorporated from Table 1 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, in the draft spark ignition engines general permit, or if the specified emission limits from Table 1 must be met regardless of the date of engine manufacture. Another commenter stated that the emission limits only appear to apply to engines manufactured after 2010. One commenter noted that this would exclude other newer engines and would be more restrictive than the NSPS for spark ignition engines (NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ). The commenter also stated that the draft emission limits from Table 1 are appropriate for new, modified, or reconstructed engines after July 1, 2010, or January 1, 2011, but are not appropriate for older existing engines not subject to the spark ignition engines NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ) or those engines subject to the NSPS after 2007, but before the 2010 or 2011 dates listed in Table 1. The commenter asserted that, for NSPS engines, all of the emission limits and dates in Table 1 should apply to engines ≥100 hp, and that, for non-NSPS engines, emission controls should be no more stringent than those required in National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, for existing engines. Another commenter stated that the general permits should allow for the use of existing engines in attainment areas. Commenters recommended that the EPA consider the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's Permit by Rule for engines found in 30 Texas Air Code section 106.512 as a model.

    The EPA acknowledges that our draft general permit did not clearly state our intent with regard to the types of non-emergency spark ignition engines eligible to operate under the draft general permit for spark ignition engines. We are revising the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country” to clarify this issue. As a result, the requirements applicable to existing non-emergency engines in the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, are not needed in the general permit. The EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that the use of engines manufactured prior to these dates should be allowed for attainment areas. Given the types of stationary sources we expect to be eligible for the final spark ignition engines general permit, we continue to determine that pre-2010 or pre-2011 engines should not be eligible for this permit. For this permit, where the covered stationary sources will mainly consist of non-emergency engines, it is necessary to limit the types of engines eligible to operate under the permit to those with the most current technology to be protective of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), even in attainment areas. We note that we have not taken this approach for all of the general permits. For example, the general permits for hot mix asphalt plants; stone quarrying, crushing, and screening operations; and concrete batch plants allow for the use of existing compression ignition non-emergency engines. However, in those cases the engines covered are smaller and are not the primary equipment (and, thus, emissions) at the source.

    The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's Permit by Rule for engines found in 30 Texas Air Code section 106.512 suggested by the commenter appears to apply to a broader group of stationary sources (i.e., turbines) and is not limited to spark ignition engines. Thus, its limits would not be translatable to a general permit limited to spark ignition engines.

    We are clarifying each of the draft documents for the spark ignition and compression ignition engines general permits to better identify the types of sources that are eligible for these permits. Additionally, the EPA did not intend that the draft engines permits would apply to sources where non-exempt emergency engines are present (alone or in combination with other emissions sources),26 or to engines in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector for which the EPA has issued a separate, final rulemaking.27 Therefore, we are revising the title of the draft boiler general permit to “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country” to clarify that sources with non-exempt emergency engines should apply for that general permit.

    26 Under 40 CFR 49.153(c)(9), emergency generator engines at a single source are “exempt” if the combined maximum hp rating is below 1,000 hp in attainment areas or 500 hp in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or lower. If your source consists of only exempt equipment, then you are not required to obtain a minor NSR permit.

    27 “Federal Implementation Plan for True Minor Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector; Amendments to the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country to Address Requirements for True Minor Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 81 FR 35944, June 3, 2016, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-03/pdf/2016-11969.pdf.

    One commenter stated that the engines general permits reference certain certification or emission requirements at 40 CFR part 89, 40 CFR part 90, 40 CFR part 1048, and Table 1 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, which contain complex language that may require engine operators to conduct legal analytical work. The commenter requested that the EPA list these requirements more succinctly in order to help tribal operators determine whether their sources are subject to certain requirements and what the requirements are. The commenter also requested that the EPA clarify the applications to make them as easy to understand as possible, noting that tables would be easier to follow than text.

    The EPA acknowledges that the language contained in the engine regulations can be complex and potentially difficult for individual owners or operators of engines to understand. This is why the EPA has generally designed the permit requirements for engines to require the owner or operator to simply install certified engines. We are revising the draft general permit for spark ignition engines to specifically list the applicable emission standards from Table 1 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, instead of incorporating them by reference.28 We have also revised the permitting documents as suggested to provide more clarity to the applicable requirements.

    28 The draft general permit for spark ignition engines also contained a typographical error that referenced “40 CFR subpart JJJJ” instead of the correct citation 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ.

    Two commenters stated that, in the draft compression ignition engines general permit, the EPA excludes existing compression ignition engines in Condition 19, which requires non-emergency engines to be model year 2014 or later. The commenters argued that requiring sources to install only new engines would be inappropriate and inconsistent with existing engine rules. One commenter further stated that no state prohibits the relocation of existing engines, which would be prohibited under the proposed rule. The EPA notes that the commenters seem to misinterpret the intent of the draft permits for engines. These general permits are intended for a limited set of stationary sources—those consisting primarily of non-emergency engines. We generally expect the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country” and the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Compression Ignition Engines in Indian Country” to be used by sources in Indian country that, for example, provide electricity or pump groundwater in areas where power from the grid is not available. The general permits are not intended to be used by all source categories with non-emergency engines. Each permit is intended for a particular source category. We are clarifying each of the documents for the spark ignition and compression ignition permits to better identify the types of sources likely to be eligible for these permits. Finally, we note that the general permits for engines do not prohibit relocation of engines. While we limit the types of engines that can be used under the permits, engines that meet the permit requirements may be relocated to a new or modified, permitted stationary source.29

    29 We have provided guidance on the in-kind replacement of units in the preamble to the final rule issued on May 30, 2014, in which we clarified requirements for such units in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country—Amendments to the Federal Indian Country Minor New Source Review Rule,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 79 FR 31035, May 30, 2014, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-30/pdf/2014-11499.pdf.

    Three commenters expressed the view that including compliance requirements for emergency spark ignition engines in a compression ignition engine permit and compliance requirements for emergency compression ignition engines in a spark ignition engine permit creates confusion. One commenter remarked that it is unclear which permit would be appropriate for a source operating an emergency compression ignition engine, and what criteria are used to determine when an emergency compression ignition engine would be covered under one permit or another. The EPA notes that draft permits for compression ignition and spark ignition engines contain limits on the combined hp rating for emergency engines that are at, or below, the exemption thresholds finalized in 40 CFR 49.153(c). Therefore, we are removing the emergency engine provisions from these two general permits, as this equipment is exempt from the program at the thresholds in the permits.30 We are revising the Request for Coverage Forms and questionnaires for these permits to identify this exemption. During the development of the engines general permits, the EPA finalized exemptions for certain emergency engines at 40 CFR 49.153(c).

    30 Emergency generator engines at a single source are “exempt” if the combined maximum hp rating is less than 1,000 hp in attainment areas or less than 500 hp in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or below. If your source consists of only exempt equipment, then you are not required to obtain a minor NSR permit.

    Two commenters asserted that stack testing procedures for emergency engines are inappropriate and not required by states. Instead, the commenters recommended that the EPA include maximum non-emergency run time hour limits (e.g., 500 hours/year) in both the spark ignition and compression ignition engines general permits. The EPA disagrees that we should replace the testing requirements with limits on the hours an emergency engine can operate in non-emergency situations. However, as noted above, we are removing the requirements for emergency engines from the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country” and the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Compression Ignition Engines in Indian Country.”

    Two commenters questioned the specific testing procedures outlined in the engines general permits. One commenter stated that the outlined procedures for stack testing were contradictory with regard to engine load during testing. In the draft spark ignition engines general permit, another commenter stated that emissions testing requirements should allow portable analyzer testing and test methods other than the EPA reference methods. The commenter stated that allowing portable analyzers is necessary due to the remote and dispersed nature of many engines. The EPA recognizes that some engines typically do not operate within 10 percent of peak load. However, the “within 10 percent peak load” requirement was included in the permit to be consistent with the testing requirements in the applicable NSPS. This allows testing conducted under the NSPS to be used for the general permit as well. The EPA has generally included a requirement in our general permits to ensure testing is conducted under typical operating conditions to avoid testing being conducted, for example, during startup or malfunction. We do not find the two provisions to be contradictory. Regarding the use of portable analyzers, the draft general permit for spark ignition engines provides for the use of test methods identified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, which allow the use of a portable analyzer. In addition, the draft spark ignition engines general permit specifically references the use of portable analyzers. No changes have been made to the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country,” as a result of this comment.

    One commenter stated that the requirement to monitor fuel use for each engine on a monthly basis is not practical, given the many remote locations where engines are used for oil and gas production. The commenter further asserted that because the standards are based on an emissions/hp-hour basis, fuel measurement is unnecessary to demonstrate compliance. The EPA notes that these general permits do not apply to engines in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector for which the EPA has issued a separate, final rulemaking in the form of a FIP.31 32 We do not anticipate that sources outside of the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector with stationary spark ignition and compression ignition engines will have difficulty meeting the monthly fuel use requirements. Thus, no changes have been made to the final permits as a result of this comment.

    31 “Federal Implementation Plan for True Minor Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector; Amendments to the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country to Address Requirements for True Minor Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 81 FR 35944, June 3, 2016, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-03/pdf/2016-11969.pdf.

    32 The final oil and natural gas FIP focuses on the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector because we believe that these segments include the majority of the true minor sources in the sector that would need to obtain a minor source permit in areas covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.

    One commenter requested that the EPA provide clear direction for authorization of in-kind replacement engines. The commenter noted that engines are frequently swapped out with an in-kind engine to minimize compressor downtime, and that these replacements have the same or lower emissions than the engine being replaced. Two commenters noted that existing compressors may be moved and installed at another site to meet production needs. One commenter argued that the EPA must allow for relocation of existing engines without requiring them to be retrofitted. Another commenter suggested that the EPA consider the permit by rule and general permitting programs run by the states of Texas, Colorado, and Louisiana as models to address relocation of existing engines.

    Because these commenters represent the oil and natural gas industry, the EPA infers that the commenters are referring to engines used in the oil and natural gas sector. The EPA notes that these general permits do not apply to engines in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector for which the EPA has issued a separate, final rulemaking in the form of a FIP.33 The general permits being finalized for engines in this action do not contain any specific conditions related to in-kind replacements. The commenter has not provided a specific description for what is meant by “in-kind” replacements, only alluding to the fact they have “the same or lower emissions than the engine being replaced.” We cannot provide a more detailed response other than to point the commenter to how we addressed the issue of emissions unit relocation/replacement in the oil and natural gas industry in response to comments on final amendments to add to the list of exempted units in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.34

    33 “Federal Implementation Plan for True Minor Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector; Amendments to the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country to Address Requirements for True Minor Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 81 FR 35944, June 3, 2016, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-03/pdf/2016-11969.pdf.

    34 “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country: Amendments to the Federal Indian Country Minor New Source Review Rule,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 79 FR 31035, May 30, 2014, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-30/pdf/2014-11499.pdf.

    In the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule, we indicated our understanding that, in oil and gas sector operations, moving a single piece of equipment from one facility to another, or replacing a piece of equipment with a new one, can occur on a regular basis. For clarification purposes, we believed that it would be beneficial to both sources and reviewing authorities for us to list the different situations involving a piece of equipment (a unit) that we believed would be most common, and to specify the outcome with respect to minor NSR permitting and registration. In the preamble to the final rule, we listed expected outcomes to provide guidance on how we would address certain “relocation” scenarios. We did, however, indicate that the source owner/operator should still verify with its Reviewing Authority that the scenario provided, and its stated outcome, applies to its case.35 Regardless, each model year engine has to meet its applicable emissions control NSPS requirements.

    35 Ibid.

    One commenter stated that the requirement to “maintain onsite all records required to be kept by this permit” is not practical at unmanned oil and natural gas production facilities. The commenter asked that the requirement be modified to recognize that records for unmanned facilities are normally kept at an office having operational control of the unmanned facility where the engines are located. The EPA notes that these general permits do not apply to engines in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector for which the EPA has issued a separate, final rulemaking in the form of a FIP.36

    36 “Federal Implementation Plan for True Minor Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector; Amendments to the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country to Address Requirements for True Minor Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 81 FR 35944, June 3, 2016, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-03/pdf/2016-11969.pdf.

    We do not anticipate that sources outside of the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector with stationary spark ignition and compression ignition engines will have difficulty meeting the recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, no changes have been made to the final permits as a result of this comment.

    Two commenters stated that the reporting requirements in the draft general permits for engines are equivalent to the requirements for major sources subject to Title V. The commenters argued that these requirements are not appropriate for minor or area sources. Specifically, the commenters asserted that deviation reporting, compliance certifications, and requiring signature by a Title V equivalent “responsible official” is overly burdensome to minor sources. The commenters also stated that these requirements would increase the burden on the EPA to review these reports. One commenter asserted that engines that are already affected sources of an NSPS or NESHAP should have no additional requirements (reporting or otherwise).

    While the reporting requirements contained in the draft general permits may be similar to reporting requirements of the Title V Program, the EPA disagrees that a change is warranted. In developing the draft general permits, the EPA followed the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule, 40 CFR 49.155(a)(5), which identifies reporting requirements that must be included in each permit. The EPA cannot simply rely on assumed existing reporting and other requirements from other rules (e.g., NSPS or NESHAP) to ensure compliance with the emission limitations in our general permits. However, in some instances the reporting requirements in the final permits in this action are similar to or identical to reporting requirements in NESHAP and NSPS standards. Thus, for some requirements reporting under the other standards will also suffice for these permits. (If a permittee has a question about whether a particular reporting requirement under a NESHAP or NSPS will also suffice for these permits, they should work with the Reviewing Authority during the review process.) Further, the requirement to have a responsible official sign reports is common and consistent with state permitting programs. It is unclear why this certification would be costly or overly burdensome for permittees, as the commenter has not provided any specific information demonstrating an actual problem or a particular difficulty.

    One commenter stated that the timeframe for submittal of performance test reports in the draft engines permits is too short. The commenter noted that performance test reports are typically required to be submitted within 60 days of completion of the test by NSPS and NESHAP requirements for engines. The commenter also asked that stack test reporting required for NSPS and NESHAP satisfy the requirements for minor NSR reporting. In response, the EPA is extending the timeframe for submittal of performance test reports to 60 days for both the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country” and the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Compression Ignition Engines in Indian Country.” This timeframe is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. Additionally, we are revising the draft engines general permits to clarify that facilities may satisfy the initial and subsequent stack testing requirements in the general permits by using the initial and subsequent performance tests performed to meet NSPS and NESHAP requirements, assuming the required testing requirements in the permits are met.

    Two commenters requested that the engines general permits include provisions to establish a source as synthetic minor for criteria pollutants and/or HAPs. Another commenter asserted that the EPA must require more stringent monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for these sources.

    In our final action signed on April 17, 2015,37 we finalized a policy that allows for the use of general permits in Indian country to create synthetic minor sources. Consistent with the policy, and after considering the concerns raised by commenters, we are finalizing the “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country” and the “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Compression Ignition Engines in Indian Country” to allow for their use by true minor sources and to create synthetic minor sources.38 For the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Compression Ignition Engines in Indian Country,” we added operational limits so that the permit serves both true minor and synthetic minor sources. For the same purpose, for the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country,” we created synthetic minor limits for fuel use for only natural gas engines as we believe that is the most likely fuel use scenario. We do not feel that we have sufficient information available to create these limits for other fuel types, as the other fuels can have varying characteristics, which will change engine efficiency and affect emissions. We do not see a need to add any additional monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for synthetic minor sources as the existing requirements in the general permits are sufficient to ensure sources' emissions will remain below major source levels.

    37 “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source Categories,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 80 FR 25068, May 1, 2015, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-05-01/pdf/FR-2015-05-01-FrontMatter.pdf.

    38 The Request for Coverage Forms for these permits list the different control options available to sources seeking coverage under the permits, making it clear which options are for true minor sources and which options are for synthetic minor sources.

    Two commenters requested clarification on the proposed FIP or permit by rule considered in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.39 The commenters noted that it is not clear whether the draft engines general permits cover engines located at oil and natural gas production facilities. The EPA recognizes that it was unclear at the time of proposal whether the draft permits would apply to engines located at oil and natural gas production facilities. The final engines general permits do not apply to engines in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector for which the EPA has issued a separate, final rulemaking in the form of a FIP following consideration of comments received on the proposed FIP.40 Only new sources or modifications consisting of one or more non-emergency engines that are not located in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector are eligible to apply for coverage under the spark ignition and/or compression ignition stationary engines general permits. Engines in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector have been addressed in the separate, final rulemaking.41

    39 “Managing Emissions From Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian Country,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” 79 FR 32502, June 5, 2014, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-05/pdf/2014-12951.pdf.

    40 “Federal Implementation Plan for True Minor Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector; Amendments to the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country to Address Requirements for True Minor Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 81 FR 35944, June 3, 2016, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-03/pdf/2016-11969.pdf.

    41 Ibid.

    One commenter representing oil and natural gas sector interests expressed a preference for a permit by rule mechanism for compression ignition and spark ignition engines in lieu of a general permit, and recommended that the EPA consider, as an example, the permit by rule in the Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 106, Subchapter A, Rule section 106.4, coupled with the engine-specific Permits by Rule 106.511 and 106.512. The commenter stated that a permit by rule allows sources the flexibility to install and operate engines without delays arising from review and approval by permitting authorities. The commenter also pointed out that a primary advantage of implementing a permit by rule or FIP would be that a new federal decision triggering the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) would not be made each time a source avails itself of the permit by rule or FIP. Regarding the use of a permit by rule or FIP for compression ignition and spark ignition engines, the EPA did not propose the use of these permitting mechanisms in the proposed rule and does not consider their use appropriate at this time. Thus, we did not seek comment on their use at the time of proposal. Furthermore, the draft permits do not apply to engines in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector. The EPA has issued a separate, final rulemaking addressing oil and natural gas production sources, including non-emergency engines located at such sources.42

    42 Ibid.

    e. Comments and Responses Concerning General Permits for Graphic Arts and Printing Operations

    One commenter noted that the preamble description of “graphic arts” does not match the description in the draft general permit and that the draft general permit does not include screen printing and manual and sheet-fed techniques. The EPA has corrected the discrepancy and modified the final questionnaire and Request for Coverage Form to clarify that the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country” applies to sheet-fed printing operations.

    One commenter recommended that all solvent cleaning operations (except batch loaded cold cleaners) comply with emission standards similar to SCAQMD Rule 1171. The EPA considered SCAQMD rules when developing some of the nonattainment area emission requirements. We have determined that the additional limits and work practice standards not already included in the draft permit should only be added to the requirements for Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas. As a result, we are revising requirements in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country” to include additional emission limits and work practice standards consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1171 that apply only in Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas.

    One commenter noted that the term “reasonable time” in Condition 9 of the draft permit is subjective and not easily enforceable, and requested a specific timeframe. The EPA agrees with the commenter and replaced “reasonable time” with “30 days unless another timeframe is specified by the EPA” in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country.” We have made this change in all of the final permits included in this action.

    One commenter recommended that the volatile organic compound (VOC) limits in Condition 17 of the draft general permit for graphic arts and printing operations be changed to grams per liter (g/L) of ink/coating/adhesive less water and exempt compounds. The EPA agrees with the recommendation that the coating content limits in Condition 17 should also be provided in g/L and has added VOC content limits measured in g/L. We also agree with the recommendation that the coating content limits be on an “as applied” basis, excluding water, and have modified the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country,” accordingly. In response to the same comment, we have also added a definition for VOC to the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country” to clarify the compounds not included when considering VOC.

    One commenter stated that Serious and above ozone nonattainment area VOC limits for inks, coatings and adhesives should be limited, measured and reported in g/L or pounds/gallon (lbs/gal), excluding water and any other compounds exempted by the permitting authority or the local/neighboring air district. The same commenter recommended for all areas that the proposed percent alcohol or percent alcohol substitute limits in Condition 18 of the draft general permit be converted to an equivalent VOC content limit in g/L, as applied, including water and exempt compounds. The same commenter requested that if the standards for fountain solution are changed to VOC content rather than percent alcohol or alcohol substitute, then the log required in Condition 31 of the draft general permit should reflect: (1) The units (e.g., g/L or lbs/gal, as applied, including water and exempt compounds) of the fountain solution standards; (2) the units (e.g., g/L or lbs/gal, as applied, less water and exempt compounds) of the VOC limits for the coating, ink or adhesive; and (3) the units (e.g., g/L or lbs/gal, as applied, less water and exempt compounds) of the VOC limits. The commenter also recommended that the VOC limits in Attachment C for all materials except fountain solution should be g/L or lbs/gal, less water and less exempt compounds, and that the VOC limits for fountain solution should be converted to an equivalent VOC content limit in g/L, as applied, including water and exempt compounds.

    The EPA generally agrees with the commenters and has made corresponding changes to the final permit conditions. The EPA agrees with the recommendation that the nonattainment area VOC ink, coating, and adhesive content limits should also be provided in g/L and lbs/gal, which is how we presented the draft VOC content limits for nonattainment areas in the draft permit. We have retained the VOC limits provided in g/L and lbs/gal in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country.” We also agree with the recommendation that the coating content limits should be on an “as applied” basis, excluding water and other compounds. We have added a definition for VOC to the final permit to clarify the compounds not included when considering VOC. We have also made corresponding changes to the recordkeeping requirements, as appropriate.

    One commenter requested that the EPA clarify Condition 21 of the draft general permit to apply only to flexible packaging printing operations. In the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country,” the EPA agrees with the commenter and we have revised the heading for the draft condition that reads “Exemption for Non-compliant Materials” to a new heading, “Exemption for Flexible Packaging Printing Operations,” to clarify that the non-compliant materials exemption is only applicable for flexible packaging printing.

    One commenter requested that the frequency of monitoring of the usage of all VOC-containing material (Condition 27 of the draft general permit) be changed from a weekly basis to a daily basis. The EPA agrees with this recommendation as it relates to certain nonattainment areas and we are, accordingly, revising the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country” to include a requirement for daily monitoring of VOC usage for Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA has concluded that a greater level of monitoring is necessary: (1) To protect air quality in areas that are designated as Serious and above ozone nonattainment; and (2) to ensure a consistent set of requirements across state and tribal areas in common airsheds.

    One commenter requested that the EPA add requirements for performance testing at facilities with air pollution control equipment to verify the overall VOC control efficiency and to quantify the NOX emissions from any air pollution control equipment (e.g., oxidizers). The EPA agrees with the commenter and has added testing requirements for potential add-on control equipment. (The option for owners or operators to rely on add-on control devices for compliance was added to the permit in response to another comment.) For each add-on control system used at a graphic arts and printing operation source, the source must conduct an initial performance test within certain timeframes to verify compliance with the add-on control standards according to a test plan submitted to the Reviewing Authority. The testing is to determine the capture/control efficiency of the emission control system. The source must also conduct subsequent performance tests every five years.

    One commenter requested that the monthly record requirements in Conditions 31 through 33 of the draft general permit be clarified to specify calendar-monthly records. Although the EPA intended that records be kept on a calendar-monthly basis, we recognize that the draft permit was unclear. We are, therefore, revising the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country” to clarify that the recordkeeping requirements are to be kept on a calendar-monthly basis. This means under the final permit each source must update a log of their usage of VOC-containing material and report that usage on a calendar-monthly basis.

    One commenter requested that if requirements to conduct additional performance tests are added to the general permit, the EPA should include a requirement for recording the results of each performance test. The EPA agrees that the results of all performance tests should be recorded and the records maintained. As a result, in authorizing the use of add-on controls, we included recordkeeping and reporting requirements for specified performance testing for add-on control equipment.

    One commenter recommended that the definition of “coldset” be modified to clarify that coldset printing operations include presses with infrared or other energy curing devices such as ultraviolet dryers. The same commenter recommended that the definition of “heatset” be modified to clarify that coldset printing operations do not include presses with infrared or other energy curing devices such as ultraviolet dryers. The EPA has reviewed these definitions and agrees that the language suggested by the commenter provides additional clarifications that can help facilitate a better understanding of the permit's requirements. We have revised the definitions, accordingly, to add the commenter's suggested language.

    One commenter recommended that the definition of “offset lithographic and letterpress printing operation” be modified to be consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1130. The EPA has reviewed this definition and agrees with the language suggested by the commenter because the change provides additional clarification that can help facilitate understanding of the permit's requirements. We have revised the definition accordingly.

    One commenter recommended that the EPA add a definition for “exempt compounds,” including compounds in the jurisdiction of neighboring air districts to Indian country (SCAQMD Rule 102). The EPA agrees that the definition of VOCs provided in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country” (that was not provided in the draft permit) should identify “exempt compounds.” We have revised the ink/coating content limits to regulate on an “as applied” basis, excluding water. We have also added a definition for VOC to the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country” to clarify which compounds are not included when considering VOC. However, in lieu of referencing the exempt compounds in SCAQMD Rule 102, the definition references the list of exempt compounds in 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1), which we have determined to be more generally applicable to sources in Indian country.

    One commenter recommended that the EPA include a definition for “fountain solution” and provided a suggestion. The EPA agrees that including such a definition will improve the rule's efficacy and enforceability and agrees that the commenter's proposed definition is appropriate. As a result, we have added the suggested definition for “fountain solution” to the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country.”

    One commenter recommended that the EPA include a definition for “grams of VOC per liter of coating (or ink or adhesive), less water and less exempt compounds.” The commenter provided the EPA with a calculation method for VOC content per liter of coating used. The EPA agrees that the information suggested by the commenter will improve the permit's efficacy. We have, therefore, added the information to the Sample Calculations section of the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country.”

    One commenter recommended that the sample calculations in Attachment D of the general permit should include more representative values for heatset lithographic ink. The commenter also noted a typographical error for the VOC retention factor for heatset lithographic ink, which should be listed as 20 percent instead of 30 percent. In addition, the EPA acknowledges that the sample calculations in Attachment D of the permit should reflect more representative values for heatset lithographic inks because it is intended to provide “real world” values. We have modified Attachment D to include more representative values and to correct the erroneous VOC retention factor.

    One commenter requested that the EPA add language to clarify that these are uncontrolled VOC emissions. The commenter referenced language in the preamble which indicates that printing presses “would need to be able to demonstrate compliance with the permit (25 tpy VOC) without the consideration of controls.” The same commenter requested that the EPA add language to clarify what equipment “all printing lines” includes (i.e., combustion emissions from gas-fired equipment, air pollution control equipment, internal combustion engines, pre-press operations, or other non-printing related VOC-emitting operations performed). The EPA agrees with the commenter's suggestion of clarifying the permit language. We have done so by clarifying that compliance with the following condition must not consider the reduction in emissions from any add-on control technology: “The permittee shall not allow volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from an individual printing press (printing line) to exceed 25 tons per year.” The EPA also agrees with the commenter that the equipment included in all printing lines should be identified in the permit. The permit has been revised accordingly.

    Two commenters supported the proposal to increase the stringency of the overall tpy emission limitations for all printing lines at a facility based on the increasing classification of the ozone nonattainment area designation. Another commenter asserted that, for nonattainment areas, the EPA should require the most stringent emissions limitation or installation of BACT based on requirements of the neighboring air district, regardless of the facility's PTE or throughput. The commenter argued that emissions generated in these areas would have an effect on the neighboring district's air quality.

    The EPA has determined that the VOC content limits in the draft general permit for graphic arts and printing operations effectively limit VOC emissions in nonattainment areas and are consistent with the BACT requirements suggested by the commenter. However, we are also adding add-on control requirements for this source category as an option for complying with the VOC content limits contained in the draft permit. This option provides owners and operators the flexibility to use non-compliant materials, while also protecting air quality. Finally, we note that the EPA has the authority to determine that a particular general permit is no longer sufficient to protect air quality for new or modified sources in a geographic area and, therefore, does not meet the requirements of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. Such a determination would, for example, consider local air quality conditions, typical control technology and other emission reduction measures used by similar sources in surrounding areas, anticipated economic growth of the area, and/or cost-effective emission reduction alternatives.

    One commenter argued that facilities utilizing fuel combustion heating units (e.g., ovens, dryers, oxidizers) in Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas should use only natural gas as their primary fuel for heatset printing presses (non-electric heated), and that the NOX emissions from heatset printing presses should not exceed 30 parts per million, volumetric dry, corrected to 3 percent oxygen. The same commenter requested that if NOX concentration limits are added to the emissions limits and standards for gas-fired dryers/ovens on heatset printing presses, the EPA should consider adding requirements for performance tests to be conducted on heatset printing press ovens with gas-fired burners to demonstrate compliance. The EPA has considered the commenter's recommendations and has included the requirements proposed by the commenter into the requirements for ozone nonattainment areas in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country.” The EPA has concluded that in ozone nonattainment areas a greater level of control is required to protect air quality. Thus, the requirements, which would reduce levels of NOX from combustion sources, are appropriate for these areas. Therefore, we have added an overall capacity limit for combustion units, excluding engines, that applies to all areas, attainment and nonattainment. The more stringent provisions recommended by the commenter will apply only to Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas because they are necessary to ensure that the permit provides adequate air quality protection. We have not required the more stringent provisions in Serious ozone nonattainment areas because we do not believe that in those areas the extra control is necessary to protect air quality. We have also revised the permit to reflect associated monitoring and recordkeeping requirements.

    One commenter stated that in nonattainment areas, all facilities should vent ovens to air pollution control equipment with a minimum 95 percent overall VOC control efficiency. The commenter requested that the EPA clarify that in an Extreme ozone nonattainment area (the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins), the major source threshold for VOC is 10 tpy. The commenter referenced the SCAQMD BACT for PM and VOC emissions from a heatset lithographic printing press, which requires venting the press oven to air pollution control equipment with a minimum 95 percent overall VOC control efficiency. The commenter noted that the facility VOC emission threshold for a general permit can be as low as 7 tpy from all printing lines combined; however, all heatset lithographic printing press ovens should be vented to air pollution control equipment with a minimum 95 percent overall VOC control efficiency. The EPA has included the requirements proposed by the commenter in the requirements of the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country” to allow sources the flexibility to use add-on control requirements as an alternative to the VOC content limits in the permit. In addition, we are making the add-on control requirement mandatory in Extreme ozone nonattainment areas. Furthermore, we have determined that provisions similar to those in the SCAQMD requirements identified by the commenter are appropriate to include because the only Extreme ozone nonattainment areas in Indian country are located in California. In addition, we are also clarifying that in ozone nonattainment areas, new or modified sources must obtain a permit for VOC emissions increases of 2 tpy or more. Sources in Extreme ozone nonattainment areas emitting above 7 tpy are not eligible for the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Graphic Arts and Printing Operations in Indian Country” and must obtain a source-specific permit prior to beginning construction.

    One commenter recommended, for nonattainment areas, that all solvent cleaning operations (excluding batch loaded cold cleaners) should comply with lower emission standards. The commenter requested that the EPA consider the standards in SCAQMD Rule 1171. The EPA considered SCAQMD rules when developing some of the nonattainment area emission requirements for Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas and concluded that the requirements in SCAQMD Rule 1171 are appropriate for inclusion in the final permit generally because they are necessary to ensure consistency (and, thus, a more level playing field) with requirements in neighboring areas under local requirements. The EPA has, therefore, included the emission standards and specific work practice standards in Rule 1171 referenced by the commenter as requirements in the final permit for sources in nonattainment areas.

    One commenter recommended that, at graphic arts and printing operations in nonattainment areas, compression ignition emergency engines should comply with NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, and NESHAP 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The commenter also recommended additional limits on operating hours of up to 50 hours per year for maintenance and testing and 200 hours per year total operation for nonattainment areas. The EPA disagrees with the commenter that compression ignition emergency engines at graphic arts and printing operations in nonattainment areas should meet limits on operating hours in addition to complying with 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. Additional operating limits are unnecessary and would conflict with the requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP, which would create an additional, unjustified reporting burden for sources. However, we do agree that in nonattainment areas, emergency engines that are not otherwise exempt from the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR Program should be certified to the EPA's standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII. The final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country” has been revised, accordingly.

    f. Comments and Responses Concerning General Permits for Sawmill Facilities

    One commenter stated that prohibiting open burning (Condition 16 in the draft sawmill facilities general permit) conflicts with the FARR open burning rule (40 CFR 49.131). The EPA notes that the condition in the draft general permit only bans open burning at sawmills. It is not intended to prohibit open burning of all kinds, but was included to prevent operators of sawmill facilities from burning waste or other disposed materials on the property of the mill. It does not prohibit open burning at locations other than sawmill facilities and, thus, is consistent with the FARR in that regard. The EPA does not believe that there is a conflict. However, disposal of any waste from sawmill facility activity must be handled in accordance with applicable requirements in all tribal, local and federal regulations and statutes.

    One commenter objected to Condition 11 in the draft sawmill facilities general permit, stating that it is not necessary to label emission units and air pollution control equipment with identification numbers, and that serial numbers or the location of the unit should suffice. The EPA believes that the identification and labeling of emission units and air pollution equipment is needed to facilitate identification of equipment covered under the general permit by inspectors. Therefore, we are finalizing the labeling requirements included in the draft permit. It is worth noting that this requirement is consistent with all of the other permits in this final action and in the final action that we finalized in May 2015.43

    43 “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source Categories,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 80 FR 25068, May 1, 2015, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-05-01/pdf/FR-2015-05-01-FrontMatter.pdf.

    One commenter stated that the pollution control requirements in Conditions 24 to 26 of the draft sawmill facilities general permit are too specific. The EPA disagrees. Specific permit conditions are necessary in order to ensure that the conditions in the general permit are enforceable. No changes have been made to the permit conditions in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country,” as a result of this comment.

    One commenter noted that if a planar mill does not have a baghouse or fabric filter, per Condition 24 of the draft sawmill facilities general permit, they would be required to obtain a source-specific permit. The same commenter stated that, per Condition 25 of the draft general permit, sawmill facilities with uncovered outdoor operations, or with covered operations that do not have a baghouse or fabric filter, would need to obtain a source-specific permit. The same commenter also stated that, per Condition 26 of the draft general permit, sawmill facility operations that are indoors without a baghouse or fabric filter would be required to get a source-specific permit. In all three cases, the EPA agrees and has determined that the use of a baghouse or fabric filter is a reasonable and readily available technology for new or modified sources indoors and covered facilities outdoors. Sources that cannot, or do not wish to, install a baghouse or fabric filter must seek a source-specific permit.

    One commenter objected to weekly visible emissions surveys (Conditions 33 and 34 of the draft sawmill facilities general permit). The commenter argued that weekly surveys would be burdensome, especially compared to Title V sawmill facilities that have a quarterly survey frequency. The EPA disagrees with the commenter that weekly visible emission surveys are overly burdensome. They are not resource-intensive to accomplish using Method 22,44 as specified in the draft permit (versus the Method 9 45 opacity test, which requires certified observers). The fact that there may be some Title V permits for sawmills that only require quarterly surveys does not mean that quarterly monitoring is appropriate for sources wishing to operate pursuant to the general permit. The general permits developed by the EPA have consistently used weekly surveys for monitoring opacity and fugitive emissions. Frequent monitoring of equipment is necessary to ensure a source is in compliance at all times. No changes have been made to the conditions of the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country,” as a result of this comment.

    44 Appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60—Test Methods 6 through 10B, Method 9—Visual determination of the opacity of emissions from stationary sources, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ff80e78b603d3fe6e25595510b35f885&mc=true&node=pt40.8.60&rgn=div5#ap40.8.60.a_67.

    45 Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60—Test Methods 19 through 25E, Method 22—Visual determination of fugitive emissions from material sources and smoke emissions from flares, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ff80e78b603d3fe6e25595510b35f885&mc=true&node=pt40.8.60&rgn=div5#ap40.8.60.a_67.

    One commenter pointed out that Condition 35 of the draft sawmill facilities general permit, which requires an initial performance test for fugitive emissions, references Condition 17 of the draft sawmill facilities general permit, which applies to emissions units and not sources of fugitive emissions. The EPA has corrected the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country,” which inadvertently applied only to affected emission units. We have modified the final permit to also require that sources of fugitive emissions not discharge into the atmosphere any gases that exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater averaged over any consecutive 6-minute period. These changes correct the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country,” which requires an initial performance test to verify compliance with its opacity limitations.

    One commenter stated that the testing requirements in Condition 37 of the draft sawmill facilities general permit for emergency engines are excessive, especially for older engines. The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the testing requirements for emergency engines are excessive. The requirements in the permit only apply to engines that have not been certified to the applicable standards in the permit. The testing requirements are necessary to ensure that uncertified engines under the permit comply with applicable limits in the permit.

    One commenter recommended revising Condition 40.b. of the draft sawmill facilities general permit to read: “For each kiln, monthly throughput `by species' in Mbf.” The EPA agrees with the commenter's recommendation, which clarifies that records must be kept that reflect the monthly throughput of the individual tree species because different species release differing amounts of VOC. We have modified the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country,” accordingly.

    One commenter pointed out a circular reference in Condition 50.c. of the draft sawmill facilities general permit. The commenter is correct that Condition 50.c. in the draft general permit inadvertently contained a circular reference. We have modified the “Annual Reports” Condition in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country” to refer correctly to the “Deviation Reports” Condition.

    One commenter noted that, in the request for coverage for the draft sawmill facilities general permit, when the answer to a question would invalidate the use of a general permit, the instructions sometimes direct the applicant to contact the permitting authority for a source-specific permit. However, in other instances the instructions do not tell the applicant that they do not qualify for the general permit. The EPA acknowledges that not all of the questions on the Request for Coverage Form include a directive to contact the permitting authority for a source-specific permit based on a particular answer. This directive was only included for questions for which a specific “yes” or “no” answer would result in permittees not qualifying for the sawmill facilities general permit. In the case of Question 19 in the draft Request for Coverage Form, which was identified by the commenter as an example, the question requests the distance of the facility from the nearest property boundary or nearest residence. Because we are not finalizing setback requirements for sawmill facilities, this question has been removed from the Request for Coverage Form; therefore, the commenter's concern regarding this particular question is moot.

    B. Issues Concerning Aspects of Finalizing a General Permit/Permit by Rule for Graphic Arts and Printing Operations 1. Proposed Rule

    In the July 17, 2014, proposed rule, we proposed two types of minor NSR preconstruction permits to help streamline permitting of true minor sources that construct or modify in Indian country and that belong to one of six additional source categories. The first type of permit is a general permit and the second type is a permit by rule. As our preferred approach, we made available draft general permits for the six source categories. As an alternative, for graphic arts and printing operations, we requested comment on whether, in lieu of establishing a general permit for the source category, we should instead adopt a permit by rule.

    We requested comment on all aspects of a draft general permit or proposed permit by rule for graphic arts and printing operations. We noted that we might not finalize the draft general permit for graphic arts and printing operations, if we finalized a permit by rule for the source category. Alternatively, we indicated that we might opt to finalize both permitting mechanisms for the source category, and might tailor one of the permitting mechanisms to provide authorization to construct or modify true minor sources (i.e., permit by rule) and another to provide enforceable limitations to create synthetic minor sources (i.e., general permit). We specifically requested comment on this “hybrid” approach.

    In the proposal, we sought comments on all aspects of the draft implementation tools we provided (e.g., general permit Request for Coverage Form). The draft general permit application for graphic arts and printing operations is more streamlined because sources in the category represent more straightforward operations, largely involve one air pollutant (i.e., VOCs) and, therefore, could necessitate less intensive review for approval. The draft general permit application form for the category asks for basic solvent usage information and whether the source has complied or will comply with relevant requirements. By contrast, the draft general permit applications for concrete batch plants, engines, boilers and sawmill facilities request more detailed technical information about the proposed facility in question because these facilities are more complex and can involve multiple operations and pollutants. The draft form was also intended to serve as a Notification of Coverage Form for sources seeking coverage under a permit by rule, should we have decided to issue one for this category.

    2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action

    With respect to comments on the appropriateness of utilizing a permit by rule for graphic arts and printing operations, responses are addressed here and in Section 2.0 of the RTC Document. Overall, as a result of the comments received on the proposal and our continued evaluation of the circumstances, we are issuing only a general permit for graphic arts and printing operations. Three commenters provided comments regarding the EPA's proposal to establish a permit by rule for graphic arts and printing operations. One commenter agreed that the approach could provide significant time savings due to its streamlined approach. However, two commenters were concerned that a permit by rule approach does not provide the public, including Indian tribes, the opportunity to comment on a minor source's use of the permit. Another commenter disagreed that a permit by rule is consistent with the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule, which requires preconstruction permits. The commenter asserted that use of a permit by rule would effectively mean that sources exceeding the minor source permit threshold are effectively exempt from permitting. One commenter argued that the use of a permit by rule on tribal lands is not appropriate for either true minor or synthetic minor sources. Two commenters requested that the EPA provide either a notice and comment period or a consultation process for tribes for the permit by rule approach, citing that tribes must be given an opportunity to comment to recognize their sovereignty. For these reasons, the commenters supported only a general permit approach.

    The EPA is not finalizing a permit by rule, either in lieu of or in conjunction with a general permit, for the graphic arts and printing operations source category for two reasons. First, many sources in this source category are major sources and require synthetic minor source permits in order to gain minor source status. While some of these sources may be true minor sources, the potential variation in size of individual sources warrants including a mechanism for creating synthetic minor sources. The permit by rule is not a mechanism that can be used to create synthetic minor sources; the general permit is a mechanism that can create synthetic minor sources, as it affords the opportunity for the Reviewing Authority to perform a review. The EPA established this approach when we finalized the first set of general permits and permits by rule in May 2015.46 Thus, a general permit is more appropriate for this source category. Second, we agree with commenters that the permit by rule approach does not provide the public, including Indian tribes, the opportunity to comment about a minor source's use of the permit. We are, therefore, finalizing a general permit for this source category, which is an approach that affords the public an opportunity to object to a source gaining coverage under the permit pursuant to 40 CFR 49.157(a)(5).

    46 “General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source Categories,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 80 FR 25068, May 1, 2015, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-05-01/pdf/2015-09739.pdf.

    The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the use of permits by rule effectively means that sources exceeding the minor source permit threshold are exempt from a permit. We also disagree that the permits by rule are not consistent with the concept of preconstruction permits in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. A permit by rule establishes a standard set of requirements that must be met by any source commencing construction in reliance on that permit and, thus, serves the same purpose as any other preconstruction permit. The primary difference between a permit by rule and a general permit is procedural, not substantive. As to consistency with the concept of preconstruction permits in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule, the rule specifically authorizes the issuance of the general permits and the permits by rule we have issued thus far.47

    47 Ibid.

    With respect to comments on finalizing both permitting mechanisms for graphic arts and printing operations, we include responses here and in Section 7.0 of the RTC Document. As noted, we have decided to finalize only a general permit for graphic arts and printing operations, rather than to make both permit types available for the graphic arts and printing operations source category. We are not finalizing the proposed “hybrid” approach for graphic arts and printing operations because the EPA does not believe that sources in the source category are appropriate candidates for permits by rule, particularly since some of them may be major sources seeking synthetic minor status. Furthermore, we believe that having two permit types would add additional complication to administration of the rule with little, if any, apparent benefit. We are not adopting such a hybrid approach.

    Finally, the EPA did not receive any comments on the issue of using a streamlined general permit/permit by rule application for graphic arts and printing operations. However, because this permit will serve as a general permit for true minor and synthetic minor sources, we are enhancing the application to request additional details about equipment present at the site. Since applicant sources could potentially be major sources seeking minor source status, we need to ensure that we have sufficient information to be able to make an approval review decision.

    C. Proposed Rule Change to the Federal Indian Country Minor New Source Review Rule in One Area: Shortening the General Permit Application Review Process From 90 to 45 Days for Graphic Arts and Printing Operations 1. Proposed Rule

    In the July 17, 2014, proposed rule, we proposed to change the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule at 40 CFR 49.156(e)(4) to shorten the general permit application review process from 90 to 45 days for one source category: Graphic arts and printing operations.

    2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action

    This section provides a brief summary of other significant comments received and our responses. A full summary of the comments received on this subject and our responses are presented in Section 8.0 of the RTC Document.

    Two commenters supported the proposal to amend 40 CFR 49.156(e)(4) to shorten the review period to 45 days for the graphic arts and printing operations permit. Conversely, one commenter recommended not reducing the review period since the EPA requires time to: (1) Review the material safety data sheets of graphic arts materials used; (2) review the specifications on gas-fired burners on heatset printing presses and oxidizers; and (3) evaluate internal combustion engines for compliance with NSPS and NESHAP requirements. We agree with the commenter that this source category requires a 90-day review period, particularly since the general permit is also serving as a permit to create synthetic minor sources. Consequently, the EPA is not finalizing revisions to § 49.156(e)(4) to shorten the general permit application review process from 90 to 45 days for the graphic arts and printing operations source category.

    D. Control Technology Review 1. Proposed Rule

    In the proposal, we requested comment on various aspects of the EPA's conclusion following its control technology review that, because the control measures in the draft general permits are currently used by other similar sources in other areas of the country, the measures in the draft permits are technically and economically feasible and cost effective.

    2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action

    This section provides a brief summary of significant comments received and our responses. A full summary of the comments received on this subject and our responses are presented in Section 3.0 of the RTC Document. The EPA is largely retaining the basic approach to the control technology review outlined in the July 17, 2014, proposal.

    One commenter expressed confusion over the term “control technology.” The commenter requested the EPA clarify if this refers to add-on controls or if it includes controls that may be part of the equipment itself. In response, we note that the term “control technology” refers to integrated controls, add-on controls and other emissions reduction techniques (e.g., work practice standards and the use of compliant materials).

    One commenter stated that because the EPA intends to issue general permits at the national level instead of through Regional Administrators, the Agency should require the most stringent requirements applicable in adjacent areas of Indian country. The commenter recommended that the general permits require the use of BACT and the most current version of adjacent area rules and regulations to avoid a competitive disadvantage. The commenter also noted that the EPA may wish to consider making general permits applicable only within one of the EPA Regions, in order to avoid making sources in Indian country subject to more stringent requirements than those in adjacent states.

    Regarding the level at which the EPA issues general permits, the commenter is correct that all of the general permits that the EPA has established to date (including this set) have been at the national level. However, we may in the future issue general permits (or permits by rule) on a smaller geographic scale for a particular state or region of the country. In fact, in the first batch of streamlined permits we issued, we indicated that EPA Region 9 will be developing a general permit or permit by rule for areas within California for gasoline dispensing facilities.48 In addition, once the EPA issues a general permit at the national level, Regional offices serving as the Reviewing Authority are responsible for processing the Request for Coverage and issuing the Approval of Request for Coverage under nationally-issued general permits (as well as any general permits issued by that Region for a smaller geographic area), Alternatively, a tribe may serve as the Reviewing Authority for its area of Indian country by taking delegation of responsibility for implementing the permit program.

    48 Ibid.

    Regarding other points made by the commenter, the EPA crafted the minor source general permits to ensure air quality is properly protected and to provide a streamlined approach, where appropriate. We undertook a survey of existing national and state requirements, and reviewed, weighed and compared these requirements to develop general permits that would help provide a level playing field for minor sources in Indian country. The EPA has not necessarily adopted the most stringent of these observed standards, but, rather, has evaluated relevant rules and regulations to determine the most appropriate and commonly employed standards for each source and unit type covered under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. The EPA has the authority to determine that a particular general permit or permit by rule is no longer sufficient to protect air quality for new or modified sources in a particular geographic area and, thus, does not meet the requirements of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. Such a determination would consider, for example, local air quality conditions, typical control technology of other emission reduction measures used by similar sources in surrounding areas, anticipated economic growth in the area and/or cost-effective emission reduction alternatives. If the EPA were to make such a determination, it could either issue a revised general permit for use in that area or require sources in that area to obtain source-specific permits. In addition, the EPA Regional Administrators may adopt general permits or permits by rule that apply within those areas.

    E. Setback Requirements 1. Proposed Rule

    For the draft general permits for boilers, concrete batch plants, engines, and sawmill facilities, we included permit provisions related to the location of emitting activities relative to the source property boundary. We call these provisions, which are designed to minimize the impacts of emissions, setback requirements. Under a setback requirement, sources may not locate or expand within a specific distance from the property boundary and nearest residences. We proposed that these provisions seemed both reasonable and prudent measures to protect local air quality, and are economically feasible and cost effective.

    2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action

    This section provides a brief summary of significant comments received and our responses. A full summary of the comments received on this subject and our responses are presented in Section 4.0 of the RTC Document.

    Two commenters supported the inclusion of setback requirements for boilers, concrete batch plants, spark and compression ignition engines, and sawmill facilities. These commenters requested that the EPA not only apply the setback requirements to schools and nursing homes, but also to other physical locations such as community centers, health care facilities, hospitals, agricultural fields, ball fields, parks, locations designated for cultural and subsistence activities, and waterways. The same commenters requested that the EPA carefully consider each tribe's sovereign right to manage and oversee land use within its own boundaries. The commenters noted that some tribes may not provide for setback requirements where others may already have setback requirements that are less restrictive than those in the draft permits. The commenters recommended that the EPA consult and communicate with tribes on the application of setback requirements and that the EPA insert a provision in the general permits allowing a tribe to obtain a partial or full waiver from the requirements (e.g., from the types of buildings to which the requirements apply).

    Two commenters objected to the inclusion of setback requirements in the stationary compression ignition and spark ignition engines general permits. The commenters argued that the EPA has not demonstrated the need for or provided any data to support setback requirements and that no current NSPS or NESHAP for engines includes similar requirements. The commenters further argued that setting distances to property boundaries is counter to, and conflicts with, federal and state agency requirements for land management and parks and wildlife preserves created to minimize surface disturbance and encroachment on endangered species areas. One commenter noted that specific setback requirements are already included in Indian mineral leases. Another commenter urged that setback regulations have historically been considered “land use” regulation relegated to state and local jurisdictions. The commenters stated that establishing a setback requirement that applies to all of Indian country would create jurisdictional conflicts. The commenter further warned that the EPA would be setting precedent that could cause other regulatory agencies to follow suit.

    One commenter did not support the use of physical markers on a property to show compliance with the setback requirements.

    Due to the lack of an EPA analysis demonstrating the air quality benefits of requiring setbacks, we lack sufficient information to incorporate them in the final general permits for boilers and emergency engines, concrete batch plants, spark and compression ignition engines, and sawmill facilities. Therefore, the final general permits for these source categories do not contain setback provisions. Nonetheless, the Reviewing Authority retains the discretion to deny the granting of source coverage under the general permits for any source category based on local air quality concerns.

    F. Requirements Relating to Threatened or Endangered Species and Historic Properties 1. Proposed Rule

    The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services), that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any listed threatened or endangered species, or destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitat of such species. The NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties—i.e., properties that are either listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places—and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the Council) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. We provided draft screening processes in Appendices to the draft Request for Coverage Forms for the draft general permits that we made available for comment to ensure appropriate consideration of listed species and historic properties.

    2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action

    This section provides a brief summary of significant comments received and our responses. A full summary of the comments received on this subject and our responses are presented in Section 5.0 of the RTC Document. Overall, as a result of the comments we received, we are largely retaining the processes we presented in the proposal with some adjustment in this final action.

    Two commenters expressed concerns regarding provisions for listed species and historic properties. One commenter contended that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) currently develop a resource management plan for oil and gas activities on Indian lands that triggers ESA and NHPA review. The commenter argued that it is unnecessary to repeat an ESA or NHPA review during the general permit process given that it may rely on this existing review. The commenter further asserted that the proposed provisions would require minor source permit applicants to interface with various federal agencies in the absence of any procedures governing that interaction, and that the legal consequences of certifying compliance with the ESA and NHPA are undefined.

    The EPA is aware that new sources locating in Indian country may also need approvals or other authorizations from other federal agencies such as the BIA or the BLM, which may trigger a review under the ESA and/or the NHPA. Such approvals or authorizations by other agencies are, however, separate from the authorization provided in the EPA's minor NSR general permits. However, to avoid duplication of effort, we believe it is appropriate for facilities seeking to be covered under the general permits to use listed species and historic property assessments, analyses, and outcomes obtained through BIA/BLM's separate compliance with the ESA and NHPA in connection with their own actions to satisfy the relevant screening procedures for coverage under the minor NSR general permits. We anticipate that where a separate ESA or NHPA compliance process is undertaken by BIA/BLM in connection with a new source, that process will satisfy the EPA's permit screening procedures.

    Therefore, we have modified the listed species procedures in appendix A for endangered and threatened species that are attached to the Request for Coverage Forms to clarify that this approach is the first consideration in the screening process. We believe that this option as a first choice is already clear in the historic property screening procedures and, therefore, we have not revised appendix B in that regard in the historic properties procedures included with the Request for Coverage Forms.

    One commenter expressed concerns about the ability of permit applicants to meet the compliance requirements of the ESA and NHPA, citing limitations in time and availability of in-house expertise. The commenter asserted that the process could be costly and requested whether the EPA has assessed the time and cost impacts to comply with the ESA and NHPA. The EPA understands that satisfactorily addressing the screening procedures for threatened and endangered species and historic properties will impose some burden on sources seeking coverage under general permits. However, we have attempted to streamline the screening processes in order to minimize the effort needed to complete them. For example, both sets of procedures have been clarified to make more explicit that sources can, as appropriate, rely on prior assessments performed by other federal agencies to satisfy the procedures.

    G. Use of Throughput Limits and Capacity Limits 1. Proposed Rule

    The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule requires the Reviewing Authority to establish annual allowable emission limitations for each affected emissions unit and for each NSR-regulated pollutant emitted by the unit, if the unit is issued an enforceable limitation lower than the PTE of that unit (see 40 CFR 49.155(a)(2)). The EPA included throughput, fuel usage, and materials usage limitations and compliance monitoring requirements in the draft general permits and proposed permit by rule as a means for limiting emissions and demonstrating compliance with those limits.

    For the six source categories in this action, some states (but not all) provide both annual tpy allowable emission limitations and throughput limits in their general permits. Other states provide only overall production limits that limit the amount of throughput a facility can process over a period of time. We requested comment on the use of throughput limits as a surrogate for tpy allowable emission limitations, or, alternatively, establishment of annual allowable emission limitations for each pollutant, and the use of throughput limits as surrogate monitoring measures to demonstrate compliance with tpy annual allowable emission limitations.

    2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action

    This section provides a brief summary of significant comments received and our responses. A full summary of the comments received on this subject and our responses are presented in Section 6.0 of the RTC Document. In the final general permits, the EPA has retained the throughput limits contained in the draft general permits, except that we have revised the limits in the final general permits for boilers and emergency engines, spark ignition engines, compression ignition engines and sawmill facilities. This has included adding control options and fuel-based limits to accommodate synthetic minor sources.

    Two commenters supported the use of throughput production limits as a surrogate for annual tpy emission limits in the draft concrete batch plants general permit. The commenters declared that facilities currently track information about the material they process, and that complying with a throughput limitation would be less costly. One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not provide for different production limits for facilities located in attainment and nonattainment areas for PM, and requested that the EPA consider this issue more closely.

    The EPA appreciates the commenters' support for the use of throughput limits. The EPA also appreciates the commenters' concern regarding separate production limits for PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment areas. We set the throughput limit in the draft concrete batch plants general permit to ensure that a source in any area (attainment or nonattainment) would not be a major source.

    For the draft boilers general permit, two commenters supported the use of varying capacity limits as a surrogate for annual tpy emission limits based on boiler and process heater size. The commenters supported the use of different capacity limits for process heaters and process heaters and boilers combined located in ozone nonattainment areas. The commenters also supported finalizing two boilers general permits—one intended for smaller, simpler sources using capacity limits, and one for larger, more complex sources using tpy emission limitations and additional monitoring and recordkeeping. The EPA has decided to issue only one final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian Country,” which also covers emergency engines. We do not agree that two are needed. We believe that one permit for boilers can accommodate boilers of varying sizes.

    Two commenters expressed concerns with the capacity limits included in the draft spark ignition engines general permit. The commenters noted an inconsistency between the engine site capacity limit of 1,750 hp and the emission limits set by reference to Table 1 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ. One commenter provided the example that, using the EPA's PTE spreadsheet and a single 1,000 hp 4-stroke lean burn engine, the CO limit of 2.0 grams per hp-hour in Table 1 yields a total annual CO emission PTE of just under 20 tpy, which would allow for up to 5,000 hp site capacity based on a 100 tpy limit. The commenters stated that these issues bring into question whether the draft spark ignition and compression ignition engines permits should include capacity-based limits or emissions-based limits. Both commenters reasoned that emission limits are preferable to capacity limits, because an emission limit approach would allow flexibility for operators to determine how to configure engines. One commenter argued that if the EPA uses capacity limits, then it would seem pointless to also include emission limits or monitoring. The commenter stated that capacity limits are most appropriate for small engines to simplify exclusion from minor source NSR, stating that neither the draft spark ignition engines general permit nor the draft compression ignition engines general permit addressed excluding low emitting small engines. The commenter further argued that the upper limit used should actually be 250 tpy to avoid the PSD Program in attainment areas.

    The EPA acknowledges that, in setting the capacity limits in the draft spark ignition engines general permit, the limit was based on the highest emission factor under the NSPS for the various engines types. We also acknowledge that there is significant variability in the emission factors for the different types of engines. Given the differences, we are revising the capacity limits to add a fuel-based capacity limit option for natural gas-fired spark ignition engines. In addition, the draft spark ignition engines general permit does not apply to engines in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector. The EPA has issued a separate, final rulemaking addressing oil and natural gas activities that includes requirements for non-emergency engines.49 Non-emergency spark ignition engines (and any additional emergency engines) located at sources that are not in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector are eligible for coverage under the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country.”

    49 “Federal Implementation Plan for True Minor Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector; Amendments to the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country to Address Requirements for True Minor Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 81 FR 35944, June 3, 2016, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-03/pdf/2016-11969.pdf.

    Regarding excluding small engines, we note that the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule exempts stationary internal combustion engines with a manufacturer's site-rated hp of less than 50. The EPA finalized this exemption during the development of the general permits.50 We have revised the permitting documents to reflect this exemption.

    50 “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country—Amendments to the Federal Indian Country Minor New Source Review Rule,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 79 FR 31035, May 30, 2014, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-30/pdf/2014-11499.pdf.

    Regarding the use of emission limits versus capacity limits, we have retained the capacity limits but we have also added additional flexibility by allowing for the use of synthetic minor fuel limits in lieu of the engine capacity limits. This flexibility is close to the approach suggested by the commenter, as it allows for engines of greater capacity as long as overall fuel use remains below the specified threshold. We consider this approach the best option for the types of owners and operators that we expect to be subject to the permits—striking a balance between flexibility and ease of compliance. Sources needing even greater operational flexibility should consider applying for a source-specific permit. The general permits are intended for common, straightforward permitting actions.

    Regarding the upper tpy emission limit used for setting the limits in the permit, we disagree with the commenter's suggestion of using 250 tpy. While the EPA will still determine when sources applying for a general permit need a source-specific permit due to air quality concerns, we do not believe that will occur as often as would be required if we used the upper threshold in attainment areas proposed by the commenter.

    Two commenters supported the proposed approach for establishing capacity limits for compression ignition emergency and non-emergency engine sources that differentiate among locations in ozone attainment, unclassifiable, or Marginal/Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. The commenters requested that the EPA explain why the draft general permit for stationary spark ignition engines does not use a similar approach. One commenter stated that nonattainment minor source permitting should be regionally specific and based on emissions inventory evaluation and modeling to determine the requirements after a designation is made. The commenter declared that because no nonattainment designation has been made in any tribal land areas, it is premature to specify minor source permitting requirements. The EPA notes that the draft general permit for spark ignition engines does not need separate limits for sources in different types of ozone areas. The limiting pollutant—the pollutant with the highest emissions in setting the capacity limits—is CO. The established limits in the draft general permit are set low enough to ensure sources in ozone nonattainment areas will be below the major source thresholds, regardless of the area's classification. The final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines in Indian Country” is not available in Serious CO nonattainment areas. Currently, there are no CO nonattainment areas.

    Regarding the comment that nonattainment minor source permitting should be based on an emissions inventory evaluation and modeling, in this instance it is not necessary to develop an emissions inventory or perform ambient air modeling in order to establish minor source permits in attainment or nonattainment areas that are protective of air quality. The general permits in this action are intended to prevent the construction of sources that would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in attainment and nonattainment areas. However, some of the general permits in this action do not cover all potential nonattainment areas because, in order to protect air quality in such areas, we would have had to construct an overly stringent, potentially unworkable permit for such sources in such areas. A better alternative is to direct such sources to work with the Reviewing Authority to develop a more workable, source-specific permit. Moreover, the Reviewing Authority has the discretion under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule to not grant coverage under a general permit to a particular source or in a particular area if there is a concern that the general permit will not be protective of air quality in the area.

    Three commenters supported the EPA's draft emission limitations for sawmill facilities, including a limitation of 25 million board feet on a 12-month rolling basis and a total tpy VOC emission limitation that becomes more stringent based on the increasing classification of the ozone nonattainment area in which the facility is located. However, one commenter asserted that it was unlikely a sawmill facility would be a true minor NSR facility and approach 80 tpy VOC without triggering the major source threshold for HAPs (Condition 23 of the draft sawmill facilities general permit). Regarding the comment that a source may trigger the major source threshold for HAPs prior to reaching the 80 ton per year/12-month rolling emission limits, the EPA has determined that such a scenario could arise and has added a synthetic minor limit for HAP emissions in the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country.”

    One commenter requested that the EPA use a 12-month rolling total limit for the production limits and emissions limitations in Conditions 19, 23 and 41 of the draft sawmill facilities general permit. The commenter also expressed concern that new sources in operation for less than 12 months would not be able to determine compliance with the draft conditions for the first 11 months. The commenter provided draft language for consideration.

    The EPA notes that the draft sawmill facilities permit uses a 12-month rolling total for the production limits and emissions limitations in Conditions 19, 23, and 41 of the draft general permit. Regarding the concern that new sources would have difficulty determining compliance with the draft conditions in the first 11 months, the general permit requires that sources maintain records of monthly production and monthly VOC emissions and submit an annual report that evaluates the source's compliance status with the emission limitations and standards. This will allow a source to evaluate its eventual compliance with the 12-month rolling total well before the 12th month. We have not modified the final “General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country,” as suggested by the commenter.

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB Control Number 2060-0003. The general permits finalized in this action do not impose any new obligations or enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal government or the private sector. This action merely establishes general permits to aid sources in satisfying the requirements of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The EPA analyzed the impact of streamlined permitting on small entities in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.51 The EPA determined that that action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action merely implements a particular aspect of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. As a result, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. And, by establishing general permits that simplify and shorten the permitting process, this rule will lessen the burden on small business in the affected source categories that are seeking to construct in Indian country.

    51 “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/01/2011-14981/review-of-new-sources-and-modifications-in-indian-country.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate, as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Sources that choose to use one or more of the general permits finalized in this action must comply with the requirements contained therein; however, no source is required to use the general permits. As a result, the action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal government or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA conducted outreach on the July 17, 2014, proposal via on-going monthly meetings with tribal environmental professionals in the development of this final action. The EPA offered consultation to elected tribal officials immediately after proposal on June 14, 2014, via letter to 566 tribes to provide an opportunity for meaningful and timely input into the development of this regulation. No tribal officials requested consultation on this action.

    Two commenters took exception to the EPA's claim that the proposed rule would “not impose duties or responsibilities on tribes.” The commenters noted that several Indian tribes own and operate facilities covered under source categories identified in the draft rule, and, thus, the draft rule will impose duties or responsibilities on some tribes. The commenters requested that the EPA review the number of tribes that own and operate facilities represented by the source categories listed in the proposed rule and determine the extent of the duties and responsibilities imposed on the tribes. The EPA disagrees with the assertion that the rule “imposes duties or responsibilities on tribes.” As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA concluded that the rule would not impose duties or responsibilities on tribes, although it will have tribal implications. Some tribes may own affected facilities in the source categories for which we are issuing general permits via this action. However, this action merely provides general permits to aid interested minor sources in Indian country in satisfying the already existing requirement under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule that they obtain a minor source permit. This action does not impose any requirements on sources in these source categories that may need to obtain a minor source permit to construct in Indian country. The use of the general permits in this final action is optional; they do not impose any compliance requirements on any source unless and until the EPA grants coverage under one of the permits to a source.

    This action reflects tribal comments on and priorities for developing general permits and permits by rule in Indian country. The RTC document details all of the comments we received on the July 17, 2014, proposal from tribal and other entities. We received comments from 5 tribal commenters. We have responded favorably to tribal comments in the several areas, including:

    • General support for the establishment of general permits for the six categories;

    • Structure and general requirements of the draft general permits;

    • Authorizing multiple locations for the use of certain general permits;

    • Specific provisions of the draft spark ignition and compression ignition engines general permits;

    • Specific provisions of the draft sawmill facilities general permit;

    • Utilizing a permit by rule for graphic arts and printing operations; and

    • Use of throughput limits and capacity limits.

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

    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.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    The final action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to use the EPA Methods 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, 22 and 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.52 Three voluntary consensus standards were identified as applicable for purposes of the proposal:

    52 Information on any available voluntary consensus standards that we indicated could be used as alternatives to the emissions measurement standards in the draft general permits can be found in: “Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Indian Country Minor New Source Review Program; 40 CFR part 49, subparts 156(c) and 162,” from Robin Segall, Acting Group Leader, Measurement Technology Group, to Laura McKelvey, Group Leader, Community and Tribal Programs Group, February 7, 2014, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151, https://www.epa.gov/tribal-air/tribal-minor-new-source-review.

    1. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 part 10 “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses” (alternative to the EPA Method 7);

    2. ASTM D7520-09 “Standard Test Method for Determining Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere” (alternative to the EPA Method 9); and

    3. ASTM D6420-99 (2010) “Test method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry” (alternative to the EPA Method 18).

    We are not finalizing these in this rulemaking. The use of these voluntary consensus standards would not be practical with applicable law due to a lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important technical and policy considerations. The EPA did not receive comments that have caused us to alter the standards and methods in the final permits.

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

    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Rather, this final rule implements certain aspects of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. Therefore, this final action will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minorities, low-income or indigenous populations in the United States.

    Our primary goal in developing this program is to ensure that air resources in Indian country will be protected in the manner intended by the CAA. We believe that when sources have permits and compliance reporting requirements, that means that there will be reduced emissions and greater responsibility on the part of sources. This final action will reduce adverse impacts by improving air quality in Indian country. In addition, we seek to establish a flexible preconstruction permitting program for minor sources in Indian country that is comparable to similar programs in neighboring states in order to create a more level regulatory playing field for owners and operators within and outside of Indian country. This final action will reduce an existing disparity by filling the regulatory gap.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control, Indians, Indians-law, Indians-tribal government, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 16, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-23178 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0312; FRL-9954-08-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; KY; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving changes to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and Environmental Cabinet, on May 3, 2016. This SIP revision removes Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities in the State and allows for the decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment in Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky (hereinafter referred to as the “Northern Kentucky Area” or “Area”). EPA determined that Kentucky's May 3, 2016, SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0312. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's telephone number is (404) 562-9222. She can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On February 3, 1998, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a SIP revision to address the Stage II requirements 1 for the Northern Kentucky Area.2 EPA approved that SIP revision, containing Kentucky regulation 401 KAR 59:174—Stage II controls at gasoline dispensing facilities, in a notice published on February 8, 1999 (63 FR 67586). On May 3, 2016, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a SIP revision to EPA seeking modifications of the Stage II requirements in the Northern Kentucky Area. Specifically, it sought the removal of the Stage II requirements in Kentucky regulation 401 KAR 59:174—Stage II Controls at gasoline dispensing facilities. EPA published a proposed rulemaking on August 17, 2016, to approve that SIP revision. The details of Kentucky's submittal and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the proposed rulemaking. See 81 FR 54780. The comment period for this proposed rulemaking closed on September 16, 2016. EPA did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, during the public comment period.

    1 Stage II is a system designed to capture displaced vapors that emerge from inside a vehicle's fuel tank, when gasoline is dispensed into the tank. There are two basic types of Stage II systems, the balance type and the vacuum assist type.

    2 On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky as part of the seven-county area in and around the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY, area as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694. The “moderate” classification triggered various statutory requirements for the Area, including the requirement pursuant to section 182(b)(3) of the CAA to require all owners and operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate Stage II. EPA redesignated the Northern Kentucky portion of the Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, effective July 31, 2002. See 67 FR 49600.

    II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Kentucky regulation 401 KAR 59:174—Stage II Controls at gasoline dispensing facilities, effective May 3, 2016, which removes Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities in the State. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.3 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information)

    3 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the May 3, 2016, revision to Kentucky Air Regulation 401 KAR 59:174, submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This action removes Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities and allows for the decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment. EPA has determined that Kentucky's May 3, 2016, SIP revision related to the State's Stage II rules is consistent with the CAA and EPA's regulations and guidance related to removal of Stage II requirements from the SIP and that these changes will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and therefore satisfy section 110(l).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 13, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 3, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart S—Kentucky 2. Section 52.920(c) Table 1 is amended under Chapter 59 by revising the entry for “401 KAR 59:174” to read of follows:
    § 52.920 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA Approved Kentucky Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Chapter 59 New Source Standards *         *         *         *         *         *         * 401 KAR 59:174 Stage II controls at gasoline dispensing facilities 5/3/2016 [Insert citation of publication] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-24779 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0362; FRL-9954-09-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; NC Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) on August 23, 2013, to demonstrate that the State meets certain infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP. NCDAQ certified that the North Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in North Carolina. EPA has determined that North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on August 23, 2013, satisfies certain required infrastructure elements for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0362. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Wong, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-8726. Mr. Richard Wong can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Overview

    On January 22, 2010 (published at 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010), EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013.

    In a proposed rulemaking published on July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47115), EPA proposed to approve North Carolina's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission submitted on August 23, 2013, with the exception of the elements related to state boards of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), and (J), and the interstate requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4). On November 13, 2015, EPA approved North Carolina's August 23, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission regarding the state boards requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). See 80 FR 67645. On May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28797), EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove in part, North Carolina's December 4, 2015, infrastructure SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J) for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Today EPA is not taking final action pertaining to sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J) for North Carolina for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS but instead will consider final action of these elements in a separate rulemaking. Additionally, on June 3, 2016, EPA finalized a rule related to the prong 4 element of North Carolina's August 23, 2013, SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See 81 FR 35634. With respect to the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2), North Carolina provided a separate submission and EPA is considering action related to these provisions through a separate rulemaking. The details of North Carolina's submission and the rationale for EPA's actions for this final rulemaking are explained in the July 20, 2016, proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before August 19, 2016. EPA received no adverse comments on the proposed action.

    II. Final Action

    With the exception of the elements related to state boards of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), and (J), and the interstate requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS submitted on August 23, 2013. EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS because the submission is consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 13, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 3, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart II—North Carolina 2. Section 52.1770(e), is amended by adding an entry for “110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1770 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions Provision State effective date EPA approval
  • date
  • Federal Register
  • citation
  • Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS August 23, 2013 10/14/16 [Insert citation of publication] With the exception of sections: 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) concerning state boards; 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) concerning PSD permitting requirements; and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4) concerning interstate transport requirements.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24778 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0429; FRL-9952-59] Isofetamid; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for residues of the fungicide isofetamid, N-[1,1-dimethyl-2-[2-methyl-4-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl]-2-oxoethyl]-3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxamide, in or on caneberry subgroup 13-07A and bushberry subgroup 13-07B. This action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on caneberry subgroup 13-07A and bushberry subgroup 13-07B. This regulation establishes maximum permissible levels for residues of isofetamid in or on these commodities. The time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2019.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 14, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 13, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0429, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 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-2016-0429 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 December 13, 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-2016-0429, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing time-limited tolerances for the fungicide, isofetamid, N-[1,1-dimethyl-2-[2-methyl-4-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl]-2-oxoethyl]-3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxamide, in or on caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.0 parts per million (ppm) and bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 5.0 ppm. These time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2019.

    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any petition from an outside party.

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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 . . . .”

    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

    III. Emergency Exemption for Isofetamid on Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A and Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B and FFDCA Tolerances

    The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) requested an emergency exemption for the use of isofetamid on blackberries, blueberries, and raspberries to control gray mold caused by Botrytis cinerea. Botrytis cinerea has a very wide host range which causes gray mold that becomes visible on developed fruit just prior to harvest. According to WSDA, Botrytis cinerea developed fungicide resistance and coupled with the unseasonably warm weather in Washington State, created conditions favorable for gray mold outbreaks resulting in crop damage and yield loss. After having reviewed the submission, EPA determined that an emergency condition exists for Washington, and that the criteria for approval of an emergency exemption are met. EPA has authorized a specific exemption under FIFRA section 18 for the use of isofetamid on blueberry, blackberry, and raspberry for control of gray mold (Botrytis cinerea) in Washington.

    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of isofetamid in or on caneberry subgroup 13-07A and bushberry subgroup 13-07B. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although these time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2019, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on caneberry subgroup 13-07A and bushberry subgroup 13-07B after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.

    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether isofetamid meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on caneberry subgroup 13-07A and bushberry subgroup 13-07B or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of isofetamid by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for persons in any State other than Washington to use this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18 absent the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for isofetamid, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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 . . . .”

    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and the time-limited tolerances for isofetamid, N-[1,1-dimethyl-2-[2-methyl-4-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl]-2-oxoethyl]-3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxamide, on caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.0 ppm and bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 5.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing time-limited tolerances follows.

    A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for isofetamid used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B of the final rule published in the Federal Register of July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45438) (FRL-9923-86).

    B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to isofetamid, EPA considered exposure under the time-limited tolerances established by this action as well as all existing isofetamid tolerances in 40 CFR 180.681. EPA assessed dietary exposures from isofetamid in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. No acute effects were identified in the toxicological studies for isofetamid; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16 software with 2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA evaluated the combined residues of parent isofetamid and its metabolite GPTC (N-[l,l-dimethyl-2-(4-β-D-glucopyranosyloxy-2-methylphenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxamide). EPA's chronic dietary exposure assessment is based on mean residue levels found in field trials for each of the crops on which isofetamid is used, using empirical and default processing factors as available, and assuming 100 percent crop treated (PCT).

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit IV.A., EPA has concluded that isofetamid does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use crop-specific PCT information in the dietary assessment for isofetamid. EPA assumed that for each food commodity on which isofetamid is used, 100% of the commodity has combined residues of parent isofetamid and GPTC equal to the mean field trial residues.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for isofetamid in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of isofetamid. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Pesticide Flooded Application Model (PFAM) and the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of isofetamid for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 110 ppb for surface water and 43 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 110 parts per billion (ppb) was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Isofetamid is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turfgrass including golf courses, residential lawns, and recreational turfgrass. Since there may be residential use sites, residential handler exposure and risk estimates were calculated for all possible residential exposure scenarios. Given that there is no dermal toxicity concern in regard to isofetamid, the residential handler assessment only includes the inhalation route of exposure. Residential handler exposure is expected to be short-term in duration as a maximum of eight applications are allowed per year. Thus, intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners. Unit exposure values and estimates for area treated or amount handled were taken from the Agency's 2012 Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment (Section 3: Lawns/Turf). The algorithms used to estimate exposure and dose for residential handlers can be found in the 2012 Residential SOPs (Section 3: Lawns/Turf). For all residential exposure scenarios, isofetamid risk estimates are not of concern. Short-term inhalation MOEs range from 850,000 to 18,000,000.

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. 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 isofetamid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and isofetamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that isofetamid 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    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 Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional Safety Factor (SF) when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of developmental toxicity or reproductive susceptibility associated with isofetamid, and there are no residual uncertainties concerning pre- or post-natal toxicity or exposure.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for isofetamid. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for isofetamid is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that isofetamid is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional Uncertainty Factors (UF) to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that isofetamid results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and average (mean) level field trial residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to isofetamid in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by isofetamid.

    D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, isofetamid is not expected to pose an acute dietary risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to isofetamid from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in the unit regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of isofetamid is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Isofetamid is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to isofetamid.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential isofetamid exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 24,000 and 3,900 for adults and children (1-2 years old), respectively. Because EPA's level of concern for isofetamid is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term non-dietary, non-occupational exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, isofetamid is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for isofetamid.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, isofetamid is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to isofetamid residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established any MRLs for isofetamid.

    VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of isofetamid, isofetamid, in or on caneberry subgroup 13-07A and bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 4.0 and 5.0 ppm. These tolerances expire on December 31, 2019.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6). 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 in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances 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).

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 30, 2016. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.681, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    §  180.681 Isofetamid; tolerances for residues.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances specified in the following table are established for residues of the fungicide, isofetamid (N-[1,1-dimethyl-2-[2-methyl-4-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl]-2-oxoethyl]-3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxamide) in or on the specified agricultural commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant to FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions. The tolerances expire on the date specified in the table.

    Commodity Parts per million Expiration date Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 4.0 12/31/2019 Bushberry subgroup 13-07B 5.0 12/31/2019
    [FR Doc. 2016-24932 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0390; FRL-9951-92] Pyridaben; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of the insecticide pyridaben in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 14, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 13, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number HQ-EPA-OPP-2015-0390, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected].

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number HQ-EPA-OPP-2015-0390 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 December 13, 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 HQ-EPA-OPP-2015-0390, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of Wednesday, August 26, 2015 (80 FR 51759) (FRL-9931-74), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5E8363) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.494 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide pyridaben, [2-tert-butyl-5-(4-tert-butylbenzylthio)-4-chloropyridazin-3(2H)-one] in or on berry, low growing subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 2.5 ppm; cucumber at 0.5 ppm; fruit, citrus group 10-10 at 0.5 ppm; fruit, pome group 11-10 at 0.75 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 2.5 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy kiwifruit at 1.5 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.05 ppm. In addition, the petitioner requests removal of established tolerances under 40 CFR 180.494 in or on apple at 0.5 ppm; pear at 0.75 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; citrus (fruit) at 0.5 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 2.5 ppm; pistachio at 0.05 ppm; grape at 1.5 ppm; and strawberry at 2.5 ppm upon approval of tolerances mentioned above and thereby eliminating redundancies. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Gowan Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Two comments were received on the notice of filing in support of this action.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised certain proposed tolerance levels, corrected crops/crop group definitions, as needed, and modified the tolerance expression for pyridaben to comply with current EPA policies. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 pyridaben including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyridaben follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity database and considered its 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.

    In subchronic and chronic oral toxicity studies in rats and mice, the adverse effects were decreased body weight and food consumption; in dogs, toxicity consisted of increased incidences of clinical signs (i.e., ptyalism) and decreased body weight. In the repeat dose dermal toxicity studies in rabbits, the adverse effect was decreased body weight. In the repeat dose inhalation toxicity study in rats, there were no adverse effects up to the highest dose tested. In all animals where toxicity was observed, body weight decreases became more pronounced as study duration increased while incidences of clinical signs of toxicity did not become more severe or more frequent as the study duration increased.

    Susceptibility was observed in the rat prenatal developmental toxicity and rat developmental neurotoxicity studies. In the rat prenatal developmental toxicity study, fetal toxicity (i.e., decreased bodyweight and incomplete ossification) occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity at the highest dose tested (HDT) of 30 mg/kg/day. In the rat developmental neurotoxicity study, offspring toxicity (i.e., decreased bodyweight) occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity at the HDT of 8.4 mg/kg/day. In the rabbit prenatal developmental toxicity study, fetal and maternal toxicity consisted of abortions and occurred at the HDT of 15 mg/kg/day. There were no adverse effects observed in the rabbit dermal prenatal developmental toxicity study. In the rat reproduction and fertility effects study, parental and offspring toxicity (i.e., decreased bodyweight) occurred at the HDT of 6.3 mg/kg/day.

    In the acute neurotoxicity study in rats, animals had increased incidences of clinical signs (i.e., piloerection, hypoactivity, tremors, and partially closed eyes). In the subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, male animals had increased incidences of impaired righting reflex. In the developmental neurotoxicity study in rats, there were no neurotoxicity effects up to the highest dose tested (17.7 mg/kg/day).

    Pyridaben has been classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic in humans” based on the results from carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. The mutagenicity studies do not indicate increased mutagenic potential in the battery of in vivo and in vitro assays.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by pyridaben as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Pyridaben—Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Greenhouse Cucumbers and Crop Group Expansions for Pome Fruit Group 11-10, Tree Nut Group 14-12, Stone Fruit Group 12-12, Citrus Fruit Group 10-10, Small Fruit Vine Climbing (except Fuzzy Kiwifruit) Subgroup 13-07F, and Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13-07G (except Cranberry), dated June 21, 2016” at page 28 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0390.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyridaben used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for pyridaben for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/Scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/safety factors RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects Acute dietary (General population including infants and children) NOAEL = 44 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Acute RfD = 0.44 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.44] mg/kg/day
  • Acute Neurotoxicity Study in Rats:
  • LOAEL = 80 mg/kg/day based on increased incidences of clinical signs (i.e., piloerection, hypoactivity, tremors, and partially closed eyes).
  • Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 2.2 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.022 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.022 mg/kg/day
  • Reproduction and Fertility Effects in Rats LOAEL = 6.3 mg/kg/day based on decreased parental and pup body weight.
    Cancer (Oral, dermal, and inhalation) Classification: “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to pyridaben, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyridaben tolerances in 40 CFR 180.494. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyridaben in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    Such effects were identified for pyridaben. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model-Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM), Version 3.16, which incorporates 2003-2008 food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used anticipated-residue estimates derived from proposed and established tolerance levels; DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 7.81 default processing factors were utilized for most processed commodities; and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16, which incorporates 2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary exposure assessment is partially refined, assuming anticipated residue estimates derived from proposed and established tolerance levels and percent crop treated estimates for most crops.

    iii. Cancer. Pyridaben has been classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that pyridaben does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    The Agency estimated the PCT for chronic exposure for existing uses as follows: almonds 2.5%; apples 20%; cherries 2.5%; grapefruit 35%; grapes 5%; lemons 2.5%; nectarines 2.5%; oranges 10%; peaches 10%; pears 35%; pecans 2.5%; plums/prunes 5%; tangelos 15%; tangerines 25%; tomatoes 2.5%; and walnuts 5%.

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which pyridaben may be applied in a particular area.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for pyridaben in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of pyridaben. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    The EPA's Tier II water models have been updated and applied in the drinking water analysis for total residues of concern (TRC) of pyridaben. The Pesticide Water Calculator (PWC), Ver.1.5001, has replaced the PE5 shell for the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) used previously to generate surface water estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) in dietary risk assessments. In addition, the PRZM-Ground Water (PRZM GW) model, version 1.07, has replaced Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW), which was used to generate groundwater EDWCs. These latest versions of the PWC and PRZM-GW models not only analyze for pyridaben, but its two degradates PB-7 and P-9, residues of concern for drinking water.

    Based on the PWC and PRZM GW, the maximum acute surface water EDWCs of pyridaben TRC for acute exposures are estimated to be 12 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and an indeterminately low concentration for ground water.

    For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.91 ppb for surface water and an indeterminately low concentration for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 12 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.91 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Pyridaben is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. 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 pyridaben to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and pyridaben does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pyridaben 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    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.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence for increased susceptibility to pyridaben following pre- or post-natal exposure in the rat reproduction and fertility effects study, notwithstanding the observed decreased pup body weight since that is not considered to be more severe than decreased parental body weight. Parental and offspring toxicity (i.e., decreased bodyweight) occurred at the HDT of 6.3 mg/kg/day.

    Increased susceptibility following prenatal exposure in the rat prenatal developmental toxicity studies was observed including fetal toxicity (i.e., decreased bodyweight and incomplete ossification) occurring in the absence of maternal toxicity at the HDT of 30 mg/kg/day. In the rabbit prenatal developmental toxicity study, fetal and maternal toxicity consisted of abortions and occurred at the HDT of 15 mg/kg/day. There were no adverse effects observed in the rabbit dermal prenatal developmental toxicity study.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for pyridaben is complete.

    ii. Although there are signs that pyridaben causes neurotoxic effects, a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats demonstrated no observed neurotoxicity effects in offspring up to the HDT of 17.7 mg/kg/day. Furthermore, the RfD of 0.44 mg/kg/day for acute dietary exposures is protective of the HTD in the developmental neurotoxicity study. Additionally, the acute RfD is based on clinical signs (piloerection, hypoactivity, tremors and partially closed eyes) in adults that could be signs of neurotoxicity, however tissue analysis did not confirm neurotoxicity. Similarly, the chronic RfD of 0.022 mg/kg/day (based on parental and pup body weight decreases in a reproductive study) is protective of the impaired righting reflex observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity study at 8.5 mg/kg/day. There is no need to retain the FQPA 10X to account for any residual uncertainties concerning neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is evidence that pyridaben results in increased susceptibility following prenatal exposure in the rat prenatal developmental toxicity and rat developmental neurotoxicity studies. There was no evidence for increased susceptibility following pre- or post-natal exposure in the rat reproduction and fertility effects study since the decreased pup body weight is not considered to be more severe than decreased parental body weight. EPA concluded that selected endpoints based on the rat reproduction and fertility effects study's NOAELs/LOAELs are protective of the susceptibility observed in the rat prenatal developmental toxicity and rat developmental neurotoxicity studies.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The pyridaben exposure databases are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably account for potential exposures. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was based on anticipated residue estimates derived from proposed and established tolerance levels and PCT assumptions and conservative ground water drinking water modeling estimates. All of the exposure estimates are not likely to result in underestimated exposure and risks posed by pyridaben.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to pyridaben will occupy 7.8% of the aPAD for the general U.S. population and 29% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to pyridaben from food and water will utilize 5% of the cPAD for the general U.S. Population and 20% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for pyridaben.

    3. Short-term and Intermediate-term risks. Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pyridaben is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, pyridaben is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to pyridaben residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC/MS) detection using a modified version of BASF Method D9312A) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected].

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    There are no Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) established for residues of pyridaben on the commodities for which tolerances are being established in this action.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    In order to harmonize tolerances with Canada and avoid trade irritants, EPA is establishing pyridaben tolerances as follows: (1) Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 3.0 ppm, instead of at 2.5 ppm as requested; (2) Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.9 ppm, instead of at 0.5 ppm as requested; and (3) Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit subgroup 13-07F at 2.0 ppm, instead of at 1.5 ppm, as requested.

    Finally, in accordance with EPA's policy to update its tolerance expressions where applicable, EPA is revising the tolerance expression to clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of pyridaben not specifically mentioned; and (2) compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide pyridaben, [2-tert-butyl-5-(4-tert-butylbenzylthio)-4-chloropyridazin-3(2H)-one] in or on berry, low growing subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 2.5 ppm; cucumber at 0.50 ppm; fruit, citrus group 10-10 at 0.9 ppm; fruit, pome group 11-10 at 0.75 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 3.0 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing except fuzzy kiwifruit subgroup 13-07F at 2.0 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.05 ppm. Additionally, the existing tolerances in or on apple at 0.50 ppm; pear at 0.75 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 2.5 ppm; citrus at 0.5 ppm; pistachio at 0.05 ppm; grape at 1.5 ppm; and strawberry at 2.5 ppm are being removed as a result of being superseded by the new tolerances. Also, the tolerance expression is being updated to clarify that the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of pyridaben not specifically mentioned and compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. Finally in order to correct a typographical error that was made in a previous action (Federal Register of July, 14, 2000 (65 FR 43704) (FRL-6593-1)), where a number was inadvertently dropped from the table in paragraph (a), the EPA is revising the goat fat tolerance from 0.0 ppm to 0.05 ppm in order to reinstate the original tolerance level published in the Federal Register of May 16, 1997 (62 FR 26954) (FRL-5178-4).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances 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 tolerance 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).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 9, 2016. Michael L. Goodis, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. Section 180.494 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 180.494 Pyridaben; tolerance for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide pyridaben, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities as indicated in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below for plant commodities is to be determined by measuring the insecticide pyridaben [2-tert-butyl-5-(4-tert-butylbenzylthio)-4-chloropyridazin-3(2H)-one] on the plant commodity. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below for animal commodities is to be determined by measuring the insecticide pyridaben and its metabolites, [2-tert-butyl-5-(4-(1-carboxy-1-methylethy 1) benzylthio)-4-chloropyridazin-3 (2H)one] and [2-tert-butyl-5-[4(-1, l-dimethyl-2-hydroxyethyl)benzylthio-4-chloropyridazin-3(2H)one] on the animal commodity.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Almond, hulls 4.0 Apple, wet pomace 0.75 Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry 2.5 Canistel 0.10 Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, meat 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 Citrus, dried pulp 1.5 Citrus, oil 10.0 Cucumber 0.50 Fruit, citrus group 10-10 0.9 Fruit, pome group 11-10 0.75 Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F 2.0 Fruit, stone, group 12-12 3.0 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, meat 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts 0.05 Hog, fat 0.05 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts 0.05 Hop, dried cones 10.0 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, meat 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 Mango 0.10 Milk 0.01 Nut, tree, group 14-12 0.05 Papaya 0.10 Sapodilla 0.10 Sapote, black 0.10 Sapote, mamey 0.10 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, meat 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05 Star apple 0.10 Tomato 0.15

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in § 180.1(m) are established for residues of the insecticide pyridaben, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring the insecticide pyridaben [2-tert-butyl-5-(4-tert-butylbenzylthio)-4-chloropyridazin-3(2H)-one] on the following plant commodity.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Cranberry 0.5
    [FR Doc. 2016-24089 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 412 [CMS-1659-CN] RIN 0938-ZB26 Medicare Program; Explanation of FY 2004 Outlier Fixed-Loss Threshold as Required by Court Rulings; Correction AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Clarification; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a technical error that appeared in the document published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2016 entitled “Medicare Program; Explanation of FY 2004 Outlier Fixed-Loss Threshold as Required by Court Rulings.”

    DATES:

    October 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Don Thompson, (410) 786-6504.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In FR Doc. 2016-01309 of January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3727), there was an error that is identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section below. The provisions of this correction document are applicable as if they had been included in the document published January 22, 2016.

    II. Summary of Errors

    On page 3728, in our discussion of the cost-to-charge ratios estimates, we made an error regarding the fiscal year (FY).

    III. Correction of Errors

    In FR Doc. 2016-01309 of January 22, 2016 (81 FR 3727), make the following correction:

    1. On page 3728, second column, first partial paragraph, line 12, the phrase “FY 2004 using actual market basket” is corrected to read “FY 2002 using actual market basket”.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Wilma Robinson, Deputy Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24917 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 190 [Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0091; Amdt. No. 190-18] RIN 2137-AF26 Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Emergency Order Procedures AGENCY:

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This interim final rule (IFR) establishes regulations implementing the emergency order authority conferred on the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) by the “Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016” (PIPES Act). These regulations are mandated by the PIPES Act and, in accordance with the Act, PHMSA is establishing procedures for the issuance of emergency orders that will be used to address an unsafe condition or practice, or combination of unsafe conditions or practices, that pose an imminent hazard to public health and safety or the environment. By implementing this statutory mandate, PHMSA will enhance its existing enforcement authority to respond immediately to conditions or practices that exist in a subset of, or across, the pipeline industry. This IFR solely affects agency enforcement procedures to implement the emergency order provisions of the law and; therefore, this rulemaking results in no additional burden or compliance costs to industry. PHMSA is issuing this IFR because the PIPES Act directs PHMSA to first issue temporary regulations. However, the agency invites comments and will, if appropriate, make changes to the IFR prior to the issuance of a final rule, which the agency must issue, by statute, no later than 270 days following enactment of the PIPES Act.

    DATES:

    Effective date: This interim final rule is effective October 14, 2016.

    Comment date: Comments must be received by December 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    U.S. Government Regulations Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Use the search tools to find this rulemaking and follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    U.S. Mail or private delivery service: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

    Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number, PHMSA-2016-0091 or the Regulatory Identification Number (2137-AF26) for this rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to the U.S. Government Regulations Web site: http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James M. Pates, Assistant Chief Counsel for Pipeline Safety, (202) 366-0331; Kristin T. L. Baldwin, Senior Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-6139, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    Section 16 of the PIPES Act amends 49 U.S.C. 60117 by establishing a new emergency order authority for PHMSA in the area of pipeline safety. See 49 U.S.C. 60117(o). The statutory mandate requires PHMSA to develop procedures for the issuance of emergency orders to address unsafe conditions or practices posing an imminent hazard. This emergency order authority augments PHMSA's existing authority (e.g., Corrective Action Orders, Notices of Proposed Safety Order, Advisory Bulletins, etc.) by allowing PHMSA to act quickly to address imminent safety hazards that exist across a subset or larger group of owners or operators.

    PHMSA is initiating this rulemaking with an IFR without prior notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity to comment because section 16 states that the Secretary of Transportation 1 must issue temporary regulations no later than 60 days (August 21, 2016) following enactment of the PIPES Act. Furthermore, the Secretary must issue final regulations no later than 270 days (March 19, 2017) following enactment of the PIPES Act, at which time the temporary regulations will expire. In order to comply with this section of the PIPES Act as quickly as possible, PHMSA has determined that good cause exists for issuing an IFR.

    1 The Secretary has delegated the responsibility to exercise the authority vested in chapter 601 of title 49, U.S.C. to the Administrator for PHMSA. See 49 CFR 1.97(a).

    II. Background and Purpose

    On June 22, 2016, the President signed the PIPES Act, Pubic Law 114-183, which amended the Pipeline Safety Laws in title 49 of the statute, 130 Stat. 514. Congress enacted section 16 to address the current gap in PHMSA's authority that prevents it from addressing conditions or practices that extend beyond or affect more than a single pipeline owner or operator and must be addressed immediately in order to protect life, property or the environment. Section 60117(o) augments PHMSA's existing enforcement authority to act quickly to address imminent safety hazards that exist across a subset or larger group of owners or operators. Section 60117(o) authorizes PHMSA to issue an emergency order if it determines that a violation, unsafe condition or practice, or a combination of unsafe conditions and practices, constitutes or is causing an imminent hazard. Under this section, an emergency order may impose restrictions, prohibitions, and safety measures on owners and operators of gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing. This regulatory authority allows PHMSA to impose conditions on a subset, or a broader group, of owners/operators, facilities, or systems, in accordance with the statutorily-mandated procedures outlined in this IFR.

    A. Current Authorities: Corrective Action Orders and Safety Orders 1. Corrective Action Orders

    Section 60112 of title 49, United States Code, provides for the issuance of a Corrective Action Order (CAO) to a pipeline facility after notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Prior to issuing a CAO, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety must consider the following factors, if relevant: (1) The characteristics of the pipe and other equipment used in the pipeline facility involved, including its age, manufacturer, physical properties (including its resistance to corrosion and deterioration), and the method of its manufacture, construction or assembly; (2) the nature of the materials transported by such facility (including their corrosive and deteriorative qualities), the sequence in which such materials are transported, and the pressure required for such transportation; (3) the characteristics of the geographical areas in which the pipeline facility is located, in particular the climatic and geologic conditions (including soil characteristics) associated with such areas, and the population density and population and growth patterns of such areas; (4) any recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued in conjunction with any investigations conducted by the NTSB; and (5) such other factors as the Associate Administrator may consider appropriate. 49 CFR 190.233(e). After weighing these factors and finding that a particular facility “is or would be hazardous to life, property, or the environment,” see 49 CFR 190.233(a), the Associate Administrator may order the suspended or restricted use of a pipeline facility, physical inspection, testing, repair, replacement, or other appropriate action. Furthermore, if the Associate Administrator finds that failure to issue the CAO expeditiously would result in the likelihood of serious harm to life, property, or the environment, the CAO may be issued without prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing. See 49 CFR 190.233(b). In such cases, the affected owner or operator must be provided with the opportunity for a hearing and expedited review as soon as practicable following issuance of the CAO. In all circumstances, CAOs are issued to and binding upon a single owner, operator, or pipeline facility. PHMSA's statutory grant of authority does not confer the ability to issue a CAO to more than one owner or operator.

    2. Safety Orders

    PHMSA also utilizes a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (NOPSO) to notify an operator that a particular pipeline facility has a condition or conditions that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. The NOPSO proposes specific measures that an operator must take to address the identified risk. These may include inspections, testing, repairs, or other appropriate actions to remedy the identified risk or condition. A NOPSO addresses pipeline integrity risks that may require the owner or operator to take immediate corrective actions or ones that must be addressed over a longer period of time. Again, these orders may only be issued to a single owner or operator and are not intended to address imminent safety or environmental hazards.

    B. Hazmat Emergency Order Authority

    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 2005 (HMTSSRA) conferred on the Secretary enhanced inspection authority for hazardous materials transportation, investigation, and enforcement authority. Public Law 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005). Prior to the enactment of HMTSSRA, DOT could obtain relief against a hazmat safety violation posing an imminent hazard only through a court order. After finding such a threat, the DOT operating administration was required to enlist the Department of Justice to file a civil action against the offending party, and seek a restraining order or preliminary injunction. As a practical matter, judicial relief could rarely be obtained before the hazardous transportation movement was complete. In 2011, PHMSA published a final rule instituting enhanced enforcement authority. (Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Enforcement Authority Procedures, 76 FR 11570 (Mar. 2, 2011)). The final rule included streamlined administrative remedies that materially enhanced PHMSA's ability to prevent the unsafe movement of hazardous materials. These procedures address the issuance of emergency orders to abate unsafe conditions or practices posing an imminent hazard related to the transportation of hazardous materials. The Emergency Order Authority regulations contained in this IFR are modeled after the enhanced authority conferred by HMTSSRA, to the extent required by the PIPES Act.

    C. Need for Enhanced Emergency Order Authority for Pipelines

    While CAOs are an effective tool for the prompt evaluation and correction of a particular operator's facilities or procedures and advisory bulletins provide recommendations—but not enforceable requirements—to a wider audience, no enforcement vehicle existed, prior to adoption of the PIPES Act, that would allow PHMSA to address immediate safety threats facing the wider industry. This new enforcement tool will allow the Administrator to issue an emergency order either prohibiting an unsafe condition or practice or imposing an affirmative requirement when an unsafe condition, practice, or other activity in the transportation of natural gas or hazardous liquids poses a threat to life or significant harm to property or the environment. The emergency order authority conferred by the PIPES Act is intended to serve as a flexible enforcement tool that can be used to address time-sensitive, safety conditions affecting multiple owners/operators, facilities, or systems that pose a threat to life or significant harm to property or the environment. Unlike a CAO issued to a single operator, an emergency order would affect multiple or all operators and/or pipeline systems that share a common characteristic or condition. A variety of circumstances could warrant such an action, including: (1) Where a natural disaster affects many pipelines in a specific geographic region; (2) where a serious flaw has been discovered in pipe, equipment manufacturing, or supplier materials; and (3) where an accident reveals a specific industry practice that is unsafe and needs immediate or temporary correction. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. PHMSA will examine the specific facts in each situation to determine if an imminent hazard exists and will tailor each emergency order to address the specific imminent hazard under each circumstance presented, while observing the statutorily-mandated due process procedures.

    D. PIPES Act Requirements Related to the Emergency Order Authority

    Under section 16 of the PIPES Act, PHMSA may issue an emergency order without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing when an unsafe condition or practice, or a combination of unsafe conditions and practices constitutes or is causing an imminent hazard. Section 16 defines an “imminent hazard” as “the existence of a condition relating to a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility that presents a substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment may occur before the reasonably foreseeable completion date of a formal proceeding begun to lessen the risk of such death, illness, injury, or endangerment.”

    The IFR requires that prior to issuance of an emergency order, PHMSA must consider the impact that an emergency order will have on public health and safety, the national or regional economy or national security, and the ability of owners and operators of pipeline facilities to maintain reliability and continuity of service to customers. An aggrieved entity may file a petition for review, at which time PHMSA must provide an opportunity for a review of the emergency order under 5 U.S.C. 554 to determine whether the order should remain in effect, be modified, or be terminated. If no agency decision with respect to the petition is issued on or before the last day of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the petition is filed, the order will cease to be effective, unless the Administrator determines in writing, on or before the last day of such period, that the imminent hazard still exists.

    III. Basis for Good Cause Determination

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, PHMSA may issue an IFR when there is “good cause” to find that the notice‐and‐comment process would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” and the agency incorporates that finding and a brief statement of the reasons supporting the finding into the rulemaking document. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), and 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(C). These statutes are incorporated into PHMSA's pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR 190.311, which allow PHMSA to modify aspects of an IFR in issuing the final rule after receiving and reviewing public comments, as well as any other relevant documents.

    The good cause exception was made part of the APA to address certain scenarios encountered by federal agencies where delay would jeopardize their assigned missions to protect the public. Advance notice and comment rulemaking procedures may be deemed impracticable when an agency cannot both follow the notice-and-comment procedure and still achieve its statutory objectives. The “impracticability exception” to normal notice and comment procedures is an important exception that is used where delay would do real harm.

    In this instance, the PIPES Act established a 60-day timeline for issuing these temporary or interim emergency-order regulations. This statutory deadline makes notice and comment impracticable, and not in the public interest. The final details of the PIPES Act were not known to PHMSA until after the statute was enacted, and the PIPES Act only affords PHMSA 60 days to issue temporary regulations implementing emergency order authority. Thus, allotting time for notice and public comment (the standard comment period for a notice of proposed rulemaking is 60 days) prior to issuing temporary regulations would thwart PHMSA's ability to manage the schedule laid out by Congress and impede the due and timely execution of the agency's functions. Furthermore, section 16 of the PIPES Act directs a specific regulatory outcome—establishing a standard for determining when an emergency order is warranted, identifying particular factors for the agency to consider, and directing the agency to follow specific consultation requirements—for which PHMSA has no discretion.

    IV. Summary of Proposals in This IFR

    This IFR establishes interim procedures to implement the expanded emergency order enforcement authority conferred by the PIPES Act. These procedures will apply only when PHMSA determines that an unsafe condition or practice is causing an imminent hazard. PHMSA may issue an emergency order without advance notice or opportunity for a hearing. The emergency order may impose emergency restrictions, prohibitions, and safety measures on owners and operators of gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities, but only to the extent necessary to abate the imminent hazard.

    Section-by-Section Analysis

    PHMSA proposes to amend part 190 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. Below is an analysis of the regulatory provisions.

    Section 190.3 Definitions

    This section contains a comprehensive set of definitions for part 190. PHMSA will add two definitions in order to clarify the meaning of these important terms as they are used in the text of this IFR.

    Emergency order means a written requirement imposing an emergency restriction, prohibition, or safety measure on owners and operators of gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

    As defined by statute, imminent hazard means “the existence of a condition relating to a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility that presents a substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment may occur before the reasonably foreseeable completion date of a formal proceeding begun to lessen the risk of such death, illness, injury, or endangerment.”

    Section 190.5 Service

    This section contains procedures for effective service of enforcement actions issued under Part 190 and is amended to specifically exclude service of emergency orders from this section. Service of emergency orders will be defined in Section 190.236 Emergency Orders.

    Section 190.236 Emergency Orders

    A new section 190.236 is added to authorize the Administrator to issue emergency orders upon determining that an unsafe condition or practice, or a combination of unsafe conditions and practices, constitutes or is causing an imminent hazard. This tool is necessary to abate conditions or other widespread circumstances that pose a substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment that may occur before the reasonably foreseeable completion date of a formal proceeding begun to lessen the risk of such death, illness, injury, or endangerment. The order must articulate a sufficient factual basis to address the emergency situation warranting prompt corrective action.

    Paragraph (a) outlines the critical elements that must be established in an emergency order prior to issuance. Principally, the order must be in writing and describe the violation, condition or practice that is causing the imminent hazard; specify the entities subject to the order; enumerate the restrictions, prohibitions, or safety measures imposed; explain the standards and procedures for obtaining relief from the order; explain how the order is circumscribed to abate the specific imminent hazard and why the authorities under sections 60112 and 60117(1) are insufficient; and explain how certain considerations were taken into account. In other words, the order must be narrowly tailored to the discrete and specific safety hazard and identify the corrective action(s) needed to remedy the hazard.

    Paragraph (d) outlines how service of an emergency order will be achieved. The Administrator will publish emergency orders in the Federal Register as soon as practicable. In addition, OPS will post emergency orders on its Web site. The emergency order will contain filing and service requirements, including the address of the DOT Docket Office and all persons to be served with petitions for review.

    Section 190.237 Petitions for Review

    A new section 190.237 is added to provide an affected party with administrative due process rights to seek redress of an emergency order, and thus, 49 CFR 190.237 sets forth the procedures for filing a petition for administrative review of an emergency order. The petition: (1) Must be in writing; (2) specifically state the section(s) of the emergency order being appealed; (3) include all information and arguments in support of the appellant's petition; and (4) follow appropriate service procedures. The petitioner may request a formal or an informal hearing. If a petitioner requests review of the order under section 554 of title 5, the party must detail the material facts in dispute giving rise to the hearing request. This process will allow PHMSA and the aggrieved entity to present evidence and argument in relation to the emergency order. If the petitioner does not request a formal hearing, the petition will be handled informally through the Office of Pipeline Safety unless the Associate Administrator determines that there is a reasonable basis for handling the petition through the formal hearing process.

    Paragraphs (c) sets out the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety's responsibilities. These include: (1) Upon receipt of a petition for review of an emergency order that includes a formal hearing request and states material facts in dispute, immediately assigning the petition to the Office of Hearings, DOT; (2) for a petition for review of an emergency order that does not include a formal hearing request or fails to state material facts in dispute, issuing an administrative decision on the merits within 30 days of receipt of the petition (the Associate Administrator's decision will constitute the agency's final decision); (3) if more than one petition for review of an emergency order is received, and those orders are substantially similar, the Associate Administrator may consolidate the petitions for the purposes of complying with 49 CFR 190.237; and (4) in the event that a petitioner does not request a formal hearing, the Associate Administrator may reassign the petition to the Office of Hearings, DOT, when there is a reasonable basis for the reassignment.

    Paragraphs (d) through (k) set out the administrative hearing procedures that the Department's Office of Hearings would employ. Upon receiving the petition from PHMSA, the Chief Administrative Law Judge assigns it to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who schedules and conducts an “on the record” hearing under 5 U.S.C. 554. Given the statutory language of the PIPES Act, a petitioner must be afforded an opportunity for a formal hearing that addresses the merits of a petition to ensure that a record is created in a proceeding that forms the basis for the final agency decision and judicial review, if necessary.

    Paragraph (d)(1) provides that an ALJ may administer oaths and affirmations, issue subpoenas as authorized by PHMSA's regulations, enable the parties to engage in discovery, and conduct settlement conferences and hearings to resolve disputed factual issues. PHMSA expects ALJs to conduct efficient and expeditious proceedings, including controlling discovery actions, to enable the parties to obtain relevant information and present material arguments at a hearing within the time parameters established.

    Paragraph (g) requires the ALJ to issue a report and recommendation when the record is closed. The decision must contain factual findings and legal conclusions based on legal authorities and evidence presented on the record. Critically, the decision must be issued within 30 days after the Chief Counsel receives the petition.

    PHMSA notes that Congress mandated that the Secretary must decide a petition for review within 30 days of its receipt, unless the Secretary determines in writing that an imminent hazard continues to exist, extending the order, pending review of the petition. See 49 U.S.C. 60117(o)(5). Therefore, paragraph (j) provides that the emergency order will no longer be effective if no agency decision has been rendered on the petition within 30 days of the receipt of the petition, unless the Administrator determines in writing that the imminent hazard continues to exist. The order would then remain in effect pending the disposition of the petition unless stayed or modified by the Administrator. PHMSA maintains that this provision is necessary to ensure that the order is extended until the imminent hazard is abated.

    Paragraph (h) provides that an aggrieved party may file a petition for reconsideration of the ALJ's report and recommendation with the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety within one day of the issuance of the decision. The Associate Administrator is charged with issuing a final agency decision on the petition for reconsideration within three days of service of the final pleading, but no later than 30 days after receipt of the original petition for review.

    Judicial review would be available in an appropriate District Court and afforded expedited consideration. All parties should note that the filing of a petition will not stay or modify the force and effect of final agency decision unless otherwise ordered.

    Paragraph (k) specifies the computation of time in the adjudications process.

    Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Interim Final Rule

    PHMSA's general authority to publish this IFR and prescribe pipeline safety regulations is codified at 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq. Section 16 of the PIPES Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish procedures for the issuance of emergency orders that will be used to address an unsafe condition or practice, or combination of unsafe conditions or practices that pose an imminent hazard to public health and safety or the environment. The Secretary has delegated the responsibility to exercise this authority to the Administrator. See 49 CFR 1.97(a).

    B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Policies and Procedures

    This IFR is a non-significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993) and 13563, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), and; therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This IFR is non-significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation. 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” This IFR solely affects agency enforcement procedures to implement the emergency order provisions of the law, and therefore this rulemaking results in no additional burden or compliance costs to industry. However, under circumstances warranting that PHMSA issue an emergency order, there may be incremental compliance actions and costs to operators and benefits related to the immediate lessening of the imminent risks of death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment across the entirety of affected populations and environments. In the case of existing regulatory provisions, costs and benefits are attributable to the original rulemaking.

    Executive Order 13132

    This IFR has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). This IFR does not introduce any regulation that: (1) Has substantial direct effects on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments; or (3) preempts state law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

    Further, this IFR does not have an impact on federalism that warrants preparation of a federalism assessment.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60101 et seq., requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this rule does not directly impact any entity, PHMSA determined that this IFR will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    PHMSA has analyzed this IFR in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Pub. L. 96-511 (Dec. 11, 1980). The PRA requires federal agencies to minimize paperwork burden imposed on the American public by ensuring maximum utility and quality of federal information, ensuring the use of information technology to improve Government performance, and improving the federal government's accountability for managing information collection activities. This IFR contains no new information collection requirements subject to the PRA. However, following issuance of an emergency order, PHMSA may require the issuance of status updates, reports, or other information. PHMSA seeks comment on the potential paperwork burdens associated with this rulemaking.

    E. Executive Order 13175

    PHMSA has analyzed this IFR according to the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000). Because this IFR will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

    F. Executive Order 13211

    This IFR is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211. 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001). It is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant, adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Furthermore, this IFR has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

    G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The proposal in this IFR would not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995. Pub. L. 104-4 (Dec. 4, 1995). The IFR would not result in annual costs of $100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State, local, or Indian tribal governments, or the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative to achieve the objective of the IFR.

    H. Environmental Assessment

    The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375, requires that federal agencies analyze proposed actions to determine whether an action will have a significant impact on the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations order federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering (1) the need for the proposed action (2) alternatives to the proposed action (3) probable environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the consideration process. 40 CFR 1508.9(b).

    1. Purpose and Need

    Congress enacted the PIPES Act, in part, to address safety issues affecting multiple or all owners/operators of gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities

    2. Alternatives

    Because this IFR addresses a Congressional mandate, we have limited latitude in defining alternative courses of action. The option of taking no action would be both inconsistent with Congress' direction and undesirable from the standpoint of safety and enforcement. Failure to implement the new authority would continue PHMSA's inability to address conditions or practices constituting an imminent risk of death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment.

    3. Analysis of Environmental Impacts

    There are no direct environmental impacts to analyze. However, the issuance of an emergency order represents a reduction in imminent risk of death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment that cannot be lessened timely enough through a formal proceeding begun to lessen the risk.

    I. Regulation Identifier Number

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the United Agenda.

    J. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register, see 65 FR 19477-78 (April 11, 2000), or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 190

    Emergency Orders; Administrative practice and procedures.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, PHMSA amends 49 CFR Subchapter C as follows:

    PART 190—PIPELINE SAFETY PROGRAMS AND RULEMAKING PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 190 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.

    2. In § 190.3, new definitions for “Emergency Order” and “Imminent Hazard” are added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 190.3 Definitions.

    Emergency order means a written order imposing restrictions, prohibitions, or safety measures on affected entities.

    Imminent hazard means the existence of a condition relating to a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility that presents a substantial likelihood that death, serious illness, severe personal injury, or a substantial endangerment to health, property, or the environment may occur before the reasonably foreseeable completion date of a formal administrative proceeding begun to lessen the risk of such death, illness, injury or endangerment.

    3. In § 190.5, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 190.5 Service.

    (a) Each order, notice, or other document required to be served under this part, with the exception of emergency orders under § 190.236, will be served personally, by certified mail, overnight courier, or electronic transmission by facsimile or other electronic means that includes reliable acknowledgement of actual receipt.

    4. Add § 190.236 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 190.236 Emergency orders.

    (a) Determination of imminent hazard. When the Administrator determines that a violation of a provision of the Federal pipeline safety laws, or a regulation or order prescribed under those laws, an unsafe condition or practice, or a combination of unsafe conditions and practices, constitutes or is causing an imminent hazard, as defined in § 190.3, the Administrator may issue or impose an emergency order, without advance notice or an opportunity for a hearing. The basis for any action taken under this section will be set forth in writing that describes:

    (1) The violation, condition, or practice that constitutes or is causing the imminent hazard;

    (2) Those subject to the order;

    (3) The restrictions, prohibitions, or safety measures imposed;

    (4) The standards and procedures for obtaining relief from the order;

    (5) How the order is tailored to abate the imminent hazard and the reasons the authorities under 49 U.S.C. 60112 and 60117(l) are insufficient to do so;

    (6) How the considerations listed in paragraph (c) of this section were taken into account.

    (b) Consultation requirement. In evaluating the considerations under paragraph (c), the Administrator shall consult as the Administrator determines appropriate, with appropriate Federal agencies, State agencies, and other entities knowledgeable in pipeline safety or operations.

    (c) Considerations. Prior to issuing an emergency order, the Administrator must consider the following:

    (1) The impact of the emergency order on public health and safety;

    (2) The impact, if any, of the emergency order on the national or regional economy or national security;

    (3) The impact of the emergency order on the ability of owners and operators of pipeline facilities to maintain reliability and continuity of service to customers; and

    (4) The result of consultations with appropriate Federal agencies, State agencies, and other entities knowledgeable in pipeline safety or operations.

    (d) Service. The Administrator will publish emergency orders in the Federal Register, as soon as practicable upon issuance. In addition, OPS will post emergency orders on its Web site. The emergency order will contain filing and service requirements, including the address of DOT Docket Operations and of all persons to be served with petitions for review.

    5. Add § 190.237 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 190.237 Petitions for review.

    (a) Requirements. An entity that is subject to and aggrieved by an emergency order may petition the Administrator for review to determine whether the order will remain in place, be modified, or terminated. A petition for review must:

    (1) Be in writing;

    (2) State with particularity each part of the emergency order that is sought to be amended or rescinded and include all information, evidence and arguments in support thereof;

    (3) State whether a formal hearing in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 554 is requested, and, if so, the material facts in dispute giving rise to the request for a hearing; and,

    (4) Be filed and served in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.

    (b) Response to the petition for review. An attorney designated by the Office of Chief Counsel may file and serve, in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section, a response, including appropriate pleadings, within five days of receipt of the petition by the Chief Counsel.

    (c) Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Responsibilities—(1) Hearing requested. Upon receipt of a petition for review of an emergency order that includes a formal hearing request and states material facts in dispute, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety will immediately assign the petition to the Office of Hearings, DOT. Unless the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety issues an order stating that the petition fails to set forth material facts in dispute and will be decided under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a petition for review including a formal hearing request will be deemed assigned to the Office of Hearings three days after the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety receives it.

    (2) No hearing requested. For a petition for review of an emergency order that does not include a formal hearing request or fails to state material facts in dispute, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety must issue an administrative decision on the merits within 30 days of receipt of the petition. The Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety's decision constitutes the agency's final decision.

    (3) Consolidation. If the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety receives more than one petition for review of an emergency order, and those petitions share common issues of law or fact, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety may consolidate those petitions for the purposes of complying with this section.

    (4) Agency authority to request a formal hearing. In the event that a petitioner does not request a formal hearing, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety may still reassign the petition to the Office of Hearings, DOT, when a reasonable basis exists for the reassignment.

    (d) Hearings. Formal hearings must be conducted by an Administrative Law Judge assigned by the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge may:

    (1) Administer oaths and affirmations;

    (2) Issue subpoenas as provided by the appropriate agency regulations (49 CFR 190.7 and 49 U.S.C. 60117);

    (3) Adopt the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts for the procedures governing the hearings when appropriate;

    (4) Adopt the relevant Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates for the submission of evidence when appropriate;

    (5) Take or cause depositions to be taken;

    (6) Examine witnesses at the hearing;

    (7) Rule on offers of proof and receive relevant evidence;

    (8) Convene, recess, adjourn or otherwise regulate the course of the hearing;

    (9) Hold conferences for settlement, simplification of the issues, or any other proper purpose; and,

    (10) Take any other action authorized by or consistent with the provisions of this part and permitted by law that may expedite the hearing or aid in the disposition of an issue raised.

    (e) Parties. The petitioner may appear and be heard in person or by an authorized representative. PHMSA will be represented by an attorney designated by the Office of Chief Counsel.

    (f) Filing and service. (1) Each petition, pleading, motion, notice, order, or other document submitted in connection with an order issued under this subpart must be filed (commercially delivered or submitted electronically) with: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. All documents filed will be published on the Department's docket management Web site, http://www.regulations.gov. The emergency order must state the above filing requirements and the address of DOT Docket Operations.

    (2) Service. Each document filed in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this section must be concurrently served upon the following persons:

    (i) Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., East Building, Washington, DC 20590.

    (ii) Chief Counsel, PHC, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., East Building, Washington, DC 20590 (facsimile: 202-366-7041).

    (iii) If the petition for review requests a formal hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (facsimile: 202-366-7536).

    (iv) Service must be made personally, by commercial delivery service, or by electronic means if consented to in writing by the party to be served, except as otherwise provided herein. The emergency order must state all relevant service requirements and list the persons to be served and may be updated as necessary.

    (3) Certificate of service. Each order, pleading, motion, notice, or other document must be accompanied by a certificate of service specifying the manner in which and the date on which service was made.

    (4) If applicable, service upon a person's duly authorized representative, agent for service, or an organization's president constitutes service upon that person.

    (g) Report and recommendation. The Administrative Law Judge must issue a report and recommendation at the close of the record. The report and recommendation must:

    (1) Contain findings of fact and conclusions of law and the grounds for the decision based on the material issues of fact or law presented on the record;

    (2) Be served on the parties to the proceeding; and

    (3) Be issued no later than 25 days after receipt of the petition for review by the Associate Administrator of Pipeline Safety.

    (h) Petition for reconsideration. (1) A party aggrieved by the Administrative Law Judge's report and recommendation, may file a petition for reconsideration with the Associate Administrator of Pipeline Safety within one day of service of the report and recommendation. The opposing party may file a response to the petition for reconsideration within one day of service of a petition for reconsideration.

    (2) The Associate Administrator of Pipeline Safety must issue a final agency decision within three days of service of the final pleading outlined in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, but no later than 30 days after receipt of the original petition for review.

    (3) The Associate Administrator of Pipeline Safety's decision on the merits of a petition for reconsideration constitutes the agency's final decision.

    (i) Judicial review. After the issuance of a final agency decision pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) or (h)(3) of this section, or the issuance of a written determination by the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (j) of this section, a person subject to, and aggrieved by, an emergency order issued under section 190.236 may seek judicial review of the order in the appropriate District Court of the United States. The filing of an action seeking judicial review does not stay or modify the force and effect of the agency's final decision under paragraph (c)(2) or (h)(3) of this section, or the written determination under paragraph (j) of this section, unless stayed or modified by the Administrator.

    (j) Expiration of order. If the Associate Administrator of Pipeline Safety, or the Administrative Law Judge, where appropriate, has not disposed of the petition for review within 30 days of receipt, the emergency order will cease to be effective unless the Administrator issuing the emergency order determines, in writing, that the imminent hazard providing a basis for the emergency order continues to exist.

    (k) Time. In computing any period of time prescribed by this part or by an order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, the day of filing of the petition for review or of any other act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run will not be included. The last day of the period so computed will be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2016, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97. Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24788 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 192 [Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0009; Amdt. No 192-121] RIN 2137-AE71 Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences AGENCY:

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Excess flow valves (EFV), which are safety devices installed on natural gas distribution pipelines to reduce the risk of accidents, are currently required for new or replaced gas service lines servicing single-family residences (SFR), as that phrase is defined in 49 CFR 192.383(a). This final rule makes changes to part 192 to expand this requirement to include new or replaced branched service lines servicing SFRs, multifamily residences, and small commercial entities consuming gas volumes not exceeding 1,000 Standard Cubic Feet per Hour (SCFH). PHMSA is also amending part 192 to require the use of either manual service line shut-off valves (e.g., curb valves) or EFVs, if appropriate, for new or replaced service lines with meter capacities exceeding 1,000 SCFH. Lastly, this final rule requires operators to notify customers of their right to request installation of an EFV on service lines that are not being newly installed or replaced. PHMSA has left the question of who bears the cost of installing EFVs on service lines not being newly installed or replaced to the operator's rate-setter.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective April 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Technical questions: Vincent Holohan, General Engineer, by telephone at 202-366-1933 or by electronic mail at [email protected]

    General information: Robert Jagger, Technical Writer, by telephone at 202-366-4361 or by electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    EFVs can reduce the risk of explosions in natural gas distribution pipelines by shutting off unplanned, excessive gas flows. These events are primarily the result of excavation damage to service lines that occurs between the gas main and the customer's building. Based on the comments to this rulemaking, PHMSA experience, and various studies, PHMSA has determined that the safety benefits of expanding the use of EFVs to new or entirely replaced distribution branch services (gas service lines that begin at an existing service line or that are installed concurrently with primary service lines but serve separate residences), multifamily facilities, and small commercial facilities is appropriate from a technical, economical, and operational feasibility standpoint.

    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    Pursuant to Section 22 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, this final rule amends the Federal pipeline safety regulations by adding four new categories of service for which EFV installation will be required. These four new categories are for new and entirely replaced services. The existing EFV installation requirement for SFRs served by a single service line remains unchanged. The new categories of service are as follows:

    • Branched service lines to a SFR installed concurrently with the primary SFR service line (a single EFV may be installed to protect both lines);

    • Branched service lines to a SFR installed off a previously installed SFR service line that does not contain an EFV;

    • Multifamily installations, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and other small multifamily buildings (e.g., apartments, condominiums) with known customer loads at time of service installation, based on installed meter capacity, up to 1,000 SCFH per service; 1 and

    1 The average single-family home uses about 200 standard cubic feet of gas per day and individual apartment units use even less.

    • A single, small commercial customer served by a single service line, with a known customer load at time of service installation, based on installed meter capacity, of up to 1,000 SCFH per service.

    Operators will be required to give all customers notice of the option to request an EFV installation, except where such installation is not required under § 192.383(c) (i.e., where the service line does not operate at a pressure of 10 psig or greater through the year, the operator has experienced contaminants in the gas stream that could interfere with EFV operation, an EFV could interfere with operation and maintenance activities, or an EFV meeting performance standards in § 192.381 is not available).

    Finally, this final rule also amends the Federal pipeline safety regulations by requiring curb valves, or EFVs, if appropriate, for applications operating above 1,000 SCFH.

    C. Costs and Benefits

    PHMSA estimates a total impacted community of 4,448 operators for this rule (3,119 master meter/small LPG operators who will need to comply with notification requirements and 1,329 natural gas distribution operators who will need to install valves and comply with notification requirements) and 222,114 service lines per year on average. It is expected to generate safety benefits in the form of reduced fatalities, injuries, lost product, and other property damage from certain types of preventable incidents in gas distribution pipelines. The overall benefits over a 50-year period were estimated at the annual equivalent of $5.5 million per year versus $10.6 million in compliance costs when calculated using a 7 percent discount rate. When using a 3 percent discount rate, the total benefits of the rule were estimated at $10.5 million while the costs were estimated at $12.0 million.

    II. Background A. Excess Flow Valves and Curb Valves

    An EFV is a mechanical safety device installed inside a natural gas distribution service line between the street and residential meter. If there is a significant increase in the flow of gas (e.g., due to a damaged line), the EFV will “trip” or close to minimize the flow of gas through the line and thus, the amount of gas escaping into the atmosphere. During normal use, the valve is kept pushed open against oncoming gas flow by a spring. EFVs are designed so that general usage, such as turning on appliances, will not shut the valve. However, during a significant increase in the flow of gas (e.g., due to a damaged line), the spring cannot overcome the force of gas, and the valve will close and stay closed until the correct pressure is restored. When the correct pressure is restored, the EFV automatically resets itself.

    Curb valves are installed below grade in a service line at or near the property line with a protective curb box or standpipe for quick subsurface access and are operated by use of a removable key or specialized wrench.

    B. The South Riding, VA, Incident

    On July 7, 1998, in South Riding, VA, an explosion stemming from a residential service line resulted in one death and three injuries. It is not known if the explosion occurred on a branched or non-branched service line, but PHMSA believes that this final rule or PHMSA's previous rule requiring EFVs on single lines serving SFRs 1 would, at a minimum, have mitigated the consequences of the explosion.

    1 “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Programs for Gas Distribution Pipelines,” 74 FR 63906 (December 4, 2009), RIN 2137-AE15.

    An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found the explosion likely would not have occurred if an EFV had been installed on the service line leading to this single-family home. As a result of its investigation, on June 22, 2001, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendation P-01-2, recommending that PHMSA “require that EFVs be installed in all new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer's classification (i.e., not just lines serving single-family residences), when the operating conditions are compatible with readily available valves.”

    C. PHMSA's EFV Studies and Evaluation Report

    In December 2005, a multi-stakeholder group convened by PHMSA published a report titled: “Integrity Management for Gas Distribution: Report of Phase I Investigations.” 2 The report recommended that “[A]s part of its distribution integrity management plan, an operator should consider the mitigative value of EFVs. EFVs meeting performance criteria in § 192.381 and installed in accordance with § 192.383 may reduce the need for other mitigation options.”

    2http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19854-0070&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

    In an effort to study the possible benefits of expanding EFVs beyond SFR applications, PHMSA began development of an Interim Evaluation in early 2009. In June and August of that year, PHMSA held public meetings on NTSB Recommendation P-01-2 with participants from the following major stakeholder groups: the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, natural gas distribution operators, trade associations, manufacturers, and the Pipeline Safety Trust.

    On December 4, 2009, PHMSA amended the pipeline safety regulations to require the use of EFVs for new or replaced gas lines servicing SFRs.3 While this requirement met the mandate of the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act enacted in 2006, other distribution lines, including those that served branched SFRs, apartment buildings, other multi-residential dwellings, commercial properties, and industrial service lines, were still not required to use EFVs. These structures are susceptible to the same risks as SFR service lines.

    3 “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Programs for Gas Distribution Pipelines,” December 4, 2009, (74 FR 63906) RIN 2137-AE15.

    PHMSA, already aware of this risk, issued a report in 2010 titled: “Interim Evaluation: NTSB Recommendation P-01-2 Excess Flow Valves in Applications Other Than Service Lines Serving One SFR” (Interim Evaluation),4 which studied the possible expansion of EFVs beyond SFRs and the challenges involved with such expansion. The Interim Evaluation also addressed other practical alternatives, such as the use of manual isolation devices (e.g., curb valves) to quickly cut off the uncontrolled flow of gas in an emergency. The Interim Evaluation also identified challenges related to the feasibility and practicality of the proposed solutions, as well as significant cost and benefit factors. The report found that there were no other devices or viable options to shut off gas supply quickly when gas service lines ruptured.

    4 The purpose of the Interim Evaluation was to respond to NTSB Safety Recommendation P-01-02 and evaluate the possibility of expansion of EFVs to applications other than service lines serving one single-family residence (above 10 psig). The report also built a foundation for an economic analysis, considered the need for enhanced technical standards or guidelines, and suggested that any new technical standards include criteria for pressure drops across the EFV. The Interim Evaluation can be found at the following link: http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=PHMSA-2011-0009-0002&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf. The Interim Evaluation was finalized in 2015 based on comments to the Interim Report.

    The Evaluation 5 was finalized in 2015, based on comments to the Interim Evaluation, input from the meetings, and comments to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) discussed below. Both reports can be found in Docket PHMSA-2011-0009.

    5http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=PHMSA-2011-0009-0027&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf.

    D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    PHMSA published an ANPRM for gas pipelines on November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72666), asking the public to comment on the findings of the Interim Evaluation and issues relating to the expanded use of EFVs in gas distribution systems. PHMSA also sought comments from gas distribution operators on their experiences using EFVs, including:

    • Technical challenges of installing EFVs on services other than SFRs;

    • Categories of service to be considered for expanded EFV use;

    • Cost factors;

    • Data analysis in the Interim Evaluation;

    • Technical standards for EFV devices; and

    • Potential safety and societal benefits, small-business and environmental impacts, and the costs of modifying the existing regulatory requirements.

    PHMSA reviewed all of the comments received in response to the ANPRM. The comments received from the trade associations largely supported expanded EFV use, with certain limitations. Individual operators raised concerns about expanded EFV use that were generally related to logistics and implementation. Comments from municipalities reflected a concern that State laws that were already in place could conflict with new Federal requirements. The NTSB expressed strong support for increased EFV use. The ANPRM comments collectively helped PHMSA finalize the Interim Evaluation and determine what regulatory changes to propose in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

    E. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011

    In January of 2012, President Obama signed the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, which required PHMSA to study the possibility of expanding the use of EFVs beyond SFRs and issue a final report to Congress on the evaluation of the NTSB's recommendation on EFVs within 2 years after enactment of the Act. PHMSA was also required to issue regulations, if appropriate, requiring the use of EFVs or equivalent technology for new or entirely replaced gas distribution branch services, multifamily facilities, and small commercial facilities if economically, technically and operationally feasible.

    F. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    PHMSA published an NPRM (80 FR 41460) on July 15, 2015, asking the public to comment on the findings of the finalized Evaluation and PHMSA's proposals relating to the expanded use of EFVs in gas distribution systems. PHMSA proposed a rule that would:

    • Expand the EFV requirement to include new or replaced branched service lines servicing SFRs, multifamily residences, and small commercial entities consuming gas volumes not exceeding 1,000 SCFH;

    • Require the use of manual service line shut-off valves (e.g., curb valves) for new or replaced service lines with meter capacities exceeding 1,000 SCFH;

    • Require operators to notify customers of their right to request installation of an EFV on existing service lines; and

    • Leave the question of who bears the cost of installing EFVs on service lines not being newly installed or replaced to the operator, customer, and the appropriate State regulatory agency.

    III. Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee

    The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (otherwise commonly referred to as the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC)) is a statutorily mandated advisory committee that advises PHMSA on proposed safety standards, risk assessments, and safety policies for natural gas pipelines. The GPAC was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 1-16) and the Federal Pipeline Safety Statutes (49 U.S.C. Chap. 601). The committee consists of 15 members, with membership equally divided among Federal and State agencies, the regulated industry, and the public. The GPAC advises PHMSA on the technical feasibility, practicability, and cost-effectiveness of each proposed natural gas pipeline safety standard.

    On December 17, 2015, the GPAC met via a teleconference facilitated by PHMSA at PHMSA's headquarters in Washington, DC. During the meeting, the GPAC considered the specific regulatory proposals set forth in the NPRM and discussed the various comments and edits to the NPRM proposed by the pipeline industry and the public. The GPAC, in a unanimous 8-0 vote, found the NPRM, as published in the Federal Register, and the Draft Regulatory Evaluation to be technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable, if (1) changes were made relative to § 192.385 paragraphs (a) and (c), as amended during the meeting; and (2) PHMSA incorporated the preamble language regarding documentation of customer notification in § 192.383(f).

    The GPAC recommended that PHMSA adopt the following changes:

    Curb Valve Accessibility for First Responders: PHMSA's proposal in the NPRM stated that manual service line shut-off valves are “a curb valve or other manually operated valve located near the service main or a common source of supply that is accessible to first responders and operator personnel [. . .] in the event of an emergency.” The GPAC recommended that the final rule remove language requiring proposed manual service line shut-off valves be accessible to “first responders and operator personnel.” Instead, the GPAC suggested that the rule require such valves be “accessible to operator personnel or other personnel authorized by the operator.” Several members of the GPAC shared the concerns of industry commenters that first responders would attempt to operate these manual service line shut-off valves without operator consent or authorization, which might lead to further or otherwise unforeseen consequences, including service outages. By allowing such valves to be used by “other personnel authorized by the operator,” operators could have discretion to ensure that people familiar with the gas distribution systems in question be qualified and authorized to operate manual service line shut-off valves, which might include properly trained emergency responders.

    Curb Valve Maintenance: PHMSA's proposal in the NPRM defined a manual service line shut-off valve as “a curb valve or other manually operated valve located near the service main or a common source of supply that is accessible to first responders and operator personnel to manually shut off gas flow to the service line in the event of an emergency.” Several commenters noted that this definition could cause confusion and the potential misinterpretation that these curb valves would be subject to the maintenance requirements at § 192.747, which states that “each valve, the use of which may be necessary for the safe operation of a distribution system, must be checked and serviced at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year.” The GPAC recommended that manual service line shut-off valves installed under section § 192.385 be subject to regular, but less prescriptive, scheduled maintenance, as documented by the operator and consistent with the valve manufacturer's specification.

    • Documentation of Customer Notification: PHMSA's proposal in the NPRM stated operators “must provide written notification to the customer of their right to request the installation of an EFV,” and that “each operator must maintain a copy of the customer EFV notice for three years.” Several commenters noted that the term “written” seemed to exclude forms of electronic notification, and they also noted that documenting individual notifications would be a costly, overly burdensome task. The GPAC recommended that PHMSA incorporate language from the NPRM preamble indicating broader options for stakeholder communication, including statements printed on customer bills or mailings or certain forms of electronic communication, including Web site postings, would satisfy the customer notification requirement, and that operators could keep a single copy of a particular method of communication for purposes of fulfilling the documentation requirement.

    This final rule adopts all three recommendations of the GPAC. Additional discussion of the amendments and associated comments of the GPAC are provided below as a part of the comment discussion.

    IV. Comment Summary and Discussion

    In the NPRM published July 15, 2015, PHMSA solicited public comment on whether the proposed amendments would enhance the safety of natural gas distribution systems, as well as the cost and benefit figures associated with these proposals. PHMSA received 12 comments from a broad array of stakeholders, including trade organizations, pipeline operators, a government agency, and a public citizen safety watchdog group. Below is a list of organizations that submitted comments in response to the NPRM as well as the individual docket number for each comment. All comments and corresponding rulemaking materials received may be viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web site under docket ID PHMSA-2011-0009.

    The majority of the comments specifically supported expanding EFV installation requirements. Major concerns included whether first responders should have access to curb valves, whether curb valves required inspection and maintenance, and what methods were being proposed for customer notification and documentation. Minor concerns included EFV installation, the effective date of the rule, and exceptions to EFV installation and notification. The substantive comments received on the proposed regulations are organized by topic and are discussed in the appropriate sections below, along with PHMSA's responses.

    Pipeline Operators (5)

    • New Mexico Gas Company (NMG) PHMSA-2011-0009-0032

    • Southwest Gas Corporation (SWG) PHMSA-2011-0009-0044

    • NiSource (NS) PHMSA-2011-0009-0042

    • Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) PHMSA-2011-0009-0041

    • MidAmerican Energy Company (MAE) PHMSA-2011-0009-0034

    Trade Associations (5)

    • American Gas Association (AGA) PHMSA-2011-0009-0037

    • National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) PHMSA-2011-0009-0045

    • Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC) PHMSA-2011-0009-0036

    • American Public Gas Association (APGA) PHMSA-2011-0009-0024

    • Northeast Gas Association (NGA) PHMSA-2011-0009-0039

    Government/Municipalities (1)

    • National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) PHMSA-2011-0009-0035

    Public Citizen Groups (1)

    • Pipeline Safety Trust (PST) PHMSA-2011-0009-0040

    A. Expansion of EFVs to Multifamily Residences, Branch Service Lines, and Small Commercial Buildings

    Proposal: EFVs can reduce the risks of explosions by shutting off unplanned, excessive gas flows, primarily from excavation damage to service lines between gas mains and buildings. Gas distribution pipeline operators are currently required to install EFVs in new and replacement service lines supplying SFRs, per the final rule titled “Integrity Management Programs for Gas Distribution Pipelines,” issued on December 4, 2009. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed adding four new categories of service for which EFV installation will be required on new and entirely replaced gas distribution services. These four new categories are as follows:

    • Branched service lines to an SFR installed concurrently with the primary SFR service line (a single EFV may be installed to protect both lines);

    • Branched service lines to an SFR installed off a previously installed SFR service line that does not contain an EFV;

    • Multifamily installations, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and other small multifamily buildings (e.g., apartments, condominiums) with known customer loads at time of service installation, based on installed meter capacity, up to 1,000 SCFH per service; and

    • A single, small commercial customer, served by a single service line, with known customer load at time of service installation, based on installed meter capacity, up to 1,000 SCFH per service.

    Comments: The majority of the commenters from trade associations, industry, citizen groups, and government entities explicitly supported the expanded use of EFVs in all categories and recognized the benefits of their use. The NTSB was “pleased that PHMSA is now proposing to expand the requirements for installing EFVs” and understood “that the expanded coverage is based on a comprehensive examination of the practical operating limits of EFVs and comments on the ANPRM.” The NTSB stated that it “supports the measures proposed in the NPRM and believes that they will improve the safety of natural gas distribution pipeline systems.” The PST noted the publication “fulfill[s] the NTSB's recommendation from 2001 to its full scope,” and they “join[ed] with the NTSB in supporting this proposed expansion.”

    Industry trade associations, such as the AGA, which represents more than 200 local energy companies throughout the United States and provides gas to 94 percent of U.S. customers, stated in their comments that they and “their member utilities completely support expanding EFV installation to multifamily residential service lines and small commercial services.” The APGA, the national, non-profit association of publicly owned natural gas distribution systems with over 700 members serving 37 States, also supported the expansion of EFVs, stating that “EFVs are the one tool that distribution operators can use to reduce the risk posed when natural gas service lines are ruptured by excavation.” The APGA also noted that “in written comments submitted in response to PHMSA's ANPRM published November 25, 2011, APGA and other commenters suggested EFV installation requirements virtually identical to what PHMSA has proposed,” and “commend[ed] PHMSA for adopting APGA's recommendation.”

    NMGC “commend[ed] and support[ed] expanding the use of excess flow valves to new and fully replaced branch services, small multifamily facilities, and small commercial facilities where economically, technically, and operationally feasible.” SWG “support[ed] the practical and reasonable expansion of EFVs to new and fully replaced service lines beyond single family residential applications,” in part “evident by its EFV installation policy and number of EFVs installed [on its existing system].” Likewise, the NGA “support[ed] PHMSA's proposal to expand the use of excess flow valves in gas distribution services for newly constructed applications other than single-family residences and when existing services are excavated or replaced,” recognizing that “installing EFVs, under conditions where they are effective, when new services are installed, or existing services are exposed, repaired or replaced, is a cost-effective measure to improve pipeline safety.” The NGA also noted that it “supported this proposal in its initial comments to the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking related to this issue in 2012.”

    PHMSA Response: PHMSA has been attempting to address issues involving the broad installation of EFVs since at least 1990, and the NTSB has issued several recommendations to PHMSA and the regulated industry regarding the installation of EFVs on particular services as far back as the 1970s. NTSB Recommendation P-01-2, which asks PHMSA to “require that excess flow valves be installed in all new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer's classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with readily available valves,” is one of PHMSA's oldest, unclosed NTSB recommendations.

    Prior attempts to require the installation of EFVs on certain gas distribution services were not supported by both industry and State pipeline safety partners; for years, EFVs were perceived as unreliable, costly pieces of equipment that might accidentally close and interfere with normal service, interfere with maintenance activities, or be difficult to size and use at varying line pressures. Further, in the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006, Congress provided PHMSA with a mandate to focus its resources on requiring EFV installation on service lines serving single-family residences as part of PHMSA's gas distribution integrity management program (DIMP) rulemaking. Following the issuance of the DIMP rulemaking and the EFV regulations in 2009, EFVs became more technologically feasible and cost-effective to a point where it became a realistic possibility for PHMSA to address fully the NTSB recommendation. PHMSA performed several studies and surveys to evaluate the feasibility of its position on high-volume EFVs and used its experience in the prior EFV rulemaking to assist in formulating this proposal. PHMSA is pleased that there is now such widespread support, both from industry and public groups, for expanding the installation of EFVs beyond SFRs. Accordingly, this final rule amends the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations by adding the proposed four new categories of service to require EFV installation on branched service lines (both branched lines to SFRs installed concurrently with the primary SFR service line and branched lines to SFRs installed off a previously installed SFR service lines not containing an EFV), lines serving multifamily installations, and lines serving small commercial and industrial customers.

    B. Curb Valve Accessibility to First Responders

    Proposal: In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed requiring operators to install curb valves for applications that operate above 1,000 SCFH, are not suitable for EFV installation, and do not meet the exemptions in the existing § 192.383. Curb valves are the most feasible alternative to EFVs in locations that exceed 1,000 SCFH or have other issues that prevent EFV use. Although they cannot be operated instantaneously like EFVs, curb valves can still mitigate the effects of gas line explosions and are an effective safety measure. Therefore, PHMSA proposed that any curb valves installed under this section be accessible to first responders. PHMSA's experience indicates that, frequently, first responders arrive at the scene of an incident before operator personnel do. If first responders have access to a curb valve during an emergency and can operate it, the valve can be closed to mitigate further consequences.

    Comments: The NTSB was pleased to note that PHMSA's proposal to require that operators “install a manual service line shut-off valve on new or replaced service lines in such a manner that emergency personnel can access the valve [. . .] goes beyond the original intent of [the NTSB's] recommendation, to further ensure safety.” The PST joined the NTSB in supporting this measure.

    Several of the commenters representing trade associations and operators supported the use of curb valves where EFVs are not feasible but strongly opposed requiring that curb valves always be accessible to first responders. These commenters generally indicated that it should be the operator's responsibility to operate these select portions of gas distribution systems and that it should be up to the operator's discretion to allow other personnel to operate these valves, if needed. Certain operators noted the “Pipeline Emergencies” training manual, a document developed by a team of respected emergency response and industry experts in partnership with the National Association of Fire Marshals and PHMSA, states that emergency responders should consult the local gas company to determine local procedures for fire department use of curb valves. The AGA indicated there are a few unique situations where operators have properly trained first responders to operate curb valves, but such a practice is not followed by most utilities. Certain industry operators, including the SPPC, commented that they specifically train first responders in their service territories, for safety reasons, not to manually shut off gas flows. If manual service line shut-off valves are accessible to first responders, first responders may operate the wrong valve, may not have the proper equipment to operate the valve, or may incorrectly operate the valve.

    Operators and trade associations also asserted that, given the complexity of gas distribution systems, emergency shut-off valves should only be operated by operator-qualified personnel who are familiar with the specific gas distribution system in question. NS suggested that, as operators have engineering records indicating the location of all valves and which ones they control, operator personnel can verify the location and purpose of a valve, thereby eliminating the possibility of operating the wrong one and creating a greater hazard.

    The AGA noted there are many accounts of first responders who, without the approval of the gas company, have inadvertently closed the wrong valve or opened a valve that should have been closed. Several operators argued that allowing first responders to operate manual service line shut-off valves would create additional inconveniences or safety risks, including loss of service to other customers or additional property damage, injuries, or even deaths.

    Some operators indicated that giving first responders immediate access to curb valves would distract them from their primary mission, which is to perform safety assessments, make locations safe for people, and conduct evacuations from areas of danger. Instead, they would suddenly have responsibility for locating valves, determining which valves should be closed, and closing them—tasks which could potentially interfere with their primary mission and for which they might not be trained.

    At the GPAC meeting, members of the committee expressed concerns similar to those raised by industry regarding unauthorized or improper manual service line shut-off valve usage. The committee debated whether there could be a requirement authorizing first responders to operate those particular valves or whether operators could give discretion to certain first responders to operate valves. One question that was brought up was whether eliminating “first responders” from the proposed language (which would leave “accessible to operator personnel” remaining) would unintentionally create a requirement that would make manual service line shut-off valves accessible to only company personnel. The committee eventually suggested revising the paragraph by striking the reference to first responders and inserting “other personnel authorized by the operator.” The committee believed this would give operators the primacy they sought for operating their own distribution systems while, at the same time, making the valves accessible and usable by non-operator personnel with the operator's consent.

    PHMSA Response: PHMSA disagrees with those commenters who argued that curb valves should not be accessible to first responders. Many comments PHMSA received seemed to equate valve accessibility with authority or expectation to operate those valves without consent. PHMSA is in no way implying that first responders should have complete autonomy in deciding whether to operate valves on a given gas distribution system.

    In PHMSA's experience, there have been accidents where the consequences have grown due to operator delays in shutting off curb valves. As a part of an operator's regular liaison with first responders, operators can, if they wish, train first responders to use curb valves properly through regular exercises and communications. Further, if the valve cover plate is clearly marked, there should not be any confusion regarding the operation of the valve in an emergency. However, PHMSA is not advocating the unauthorized operation of these valves. Unless they believe there is imminent threat to human life or extensive property damage, first responders should not operate curb valves without operator input or consent.

    In this final rule, PHMSA is adopting the language recommended by the GPAC, which would make curb valves accessible to operators and other personnel authorized by the operator to manually shut off gas flow, if needed, in the event of an emergency. PHMSA appreciates the work of the GPAC in proposing a consensus solution that enables first responders, if qualified and authorized, to operate valves if needed, yet retains the operators' right to make decisions regarding the operation of their own systems.

    C. Curb Valve Maintenance

    Proposal: In its NPRM, PHMSA proposed requiring operators to install curb valves for applications that operate above 1,000 SCFH, are not suitable for EFV installation, and do not meet the exemptions in the existing § 192.383. Curb valves are the most feasible alternative to EFVs in locations that exceed 1,000 SCFH or have other issues that prevent EFV use. Although they cannot be operated instantaneously like EFVs, curb valves can still mitigate the effects of gas line explosions and are an important safety measure. Under the proposed amendment to § 192.385(c), manual service line shut-off valves for any new or replaced service line must be installed in such a way as to allow accessibility during emergencies.

    Comments: Just as it supported the proposal to ensure the accessibility of curb valves to first responders, the NTSB also supported this proposal. Comments from industry and trade associations, however, were unified in their concern that this requirement would create confusion regarding maintenance requirements based on earlier PHMSA interpretations.

    Specifically, operators noted that the addition of § 192.385, as proposed in the NPRM, might lead to the mistaken inference that manual service line shut-off valves would be subject to the valve maintenance requirements set forth in § 192.747, “Valve maintenance: Distribution systems.” The AGA, NMGC, SWG, and APGA all noted that PHMSA has issued many letters of interpretation affirming that § 192.747 does not apply to curb valves, but the proposed § 192.385 could be misconstrued to require such annual inspections. The AGA and NMGC support PHMSA's historical position that manual curb valves are not considered a “critical valve” for inspection purposes, suggesting that if these valves were to be designated as critical valves, operators would have to hire and train a significantly larger staff to inspect and maintain these valves, which would significantly increase operating costs and impose an administrative burden. The AGA and APGA noted that if it was PHMSA's intent to change its position and require annual inspections on these manual curb valves, this is not indicated in the NPRM, the estimated cost of the rule, or the estimated paperwork burden. Operators suggested PHMSA clearly state in the final rule that curb valves installed under this proposal would not be subject to the requirements at § 192.747.

    At the GPAC meeting, members of the committee discussed this proposal and whether these valves should be inspected and maintained according to the requirements at § 192.747. Several members agreed that inspecting and maintaining these valves would be an important safety measure, although several suggested that requiring these valves to be inspected and maintained would require an increase in staffing and operator qualification.

    Other members of the committee expressed concerns about operating these valves for inspection purposes, arguing that testing curb valves could knock out service in areas if they were operated improperly, and that testing could potentially present more risk than reward. Members of the committee also agreed that requiring annual inspection and maintenance of these valves would be unreasonable and perhaps unnecessary. Some suggested that if these valves were to be inspected and maintained, then perhaps those requirements could be tied to existing maintenance activities, such as leak surveys and patrolling, meter-change programs, or other times when service lines would be shut off.

    Ultimately, the committee suggested requiring valves installed under this section to be subject to regularly scheduled and documented maintenance consistent with the valve manufacturer's specifications. While some GPAC members expressed concern that valve manufacturers might specify overly stringent inspection and maintenance intervals for particular curb valves, other GPAC members noted that manufacturer specifications are an important part of the industry's operation and maintenance considerations.

    PHMSA Response: PHMSA believes that curb valves installed under this section must be accessible (e.g., clear of debris) and occasionally operated to ensure they are working properly. A curb valve does not provide any safety benefit if it is inoperable. Therefore, to ensure the safe operation of a particular gas distribution system, it is imperative that these valves function as intended. PHMSA concluded that the burden of inspecting and maintaining these valves would be minimal, as operator personnel can meet these requirements by simply ensuring the valves are free of debris that could prevent operation and by ensuring the valves are able to turn and operate. Further, these requirements can be quickly performed and will not be an undue burden on operators, as operators can choose to coordinate them with other activities, such as leak surveys, patrolling, meter-change programs, as well as other actions where service would be shut off and properly qualified personnel are present.6 PHMSA also agrees with the GPAC discussion regarding manufacturer specifications. Not only are manufacturer specifications important to consider in the context of operating a safe gas transportation system, but market forces typically ensure reasonable operation and maintenance standards.

    6 Nonetheless, if there is minimal increase in time spent on the order of 5 minutes per visit for curb valve maintenance, PHMSA estimates costs would be approximately $113,416 annually for an estimated 40,955 curb valves per year based on a fully loaded hourly wage rate for natural gas distribution meter readers ($33.23 per hour per Bureau of Labor Statistics information (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes435041.htm) and a total of 3,413 hours.

    PHMSA appreciates the work of the GPAC in debating this proposal and chooses to adopt the language the GPAC recommended, as the amendment strikes a good balance between limiting any potential burden imposed on operators and performing necessary activities to ensure operability and safety. Therefore, the final rule amends the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to require that manual service shut-off valves installed under this section be subject to regular scheduled maintenance as documented by the operator and consistent with the valve manufacturer's specifications.

    D. Customer Notification

    Proposal: PHMSA proposed in the NPRM that operators must notify customers of their right to request the installation of EFVs. Specifically, each operator must provide written notification to the customer of their right to request the installation of an EFV within 90 days of the customer first receiving gas at a particular location. Operators of master-meter systems may continually post a general notification in a prominent location frequented by customers.

    Comments: PHMSA received several comments on the proposed notification requirement regarding the frequency of notification, method of notification, notification content, and the persons who should receive notification. The NTSB was “pleased that PHMSA is proposing to require the operator to inform customers of their right to request an EFV be installed on an existing service line,” and the PST joined the NTSB in that support. Operators and trade associations nearly universally supported notifying all existing customers of their right to request an EFV through broad communication methods rather than the proposed individual, dedicated notification method, which those commenters argued would have created a significant administrative burden.

    Some commenters questioned the effectiveness of the requirement for notification to customers within 90 days of new service. The APGA felt it was unclear what was meant by “notification must occur within 90 days of the customer first receiving gas at a particular location.” This could be interpreted to apply when the operator changed the name of the person to whom it sends gas bills. This could also be interpreted not to require notification of existing customers who have been receiving gas for more than 90 days. MAE noted it appears the intent studied in the Evaluation was for a single annual notification to all customers and customer classes, based on a 1-hour level of burden. Several operators, including MAE and SPPC, as well as trade organizations, argued that establishing a 90-day requirement per customer would cause a significant increase in costs, documentation efforts, and a tangible administrative burden. MAE concurs with the idea of notifying owners of the option for an EFV and its potential benefits but believes this could be done with a new customer packet that could be acted upon by customers who want to initiate installation. This could then be inspected as a part of the public awareness program.

    Many operators and trade associations suggested that notifying all existing customers through a broad notification, such as “bill stuffers,” “new customer” packets, and Web site postings, would be a better use of operator resources and provide greater benefits. SWG noted that allowing operators to provide EFV notification through broad means would be consistent with the way PHMSA proposed the notification requirement for master-meter operators. Further, the AGA mentioned that the NPRM's “Section-by-Section” analysis indicated PHMSA was open to other forms of notification, such as a printed statement on a customer bill or mailings, but that was not evident in the actual proposed regulatory text. Members of the GPAC echoed this statement when the committee meeting was held and wanted PHMSA to clarify which methods of notification were acceptable. The AGA suggested that given the number of customers that have migrated to online billing and have opted to receive notifications electronically from their natural gas service provider, operators should be able to satisfy the notification requirement through electronic notifications to customers, postings on the company's Web site, and other forms of electronic communications. Satisfying the proposed requirement through these methods as well as traditional communications would allow effective communication at a lower cost and in a more efficient manner. The AGA urged PHMSA to make it clear in the final rule that individual communications to each customer would not be required, and that an annual general EFV communication would suffice. The APGA noted that, as many operators may elect to use bill stuffers to notify all customers about EFVs, PHMSA should allow, as an alternative to notification within 90 days of a customer receiving gas, operators to notify all customers annually of their right to request an EFV. For many APGA members, this would be the least administratively burdensome method of notifying customers and have the added benefit of providing customers who may have overlooked the original notice with additional opportunities to choose to have an EFV installed on their service lines.

    Several commenters had miscellaneous concerns on what the customer notification should contain. SPPC suggested providing a description of EFVs and their safety benefits as well as advice on how to request one, a notification that could be inspected as part of an operator's public awareness program. The AGA recommended that PHMSA require operators include general information in their public communications on the cost associated with retrofitting an existing service line to accommodate an EFV. NS suggested PHMSA adapt and incorporate language similar to that issued in the 1998 EFV customer notification rule, including language discussing the potential safety benefits, a description of installation and replacement costs, and an explanation of when a requested EFV would be installed.

    PHMSA Response: PHMSA appreciates the comments received on this topic and the industry's support for a broad annual notification requirement that would provide customers with important safety information. When outlining the proposal in the NPRM, PHMSA did not intend to suggest that customer EFV notifications needed to be non-electronic or otherwise individually carried out. PHMSA has no objection to the method by which operators notify their customers as long as the operator can be sure of reaching all customers who have a right to request an EFV. Therefore, a combination of methods, including Internet Web site postings, bill stuffers, new customer packets, statements on billing materials, et cetera, can be used to notify all customers. PHMSA has determined that, as many of the commenter-proposed methods would theoretically notify, on a regular basis, all customers about their potential right to request an EFV, a broad, electronic method of communication would meet the intent of the regulation and be acceptable.

    PHMSA has also determined that, as operators appear to be willing to notify all existing customers about their potential right to request an EFV, the specific 90-day customer notification window for new services is unnecessary. PHMSA has removed this language from the final regulatory text. A broad notification to all customers will also address any concerns about reaching customers who are not eligible for EFV installation or who have already had EFVs installed.

    As for the specific content of a notification, PHMSA has determined it would be beneficial to include language that was previously required in the 1998 EFV notification rule, especially considering that operators would already be familiar with the previous requirements. In line with comments from SPPC, AGA, and NS, PHMSA will require that operators include general information on the cost associated with EFV installation, the potential safety benefits that may be derived from installing an EFV, and conditions for installation. The operator may choose how to word the specific information as long as they provide sufficient information to give customers a rational basis for deciding whether they want to request an EFV installation. The notification should also be written in plain language.

    E. Customer Documentation

    Proposal: PHMSA proposed in the NPRM that each operator must maintain a copy of the customer EFV notice for 3 years. This notice must be available during PHMSA inspections or State inspections conducted under a pipeline safety program certified or approved by PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. 60105 or 60106.

    Comments: The majority of the comments submitted by industry and trade associations were an extension of the concerns regarding customer notification and focused on the idea that documenting individual notifications would be a major undertaking and a poor use of resources. While many operators and trade associations seemed to agree that using and documenting broad methods of communications (e.g., statements printed on customer bills, mailings, or electronic Web pages) would be reasonable, there were some differing opinions on how notifications should be documented.

    The AGA recommended that the final rule allow retention of a single copy of any notice, accompanied by a listing of the customers who received the mailing, or by documenting the electronic communication itself. The APGA noted that in the proposed rule's preamble, PHMSA stated that evidence of notification could include such items as a statement printed on customer bills or mailing. The APGA further noted that PHMSA did not propose to require operators to keep records showing that individual customers had been notified. SWG stated that while the section-by-section analysis indicated that operator evidence of notification could include such items as a statement printed on customer bills or mailings, the proposed regulatory text did not include such language.

    Some operators and trade associations discussed other issues pertaining to the 3-year recordkeeping requirement. SPPC and NGA noted that customer properties with frequent turnover would have multiple records for the same address that would need to be maintained and sorted for a period that could extend beyond the 3 years required by the regulations. The NPGA argued that PHMSA's recordkeeping requirement presented a greater burden than estimated. For large liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) operators, it would be a considerable clerical task to collect and review all EFV installation notifications to maintain a record spanning 3 years. The NPGA suggested that PHMSA permit the recordkeeping as an option rather than a requirement, which would allow LPG operators to choose best practices for their businesses and customers.

    PHMSA Response: PHMSA determined that several of the concerns raised by commenters in this section could be addressed through clarifying the proposed language and through revisions to the customer notification method.

    It was not PHMSA's intent to suggest that operators would need to transmit and document individual notifications to eligible customers. As a few of the commenters pointed out, PHMSA had indicated that a statement printed on customer bills or mailings would suffice as evidence for customer notification, but this language and intent was not incorporated into the proposed regulatory text. As PHMSA is allowing operators to notify customers through a broad range of electronic and traditional communications, the agency will also allow operators to retain a copy of the broad annual notification or notifications they are using to communicate with customers their right to request an EFV. In line with the 2008 Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations regarding operator evidence of customer notification, operators will be required to make a copy of the notice currently in use available during PHMSA inspections or inspections conducted under a program certified or approved by PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. 60105 or 60106 without any further recordkeeping requirement or timeframe.

    F. Installation Flexibility

    Proposal: PHMSA proposed in the NPRM that operators must install a manual service line shut-off valve for any new or replaced service line with an installed meter capacity exceeding 1,000 SCFH.

    Comments: Overall, operators and trade associations supported installing curb valves where EFVs are not feasible due to operational concerns. However, many operators and trade associations noted that the language, as proposed, did not allow operators flexibility for installing EFVs where possible on lines operating at greater than 1,000 SCFH and also might require operators to install both an EFV and a manual service line shut-off valve on the same line.

    Several operators and trade associations, including SPPC, NMGC, AGA, NS, MAE, APGA, and SWG, suggested PHMSA revise the proposed regulatory text to give operators the option to install either an EFV or a manual service line shut-off valve based on sound engineering analysis and the availability of larger-format EFVs. The NMGC verified with EFV manufacturers, such as GasBreaker Inc., that EFVs are available and will meet the requirements necessary for operating on single-family residences above 1,000 SCFH. NS saw an opportunity to encourage operators to install EFVs on loads in excess of 1,000 SCFH, as NS has had success with installing EFVs in service lines for loads greater than 1,000 SCFH. The APGA believed the technology of EFVs and products available would continue to evolve, and in the future, some operators may test and become comfortable installing EFVs on some services operating above 1,000 SCFH. The APGA noted the rule should state that an operator need not install a curb valve if the operator installs an EFV on a service line instead. Further, SPPC noted that this requirement should be flexible enough to ensure that operators can account for increased loads in the future, such as being able to install a curb valve on a new service line with an initial load less than 1,000 SCFH but that might later exceed 1,000 SCFH so as to avoid the additional cost of replacing an EFV with a curb valve in the future.

    Additionally, NMGC, SWG, NGA, and AGA determined that under no circumstances should operators be required to install both an EFV and a manual service line shut-off valve on the same service line. The AGA noted that, as currently proposed, the regulations would require both a manual curb valve and an EFV on (1) any SFR operating at greater than 1,000 SCFH or (2) a non-SFR operating at greater than 1,000 SCFH where an operator installed an EFV under DIMP. Further, as proposed, the rule could prohibit further innovation on EFVs that might be able to operate above 1,000 SCFH.

    The GPTC expressed a similar view on the issue, noting that the rule, as proposed, would not give an operator sufficient flexibility to use sound engineering practices to design an EFV on service lines with loads greater than 1,000 SCFH, in lieu of a manual curb valve. In the proposed § 192.383(b)(4) and (5), PHMSA established a threshold of 1,000 SCFH customer load over which an EFV was not required. However, there is no threshold limit of 1,000 SCFH for proposed § 192.383(b)(1), (2), and (3). The result is that a large SFR or branch to two large SFRs with a service line load greater than 1,000 SCFH would have both an EFV and a curb valve, but a multifamily residence with a service line load greater than 1,000 SCFH would require only an emergency curb valve, even if an EFV were available and suited for the application. The GPTC asked PHMSA to modify this section to allow greater flexibility.

    PHMSA Response: PHMSA did not intend to require that operators install both a curb valve and an EFV on the same service line and would like to give operators the flexibility to choose the proper safety valve. PHMSA has no objection to operators installing EFVs on lines with capacities over 1,000 SCFH, as long as that decision is reached through sound engineering analysis. To clarify, if an operator cannot or chooses not to install an EFV on an applicable service line with capacity over 1,000 SCFH, it must install a curb valve.

    PHMSA notes that it originally wanted to require operators install EFVs on service lines with loads up to 5,000 SCFH, as PHMSA knows that valves are available for these applications, and manufacturers have indicated they have sold EFVs for these load sizes. PHMSA chose the 1,000 SCFH threshold, which was accepted by the GPAC, as a compromise based on comments from industry. Having operators perform a sound engineering analysis will allow PHMSA to verify operators are taking into account maximum loads and the capabilities of EFVs, if available, to handle those loads. An operator's engineering analysis for sizing an EFV should be based on maximum expected load throughout the year, including snap loads, critical supply applications, system configuration, and future anticipated loads (e.g., when commercial facilities in a shopping center change, gas loads would also change). In many instances, operators size EFVs based on meter capacity at the service. Operators must use caution in expanding EFV use to other larger commercial and multifamily dwelling applications due to the complexity of service line design and usage patterns.

    In response to SPPC's comment, PHMSA is not allowing manual valve installation for loads below 1,000 SCFH, even when future anticipated loads may exceed that threshold. In this final rule, PHMSA is allowing operators to install EFVs in lieu of manual valves in instances where loads exceed 1,000 SCFH. As operators already consider anticipated design loads and work with distribution system designers to determine proper system configurations and valve sizing when installing systems, operators should be able to install appropriate valves for future anticipated loads.

    PHMSA also considered the GPTC's comment. In the best professional judgment of PHMSA's subject matter experts, a SFR service line combined with a branch service to another SFR isn't known to exceed 1,000 SCFH, and typical houses consume anywhere from 100-250 SCF per day. However, commercial and industrial facilities can exceed 1,000 SCFH, and therefore the threshold is needed. Accordingly, in this final rule, PHMSA has amended the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations at § 192.385(b) to require that operators install either a manual shut-off valve or, if possible, based on sound engineering analysis and availability, an EFV on lines operating at capacities exceeding 1,000 SCFH.

    G. Cost Recovery and Other Cost-Benefit Issues

    Proposal: In its NPRM, PHMSA proposed that existing service line customers who desire an EFV on service lines not exceeding 1,000 SCFH and not meeting one of the exceptions contained in paragraph (c) of § 192.383 may request an EFV on their service lines. If a service line customer requests EFV installation, an operator must install the EFV at a mutually agreeable date. The appropriate State regulatory agency would determine who would bear the cost of installation and how the cost would be distributed.

    Comments: Operators and trade associations were strongly opposed to the final sentence in PHMSA's proposal that designated the appropriate State regulatory agency as the entity that would determine who would bear the cost of the requested EFV. Most of the comments questioned whether PHMSA had the legal authority to make such a statement and whether a State regulatory agency would be the appropriate authority for all cases. Specifically, the AGA, APGA, and GPTC noted that PHMSA lacked the jurisdiction to codify and regulate the manner by which utilities handle charges to customers.

    The NPGA noted that PHMSA's proposal to permit State regulatory authorities to determine what party is responsible for installation costs when a customer requests installation of an EFV presents particular concerns for LPG systems and businesses. PHMSA's deference to State agencies would impose disproportionately negative effects on operators of LPG systems compared to other utilities, since LPG pipeline operators are not regulated in the same manner as natural gas utilities. The NPGA asked that PHMSA modify the proposal to assign the cost of EFV installation performed at a customer's request to the customer itself, as LPG businesses are not positioned to pass along additional costs to customers in the same manner as locally regulated utilities.

    NS noted that in previous amendments to § 192.383 (EFV customer notification, Feb 3, 1998), the Research and Special Programs Administration, PHMSA's predecessor agency, acknowledged that the cost of installing an EFV on an existing line was to be the responsibility of the customer. Therefore, if PHMSA wishes to address who is to pay for the installation of EFVs on existing service lines, NS proposed that PHMSA adopt its previous requirement that the service line customer bear the cost. NS also believed this requirement would also be best addressed under § 192.383(e).

    The APGA was vehemently opposed to the proposed language stating that the appropriate State regulatory agency would determine to whom and how the costs of the requested EFVs would be distributed, indicating that of the approximately 1,000 public gas utilities subject to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations, only a few have a State agency determining how the cost of gas service is distributed among customers. Whereas State public utility commissions (PUC) typically review and approve the rates charged by investor-owned and privately owned operators (which represent less than 25 percent of distribution operators regulated by PHMSA), rates for public distribution systems are typically approved by the municipality, utility board, or similar local oversight body. The APGA noted the preamble of the NPRM made clear that PHMSA did not intend to regulate how EFV costs would be recovered and did not believe it was PHMSA's intent to require public gas distribution operators to become subject to PUC review for EFV cost recovery. Rather, the APGA believed it was PHMSA's intent to “leave the determination of how the cost of installing an EFV at customer request to the operator and whatever body approves the operator's gas rates.”

    Apart from PHMSA's proposal for determining cost recovery, some commenters discussed additional cost-benefit issues related to EFV installation on existing service lines. The APGA noted that operators should only be required to install EFVs if requesting customers also agree to whatever cost-recovery mechanism has been included in the operator's approved rates. The AGA, SWG, and NGA noted that the cost of retrofitting an EFV on an existing service line could be significant, with SWG adding that this cost was not included in PHMSA's cost-benefit analysis. The NGA further indicated that offering customers the option of installing EFVs on existing services not planned for replacement, excavation, or repair was not a cost-effective safety measure, and installing EFVs on existing services should be evaluated by each operator as a part of its integrity management planning.

    MAE requested a further analysis of the value and costs of installation, operations and maintenance, and leak rates on curb valves to determine whether there are more cost-efficient methods of emergency shut-off. A member of the GPAC also expressed concerns about PHMSA's cost-benefit numbers related to curb valves, suggesting that PHMSA reconsider including curb valve maintenance in the cost-benefit analysis and further analyze whether the incidents PHMSA used when examining the effectiveness and usefulness of curb valves were applicable to the analysis. Specifically, the GPAC member questioned whether, for the incidents PHMSA selected applicable to curb valves in its analysis, a curb valve on the line would have actually prevented fatalities, injuries, or property damage, noting that the narrative of a few of the accidents indicated some of the fatalities and injuries were actually caused by car crashes and not the subsequent gas incidents.

    PHMSA Response: It was not PHMSA's intent in the proposal to specifically delegate cost-recovery duties to State regulatory agencies, especially where certain operators do not have their rates set by these entities. In the Section-by-Section analysis of the NPRM, PHMSA noted it “has no jurisdiction concerning natural gas rates or any costs incurred due to installation of an optional EFV at a consumer's request.” PHMSA was only trying to indicate that it would defer to the existing rate-setting and cost-recovery structure under which operators currently operate. Therefore, PHMSA has removed the reference to “State regulatory authority” in the regulatory text applicable to cost recovery and has inserted “The operator's rate-setter” to reflect this intent.

    PHMSA understands that the cost of installing an EFV on an existing line at the customer's request is more expensive than if the line were new or being replaced due to excavation and additional labor costs and determined it was not cost-effective to require the fitting of an EFV on all existing services.

    A 2007 National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI) study titled “Survey on Excess Flow Valves: Installations, Cost, Operating Performance, and Gas Operator Policy,” suggests that customer-initiated EFV installations are quite rare, even in locations where they are currently allowed by local policy, and would not be a circumstance operators would be dealing with in significant numbers. However, without this provision, customers on existing lines without an EFV would essentially have no option to install an EFV, even if they highly valued the risk reduction that it provided and were willing to pay the full installation cost. These foregone transactions would represent deadweight loss. Although PHMSA determined that mandatory installation on all existing lines would not be cost-effective due to excavation and labor costs, some individual households might have a high willingness-to-pay for EFVs due to differences in risk aversion, rate of time preference, and other factors.

    Further, it is PHMSA's understanding that customers would typically be required to pay for these installations. From an economic standpoint, an EFV requested and paid for by a customer would actually increase the overall net benefit of the final rule, as PHMSA can infer from the customer's choice that they value the EFV's protection at a level greater than the cost they pay.7 Therefore, PHMSA has chosen to retain the right for existing customers to request an EFV installation if they are eligible.

    7 For retrofits, the benefits per valve would be essentially the same as calculated in the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis (a range of $4 to $44 at a 7 percent rate, depending on the customer type).

    As for the concern of whether applicable incidents were chosen to analyze the costs and benefits for curb valves, PHMSA applied reasonable filters to its data to choose appropriate and applicable incidents for analysis but there can be some level of uncertainty in such incident data. PHMSA is also aware of incidents that might have been prevented by the use of a curb valve, but these incidents were excluded from the analysis due to data limitations or for other reasons.

    In light of this particular comment, however, PHMSA reexamined and revised the incident set pertaining to curb valves in order to provide a more conservative cost-benefit analysis. For some of the incidents in question (e.g., where drivers crashed cars into meter sets), it is unlikely a curb valve would have been effective in preventing the incident following impact, and these incidents were removed from the data set. The final Regulatory Impact Analysis is available in the docket.

    PHMSA notes that because a curb valve can allow gas flow to be shut off quickly, a curb valve could still be effective in mitigating the consequences of these incidents by shortening their duration, especially where property damage is concerned. Further, PHMSA's data is limited and often does not indicate clearly whether fatalities, if not caused by the initial impact, are due to injuries sustained during the crash or by the subsequent pipeline incident. For example, quickly shutting off the flow of gas at the site of an incident may be able to save the life of someone who has been knocked unconscious or has been otherwise incapacitated. Because of this, PHMSA still believes that installing EFVs and curb valves on service lines can provide a tangible safety benefit to the public and the environment.

    H. Miscellaneous Comments Effective Date

    Proposal: The NPRM proposed that each operator must install an EFV on any new or replaced service line for the services listed in the proposed § 192.383(b) before those lines were activated and prior to January 3, 2014.

    Comments: Several operators and trade associations, including AGA, NS, and APGA, noted that the effective date for the proposed rule would impose the installation requirement retroactively. These commenters requested that operators be given at least 6 months to prepare for complying with the rule, including time to establish cost allocation with the appropriate rate-setter and to source the valves.

    PHMSA Response: This portion of the rule was drafted with the 2012 statutory mandate in mind and did not necessarily indicate a retroactive requirement. PHMSA has revised the effective date in the final rule to allow operators 6 months to comply.

    Exceptions to the Right To Request an EFV

    Proposal: The NPRM proposed that operators need not install an EFV if one or more of the following conditions were present: (1) The service line does not operate at a pressure of 10 psig or greater throughout the year; (2) the operator has prior experience with contaminants in the gas stream that could interfere with the EFV's operation or cause loss of service to a customer; (3) an EFV could interfere with necessary operation or maintenance activities, such as blowing liquids from the line; or (4) an EFV meeting performance standards in § 192.381 is not commercially available to the operator.

    Comments: The AGA and APGA noted that because of these exemptions, operators should not be required to provide an individual notification to customers of their right to request an EFV if it is not feasible to install an EFV on that customer's service line. The APGA also noted that if most operators chose to satisfy the notification requirement through customer bills or other mass communication, every customer would still receive notification, regardless of whether EFV installation were impossible or impractical. The APGA also believed that PHMSA should reconsider applying the proposed requirements for the right to request an EFV and customer notification to master-meter operators. As master-meter operators typically serve “garden-style” apartments, mobile home parks, universities, public housing, et cetera, the “customer” is typically a renter and not an owner, which could potentially cause confusion as to who has the right to request an EFV.

    The AGA and SPPC asked that PHMSA consider exempting service lines that already had manual valves on them or lines where an operator might expect the load to increase beyond 1,000 SCFH and would install a manual valve instead.

    PHMSA Response: PHMSA noted that the AGA and APGA comments were submitted under the assumption that PHMSA was requiring individual communications to all customers. As the APGA noted, because PHMSA is allowing broad and electronic communication methods regarding EFV installation, all customers, regardless of their eligibility for EFV installation, will be receiving a form of notice. Further, PHMSA has determined that master-meter operators will largely be held to the same standards as other operators as far as EFV installation is concerned.

    PHMSA does not wish to include any further exceptions to the ones that were proposed. PHMSA is concerned that operators might interpret the fact that a service line already has a manual valve to mean that an EFV does not need to be installed. This would be an incorrect assumption. Applicable new and replaced service lines with loads not exceeding 1,000 SCFH must have EFVs installed on them. Moreover, as PHMSA is allowing installation flexibility for lines operating above 1,000 SCFH, the agency believes it is unnecessary to provide a specific exemption for installing an EFV when the line could be expected to operate above 1,000 SCFH.

    Definitions

    Comments: Several commenters requested definitions or clarification for a few terms in the NPRM. Specifically, SPPC asked PHMSA to add a definition of “branch service line” to § 192.383(a). The APGA noted that SFR is not defined in part 192 and that PHMSA should add it to the definitions or spell out the term when used. The APGA also noted that PHMSA does not define who the “customer” is whom the operator must notify and who has the right to request an EFV. The APGA noted that, in the preamble, PHMSA states that messages on bills would satisfy the notification requirement, which appears to intend that the customer is the person to whom the utility sends the gas bill. The APGA urged PHMSA to clarify this definition if this is the case, as the term “customer” might also be interpreted to mean the consumer of the gas, a resident at a rented property, or perhaps the owner of a property. These could all be different people. The GPTC recommended adding a reference to proposed § 192.385(b) and (c) to refer back to § 192.383 and PHMSA's definition of replaced service line. MAE recommended PHMSA revise § 192.381(a) to clarify whether EFVs are required for systems that normally operate at 10 psig but that have minimum design pressures of 5-6 psig for anticipated heavy-load conditions.

    PHMSA Response: PHMSA has added a definition of “branch service line” to the definitions paragraph of § 192.383 and spelled out “SFR” the first time it is used.

    While PHMSA does not delineate who the “customer” is in the regulatory text, the APGA is correct in that PHMSA intends the “customer” to be the person to whom the utility sends the gas bill.

    PHMSA declined to add a reference in proposed § 192.385(b) and (c) back to § 192.383 regarding PHMSA's definition of a replaced service line. PHMSA intends curb valves installed under § 192.385 to be appropriate substitutes for EFVs and are not otherwise considered manual valves within the distribution network.

    Regarding MAE's comment, the language indicating that EFVs are to be used on service lines operating continuously throughout the year at a pressure not less than 10 p.s.i. (69 kPa) gage has been in the regulations since 1996. The only change that has been made since that time is the removal of the term “single-family” from “service lines.” PHMSA is aware, however, there are service lines that experience pressure drops below 10 psig during heavy loading conditions. These lines are not required to have EFVs installed on them.

    Editorial Comments

    Comments: NS suggested that proposed language concerning a mutually agreeable installation date should be moved to proposed § 192.383(e), which deals with notification requirements. The APGA was not clear on what “EFV measures” the reporting requirement refers to. The APGA suggested this is not a new reporting requirement but rather refers to the existing EFV reporting requirements in § 191.11 and should either be deleted or clarified to make clear that it only applies to operators that are required to file annual reports.

    PHMSA Response: PHMSA considered these changes and made edits to the regulatory text where appropriate.

    EFV Standard Development

    Comments: The GPTC noted that while it appreciated PHMSA's reference to the GPTC and its work, it still sought to clarify that the GPTC's Guide Material Appendix 192-8, which provides operators with guidance for developing a distribution integrity management program and compliance with certain sections of part 192, does not include information on the selection, sizing, or installation of EFVs. They noted that helpful guidance to assist operators in addressing EFV performance, selection, and installation considerations is found in MSS SP-115, ASTM F1802, and ASTM F2138. The GPTC also suggested that if PHMSA wants specific standards to be developed, then PHMSA should approach those organizations to develop such standards.

    The NGA commented that it did not believe that development of EFV standards was needed and that the development of design considerations would best be performed by the utilities themselves or by standards-setting organizations, based on EFV manufacturer specifications considering customer load, meter size, service pipe size, and pressures.

    PHMSA Response: PHMSA solicited comments in the gas pipeline ANPRM on whether standards should be developed for EFVs. In the NPRM, PHMSA noted that it would not be incorporating by reference any new standards for EFVs into the Pipeline Safety Regulations but might do so in the future if the need arose.

    V. Regulatory Notices and Analysis A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This final rule is published under the authority of the Federal pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). Section 60102 of title 49, U.S.C., authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations governing the design, installation, inspection, emergency plans and procedures, testing, construction, extension, operation, replacement, and maintenance of pipeline service lines. Further, Section 60109(e)(3)(B) states that “the Secretary, if appropriate, shall by regulation require the use of excess flow valves, or equivalent technology, where economically, technically, and operationally feasible on new or entirely replaced distribution branch services, multifamily facilities, and small commercial service facilities.”

    B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is a non-significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034) because of substantial stakeholder interest in pipeline safety.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies regulate in the most cost-effective manner, make a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulations justify its costs, and develop regulations that impose the least burden on society. PHMSA is providing the final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) simultaneously with this rule, and it is available in the docket. The final RIA does not address the benefits and costs of the proposal to require operators to install EFVs on branched service lines providing gas service to SFRs because the benefits and costs of this proposal were addressed in the regulatory impact analysis for a previous rulemaking.8 The final RIA found that the estimated monetized benefits do not exceed the monetized costs in all cases. For the requirement of installing EFVs on new or replaced service lines providing gas service to multifamily residences, the monetized costs exceeded monetized benefits, even when using lower-bound cost estimates. PHMSA believes that the amendments are nevertheless justified by significant unquantifiable benefits, such as avoided evacuations and environmental damage from EFV-preventable incidents, including incidents that could not be included in the analysis because they do not meet PHMSA's reporting criteria. EFVs also provide protection against a low-probability but high-consequence incident that could inflict mass casualties.

    8 “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Programs for Gas Distribution Pipelines.” December 4, 2009, (74 FR 63906) (RIN 2137-AE15.

    PHMSA estimates a total impacted community of 4,448 operators for this rule (3,119 master meter/small LPG operators who will need to comply with notification requirements and 1,329 natural gas distribution operators who will need to install valves and comply with notification requirements) and 222,114 service lines per year on average. PHMSA assumed that valves do not have network effects; in other words, each EFV operates independently, and the costs and benefits of EFV installation simply scale linearly. The total annualized benefits of the rule are $5.5 million when discounted at 7 percent, while the total annualized costs are $10.6 million. At the 3 percent discount rate, the total benefits of the rule are $10.6 million, while the costs are $12.0 million.

    The following table summarizes the annualized benefits and costs of this final rule:

    Table ES-1—Summary of Estimated Benefits and Costs ($ Millions) 1 Customer category Annualized benefit Annualized cost Branched Line Single Family See note See note. Multifamily Residence 1.0 6.2 Small Commercial 1.6 1.1 Industrial/Other curb valve 3.0 3.0 All classifications: Notification & recordkeeping Not estimated 0.3 Total 5.5 10.6 Note: Benefits and costs for branched SFR services accounted for in economic analysis of previous rulemaking (Distribution Integrity Management Program). 1 50-year present value converted to annual equivalent using 7% discount rate.

    Additional unquantified benefit areas include:

    • Equity: Provides a fair and equal level of safety to members of society who do not live in SFRs;

    • Additional incident costs avoided for which no PHMSA incident data are available:

    • Mitigates the consequences (death, injury, property damage) of incidents when customer piping or equipment is involved and thus the incident would not be reflected in PHMSA records;

    • Additional incident costs that are not recorded in incident reports, including costs of evacuations, emergency response costs, and business downtime;

    • Environmental externalities associated with methane releases (discussed in the RIA Appendix);

    • Peace of mind for operators and customers; and

    • Protection against seismic events and intentional tampering.

    Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, of September 30, 1993. Additionally, Executive Order 13563 specifically requires agencies to: (1) Involve the public in the regulatory process; (2) promote simplification and harmonization through interagency coordination; (3) identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burden and maintain flexibility; (4) ensure the objectivity of any scientific or technological information used to support regulatory action; and (5) consider how to best promote retrospective analysis to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal existing rules that are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome. When developing this rule, PHMSA involved the public in the regulatory process in a variety of ways. Specifically, PHMSA considered public comments based on the proposals in the NPRM, addressed those comments in the docket, and discussed the proposals with the members of the GPAC and any public representatives in attendance.

    This final rule is expected to produce a safety benefit that addresses a congressional mandate and a NTSB safety recommendation and which can be implemented at relatively minor cost; similar regulations have been effective when applied to single-family residences. Further, industry has already shown a willingness to expand EFV applications, recognizing that EFVs have the potential to avert high-cost, low-probability events that, while absent in the dataset for multifamily residences, can still occur.

    C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). PHMSA issues pipeline safety regulations applicable to interstate and intrastate pipelines. The requirements in this rule apply to operators of distribution pipeline systems, which are primarily intrastate pipeline systems. Under 49 U.S.C. 60105, a State may regulate an intrastate pipeline facility or intrastate pipeline transportation after submitting a certification to PHMSA. Thus, State pipeline safety regulatory agencies with valid certifications on file with PHMSA will be the primary enforcers of the safety requirements proposed in this NPRM. Under 49 U.S.C. 60107, PHMSA provides grant money to participating States to carry out their pipeline safety enforcement programs. Although a few States choose not to participate in the natural gas pipeline safety grant program, every State has the option to participate. This grant money is used to defray additional costs incurred by enforcing the pipeline safety regulations.

    PHMSA has concluded this final rule does not include any regulation that: (1) Has substantial direct effects on States, relationships between the national government and the States, or distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on States and local governments; or (3) preempts State law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 (August 10, 1999; 64 FR 43255) do not apply.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities, unless the agency determines that a rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts of rules on small entities are properly considered.

    This final rule requires gas pipeline operators to comply with the new EFV installation requirements. The Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria for defining a small business in the natural gas pipeline distribution industry is one that employs less than 1000 employees as specified in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. The RFA defines “small governmental jurisdiction” as the government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district, or special district with a population less than 50,000.

    To identify gas distribution operators affected by the proposed requirements that are small businesses or small governmental jurisdictions, PHMSA used information provided by Dun and Bradstreet. Dun and Bradstreet provides PHMSA with estimates of small business classifications based on SBA size standards for operators that file an annual report, along with a flag for public sector entities that is based on information such as entity name and NAICS code. These data indicate that approximately 60 percent of affected operators are public entities; among these, the share that are small governmental jurisdictions is not known. Among the private sector entities, approximately one-third are small entities according to the SBA size definition for their NAICS code. The most common of these is NAICS 221210, natural gas distribution, for which the standard is 1,000 employees. Overall, while the number of small entities is not known with precision, it appears to be substantial when considering gas distribution operators that are small businesses or small governmental jurisdictions, as well as the master meter and small LPG operators that are presumed to be small entities.

    However, PHMSA determined that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While the natural gas distribution industry includes many small entities, including both small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions, the impacts of the rule are clearly de minimus, both in relation to operator revenues and to the utility rate-payers to whom the incremental costs would ultimately be allocated. PHMSA's Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which reached this determination, is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

    Accordingly, the head of the agency certifies under Section 605(b) of the RFA that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the additional costs are minimal.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not result in costs of $147.6 million, adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the final rule. Installation of EFVs and curb valves significantly protects the safety of the public and is technically and economically feasible.

    F. National Environmental Policy Act

    PHMSA analyzed this final rule in accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOT Order 5610.1C, and has determined that this action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An environmental assessment of this final rule, which explains this determination, is available in the docket.

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

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this rule does not have tribal implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). It is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use. Further, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated this final rule as a significant energy action.

    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), PHMSA is required to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. As a result of the requirements of this rulemaking, the following information collection impacts are expected:

    Gas Distribution Annual Report Revision

    PHMSA is revising § 192.383 to require the installation of EFVs on applications beyond SFRs that are currently required. Further, PHMSA is adding § 192.385, which would require the installation of manual service line shut-off valves. As a result, PHMSA wants to track the number of new installations related to these provisions on an annual basis. This will change the Gas Distribution Annual Report, which is contained in the currently approved information collection, titled “Annual Reports for Gas Distribution Operators,” identified under OMB Control Number 2137-0629. PHMSA is revising the Gas Distribution Annual Report to collect the number of EFVs installed on multifamily dwellings and small commercial businesses and the number of manual service line shut-off valves installed. Currently, operators are required to submit the total number of EFVs installed on SFRs and the total number of EFVs within their systems. Therefore, PHMSA does not expect operators to experience an increase in burden beyond that already incurred for the Gas Distribution Annual Report. PHMSA has submitted an information collection revision request to OIRA to cover the components of this data collection. The request is under review and pending approval. PHMSA will publish a subsequent notice in the Federal Register upon the approval of this collection.

    Customer Notification

    Section 192.383 of this final rule will require operators to notify customers of their right to request the installation of EFVs. Operators have multiple options for fulfilling this requirement, including adding a short statement to customer bills, incorporating a public awareness message on the company Web site, incorporating the notification on bill stuffers or in new customer packets, and posting a notice in a prominent location (for master-meter/small LPG operators). PHMSA estimates that approximately half of the 6,237 operators categorized as either master-meter operators or small LPG systems will be impacted, resulting in 3,119 affected operators. This estimate is based on the premise that only half of these operators have systems that can accommodate an EFV. PHMSA also estimates that 1,329 gas distribution operators will be impacted. Therefore, PHMSA estimates a total impacted community of 4,448 (3,119 master-meter/small LPG operators and 1,329 gas distribution operators). PHMSA estimates that each impacted operator will take approximately 1 hour per year to create and complete this notification. PHMSA expects a vast majority of notifications to be made electronically, and, as such, expects the recordkeeping of these documents to be automatic and self-executing upon saving such documents. Consequently, PHMSA expects there to be no additional burden to the operator for saving the notifications for recordkeeping purposes. PHMSA estimates the total annual cost of this provision at $280,713 per year (4,448 operators * 1 hour/operator * $63.11/hour 9 ). PHMSA has submitted a new information collection request to OIRA to cover the components of this data collection. The request is under review and pending approval. PHMSA will publish a subsequent notice in the Federal Register upon the approval of this collection.

    9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2015. Occupation code 13-041, industry code 221200. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131041.htm.

    As a result of the changes listed above, PHMSA is submitting an information collection revision request as well as a new information collection request to OMB for approval based on the requirements in this final rule. These information collections are contained in the pipeline safety regulations, 49 CFR parts 190-199. The following information is provided for these information collections: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity including a description of the changes applicable to the rulemaking action; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection. The information collection burden for the following information collection is requested as follows:

    1. Title: Annual Reports for Gas Distribution Operators.

    OMB Control Number: 2137-0629.

    Current Expiration Date: May 31, 2018.

    Type of Request: Revision.

    Abstract: This information covers the collection of annual report data for gas distribution pipeline operators. This information collection will only be revised to reflect the amendment to the Gas Distribution Annual Report, which will allow operators to submit the number of EFVs that are installed in multifamily dwellings and small commercial businesses and the number of manual service line shut-off valves installed. PHMSA does not expect this revision to result in a burden-hour increase.

    Affected Public: Gas Pipeline Operators.

    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

    Total Annual Responses: 1,446.

    Total Annual Burden Hours: 23,136.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    2. Title: Customer Notifications for Installation of Excess Flow Valves.

    OMB Control Number: TBD.

    Current Expiration Date: Not Applicable.

    Type of Request: New Information Collection.

    Abstract: This new information collection will cover the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for gas pipeline operators associated with the requirement of operators to notify customers of their right to request the installation of excess flow valves.

    Affected Public: Gas Pipeline Operators.

    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

    Total Annual Responses: 4,448 responses.

    Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,448 hours.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Requests for a copy of this information collection should be directed to Angela Dow, Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP-30), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone 202-366-4595.

    J. Privacy Act Statement

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    K. Regulation Identifier Number

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

    Excess flow valve installation, Excess flow valve performance standards, Pipeline safety, Service lines.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA is amending 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

    PART 192—TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110, 60113, 60116, 60118, 60137, and 49 CFR 1.97.

    2. In § 192.381, paragraph (a) introductory text is revised to read as follows:
    § 192.381 Service lines: Excess flow valve performance standards.

    (a) Excess flow valves (EFVs) to be used on service lines that operate continuously throughout the year at a pressure not less than 10 p.s.i. (69 kPa) gage must be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer according to an industry specification, or the manufacturer's written specification, to ensure that each valve will:

    3. Section 192.383 is revised to read as follows:
    § 192.383 Excess flow valve installation.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:

    Branched service line means a gas service line that begins at the existing service line or is installed concurrently with the primary service line but serves a separate residence.

    Replaced service line means a gas service line where the fitting that connects the service line to the main is replaced or the piping connected to this fitting is replaced.

    Service line serving single-family residence means a gas service line that begins at the fitting that connects the service line to the main and serves only one single-family residence (SFR).

    (b) Installation required. An EFV installation must comply with the performance standards in § 192.381. After April 17, 2016, each operator must install an EFV on any new or replaced service line serving the following types of services before the line is activated:

    (1) A single service line to one SFR;

    (2) A branched service line to a SFR installed concurrently with the primary SFR service line (i.e., a single EFV may be installed to protect both service lines);

    (3) A branched service line to a SFR installed off a previously installed SFR service line that does not contain an EFV;

    (4) Multifamily residences with known customer loads not exceeding 1,000 SCFH per service, at time of service installation based on installed meter capacity, and

    (5) A single, small commercial customer served by a single service line with a known customer load not exceeding 1,000 SCFH, at the time of meter installation, based on installed meter capacity.

    (c) Exceptions to excess flow valve installation requirement. An operator need not install an excess flow valve if one or more of the following conditions are present:

    (1) The service line does not operate at a pressure of 10 psig or greater throughout the year;

    (2) The operator has prior experience with contaminants in the gas stream that could interfere with the EFV's operation or cause loss of service to a customer;

    (3) An EFV could interfere with necessary operation or maintenance activities, such as blowing liquids from the line; or

    (4) An EFV meeting the performance standards in § 192.381 is not commercially available to the operator.

    (d) Customer's right to request an EFV. Existing service line customers who desire an EFV on service lines not exceeding 1,000 SCFH and who do not qualify for one of the exceptions in paragraph (c) of this section may request an EFV to be installed on their service lines. If an eligible service line customer requests an EFV installation, an operator must install the EFV at a mutually agreeable date. The operator's rate-setter determines how and to whom the costs of the requested EFVs are distributed.

    (e) Operator notification of customers concerning EFV installation. Operators must notify customers of their right to request an EFV in the following manner:

    (1) Except as specified in paragraphs (c) and (e)(5) of this section, each operator must provide written or electronic notification to customers of their right to request the installation of an EFV. Electronic notification can include emails, Web site postings, and e-billing notices.

    (2) The notification must include an explanation for the service line customer of the potential safety benefits that may be derived from installing an EFV. The explanation must include information that an EFV is designed to shut off the flow of natural gas automatically if the service line breaks.

    (3) The notification must include a description of EFV installation and replacement costs. The notice must alert the customer that the costs for maintaining and replacing an EFV may later be incurred, and what those costs will be to the extent known.

    (4) The notification must indicate that if a service line customer requests installation of an EFV and the load does not exceed 1,000 SCFH and the conditions of paragraph (c) are not present, the operator must install an EFV at a mutually agreeable date.

    (5) Operators of master-meter systems and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) operators with fewer than 100 customers may continuously post a general notification in a prominent location frequented by customers.

    (f) Operator evidence of customer notification. An operator must make a copy of the notice or notices currently in use available during PHMSA inspections or State inspections conducted under a pipeline safety program certified or approved by PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. 60105 or 60106.

    (g) Reporting. Except for operators of master-meter systems and LPG operators with fewer than 100 customers, each operator must report the EFV measures detailed in the annual report required by § 191.11.

    4. Section 192.385 is added to subpart H to read as follows:
    § 192.385 Manual service line shut-off valve installation.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:

    Manual service line shut-off valve means a curb valve or other manually operated valve located near the service line that is safely accessible to operator personnel or other personnel authorized by the operator to manually shut off gas flow to the service line, if needed.

    (b) Installation requirement. The operator must install either a manual service line shut-off valve or, if possible, based on sound engineering analysis and availability, an EFV for any new or replaced service line with installed meter capacity exceeding 1,000 SCFH.

    (c) Accessibility and maintenance. Manual service line shut-off valves for any new or replaced service line must be installed in such a way as to allow accessibility during emergencies. Manual service shut-off valves installed under this section are subject to regular scheduled maintenance, as documented by the operator and consistent with the valve manufacturer's specification.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 7, 2016, under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.97. Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24817 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 350 [Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0149] RIN 2126-AB91 Amendments To Implement Grants Provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) adopts, as final, certain regulations required by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) enacted on December 4, 2015. The involved statutory changes went into effect on October 1, 2016, and require that FMCSA make conforming changes to its regulations to ensure they are current and consistent with the statutory requirements. Adoption of these rules is a nondiscretionary, ministerial action that FMCSA may take without issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking and receiving public comment, in accordance with the good cause exception available to Federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective October 14, 2016. Petitions for Reconsideration must be received by the Agency no later than November 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathryn Sinniger, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; by telephone at (202) 493-0908, or by electronic mail at [email protected] If you have questions regarding the grants program, please contact: Thomas Liberatore, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; by telephone at (202) 366-3030, or by electronic mail at [email protected] If you have questions regarding the docket, call Docket Services, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This rule makes nondiscretionary, ministerial changes to FMCSA regulations that are required by the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, December 4, 2015). The FAST Act made several notable changes to the grant programs administered by FMCSA. For example, it consolidated the Border Enforcement, New Entrant, and Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) grants into the formula Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grant. Each State is now required to fully participate in the PRISM program by October 1, 2020, as a condition to receive funding under MCSAP. The FAST Act also created a standalone High Priority financial assistance (High Priority) Program with two major purposes: activities related to motor carrier safety and Innovative Technology Deployment (ITD). The ITD program modifies and replaces the FMCSA's Commercial Motor Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) program. Also, the Safety Data Improvement Program, which was previously a standalone grant program, has been merged into the High Priority Program. A full explanation of all changes made in this rule is included below in section III. FAST Act Provisions Implemented by this Rulemaking. A copy of the FAST Act has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking for reference.

    B. Benefits and Costs

    The impact of the FAST Act provisions to certify eligibility and allocate MCSAP and High Priority Program funds considered both individually and in the aggregate does not cross the threshold of economic significance; therefore a cost-benefit analysis is not required.1

    1 Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant” regulatory action as one that satisfies any of four conditions: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order. Rules fitting the first of these conditions are often referred to as “economically significant” regulatory actions.

    The economic impact of changes to make FMCSA's regulations consistent with the FAST Act provisions will not exceed the $100 million annual threshold specified by Executive Order 12866.2 FMCSA determines that any costs associated with this action are attributable to the non-discretionary statutory provisions. FMCSA's consideration of the net impact of the FAST Act provisions suggests that reimbursements for technology, staffing, enforcement, maintenance, and training activities related to FMCSA regulations should ease the economic burden on regulated entities. Consequently net impacts of these provisions are expected to be small and affect a small number of individuals and businesses.

    II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking A. FAST Act

    This rule is based on the FAST Act. Certain provisions of the FAST Act made mandatory, non-discretionary changes to FMCSA programs. The majority of these statutory changes went into effect retroactively on October 1, 2015; the Agency published a final rule on July 22, 2016 (81 FR 47714) which made these changes. However, the changes made in sections 5101 and 5106 of the FAST Act, which affect the Agency's MCSAP grants, did not take effect until October 1, 2016. This final rule makes the nondiscretionary, conforming changes required by FAST Act sections 5101 and 5106, which also relate to the MCSAP. Publication of today's rule triggers the 3-year window for the States to adopt compatible provisions under FMCSA's MCSAP program. 49 CFR 350.331(d), 350.335(a)(2), and part 355, App. A.

    It is necessary to make conforming changes to ensure that FMCSA's regulations are current and consistent with the applicable statutes. The provisions implemented in this final rule are required by the following sections of the FAST Act:

    1. Section 5101 Grants to States.

    2. Section 5106 Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Allocation.

    FMCSA is authorized to implement these statutory provisions by delegation from the Secretary of Transportation in 49 CFR 1.87.

    B. Administrative Procedure Act

    Generally, agencies may promulgate final rules only after issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing an opportunity for public comment under procedures required by the APA, as provided in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d). Section 553(b)(3)(B), allows an exception from these requirements when notice and public comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” FMCSA finds that prior notice and opportunity for comment are unnecessary because the changes to the regulations found in this final rule are statutorily mandated, and the Agency is performing a nondiscretionary, ministerial act. For the same reason, FMCSA also finds that providing 30 day of advance notice prior to this rule becoming effective are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3).

    C. FAST Act Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking/Negotiated Rulemaking

    FMCSA is aware of the regulatory reform requirements imposed by section 5202 of the FAST Act concerning public participation in rulemaking (49 U.S.C. 31136(g)). These requirements pertain to certain major rules, but because this final rule is not major, they are not applicable. In addition, the Agency finds that publication of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)(A) or completion of a negotiated rulemaking under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)(B), is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest in accordance with the waiver provision in 49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(3).

    III. FAST Act Provisions Implemented by This Rulemaking

    This section describes the conforming changes required due to the FAST Act changes. Today's rule focuses on portions of the FAST Act that are non-discretionary.

    FMCSA is also including here a table of affected sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which will cross-reference corresponding requirements of the FAST Act. This table will make it easier for the reader to move back and forth between the revised regulations and the corresponding section(s) of the FAST Act.

    Table of CFR Sections Affected CFR Section FAST Act section 49 U.S.C. § 350.101 5102 [129 Stat. 1312, 1526] 31102(l)(2) and (3). 350.103 5102 [129 Stat. 1312, 1526] 31102(l)(2) and (3). 350.105 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(c)(2)(U), (Y), (AA), (BB) 31102(l). 350.107 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(c) and 31102(l)(2) and (3). 350.110 (new) 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102 (l)(2) and (3). 350.201 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(c)(2)(U), (Y), (AA), (BB). 350.203 (new) 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102 (l)(2) and (3). 350.206 (new) 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31104. 350.207 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(ii). 350.208 (new) 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31104(a). 350.210 (new) 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(l)(2). 350.213 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102((c)(2)(O)). 350.215 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(k)(2). 350.301 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(f). 350.303 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31104(b). 350.308 (new) 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(l)(2) and (3). 350.309 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(h). 350.310 (new) 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(l)(2) and (3). 350.311 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(l)(2) and (3), 31102(c)(2), and 31104. 350.313 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514]; 5106 [129 Stat. 1312, 1530] 31102(j). 350.319 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(l). 350.321 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102. 350.323 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514]; 5106 [129 Stat. 1312, 1530] 31102(j), 31107, 31144(g). 350.329 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(l)(2) and (3). 350.331 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(e). 350.335 5101 [129 Stat. 1312, 1514] 31102(e), and (k)(2) Section 5101 Grants to States

    Section 5101 of the FAST Act made several revisions to existing provisions found in title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Section 5101(a) enacted a new version of 49 U.S.C. 31102, renamed “Motor Carrier Assistance Program.” The changes made to section 31102 are outlined below. The FAST Act added the terms “Federally recognized Indian tribes and other persons” as those who could work in partnership with the Agency in 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1), so we are making corresponding changes in §§ 350.101, 350.103, and 350.107 of the regulations.

    In 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(B), the FAST Act replaced the reference to the State motor vehicle safety agency with reference to a “lead State commercial motor vehicle safety agency.” FMCSA makes this change throughout part 350. In addition, the FAST Act changed section 31102(c)(2) by revising the order of subsections (A) through (Y) and added new subsections (Z) through (BB). These changes are reflected in §§ 350.201 and 350.211. Of particular note is subsection (Z), which requires “that the State agrees to fully participate in the Performance and Registration Information System Management under 49 U.S.C. 31106(b) not later than October 1, 2020” or “an alternative approach for identifying and immobilizing a motor carrier with serious safety deficiencies in a manner that provides an equivalent level of safety.” This provision is reflected in § 350.201(aa) and § 350.211(x).

    The Fast Act moved the existing language of 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(3) on disapproval of a State plan to subsection (i)(2) of U.S.C. 31102. The Agency updated the regulatory language in § 350.207 to reflect the changes.

    The FAST Act added 49 U.S.C. 31102(f)(4)(B), which creates additional allowances for the States when determining their average levels of expenditure for purposes of maintenance of effort. States are allowed to exclude expenditures for activities related to border enforcement and new entrant safety audits. This addition is reflected in § 350.301(b)(2).

    The FAST Act also added paragraph (h) of 49 U.S.C. 31102 (existing 31102(c)), to describe an additional area where the grants may be used to enforce other laws. Subsection (1)(B) includes the “detection of and enforcement actions taken as a result of criminal activity including the trafficking of human beings, in a commercial motor vehicle or by any occupant, including the operator.” The Agency updated the language in § 350.309 to reflect this change.

    Section 31102(k)(2)(B)(i-iv) now specifies what percentage of MCSAP funds may be withheld when a State does not follow its submitted plan or fails to enforce State regulations adequately. These criteria are reflected in § 350.215.

    Section 31102(l) is added by the FAST Act, and it describes the High Priority Program funded for the purposes of improved motor carrier safety and Innovative Technology Deployment. This is a financial assistance program, and, is available to a wider audience and described throughout part 350. For reference, the current Safety Data Improvement Program falls under this new High Priority program.

    Section 31104 is revised by the FAST Act section 5101(c), and paragraph (b) describes the Federal and recipient shares of Federal financial assistance agreements as at least 85 percent. Paragraph (e) provides that the Secretary shall establish eligible activities for each Federal financial assistance agreement in a notice of funding availability. Paragraph (f) describes the period of availability for the Federal financial assistance agreements. Paragraph (g) describes the initial date of availability for the Federal financial assistance agreements.

    Paragraphs (b) and (d)-(g) of section 5101 of the FAST Act do not require corresponding changes in the regulations at this time.

    Section 5106 Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Allocations 3

    3 The effective date for section 5106 was October 1, 2015 (see FAST Act section 1003, 129 Stat. 1312, 1322), which differs from the October 1, 2016, effective date for section 5101 (see FAST Act section 5101(f), 129 Stat. 1312, 1526). The Agency opted to include Section 5106 in this final rule, and not its earlier final rule implementing other nondiscretionary FAST Act changes made by the FAST Act that also went into effect on October 1, 2015. This is due to the fact that the subject matter of section 5106 more closely aligned with that of section 5101. Additionally, as there have not yet been grants made according to the formula outlined in section 5106 (and being implemented in this final rule), accordingly, there has been no harm in delaying regulatory implementation of section 5106.

    Section 5106 of the FAST Act requires the establishment of a working group to recommend a new MCSAP allocation formula reflecting certain factors specified in the statute. However, paragraph (d) of section 5106 outlines interim funding rules to be used until the new formula is established. The interim amount, calculated by utilizing the MCSAP allocation formula used in fiscal year 2016 plus the average of the funding awarded (or other equitable amounts) to a State in fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015 for border enforcement and new entrant grants, is reflected in § 350.323. Likewise, § 350.323 has been revised to include the caveat, also found in section 5106(d), that the initial amounts resulting from the calculation described above be adjusted to ensure that, subject to the availability of funding, for each State, the amount shall not be less than 97 percent of the average amount of funding received or other equitable amounts in fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015 for MCSAP grants, border enforcement grants, and new entrant grants.

    V. Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following is a description of the changes to Part 350 as a result of the requirements of the FAST Act. These changes are described in numerical order by CFR citation. FMCSA also made conforming changes to the regulatory language as well as editorial corrections, so that the regulations do not conflict with the FAST Act.

    A. Part 350, Subpart A Section 350.101 What is the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and High Priority Program?

    In accordance with the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding section 31102(l), FMCSA changes the heading of § 350.101 to add a reference to a High Priority Program. Paragraph (a) is changed by adding the word “State” to clarify that it is referencing State safety rules, regulations and standards. Paragraph (b) is added to describe the High Priority Program.

    Section 350.103 What is the purpose of this part?

    In the undesignated introductory text of § 350.103, FMCSA adds a reference to “States, local government agencies, other political jurisdictions, federally recognized Indian tribes, and other organizations and persons” which are eligible for the High Priority Program, as stated in the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(l).

    Section 350.105 What definitions are used in this part?

    FMCSA removes the definitions of “High Priority Activity Funds,” and “New Entrant Funds” Definitions are added for “Innovative Technology Deployment Funds,” “Lead State Agency,” “Level of effort,” “Maintenance of effort,” and “Plan.”

    In the definitions of “10-year average accident rate” and “Accident rate,” the reference to FMCSA is changed to Federal Highway Administration.

    In the definition for “Basic Program Funds,” the references for High Priority Activity Funds and New Entrant Funds are removed.

    FMCSA adds the words “or the Plan” to the definition of “Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP).”

    FMCSA adds a definition for “New Entrant Safety Audits” to describe the requirement under the FAST Act, section 5101(a), amending 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(Y).

    In the definition of “Operating Authority,” a reference to 49 U.S.C. 31144 is added.

    “State or States,” is moved here from § 350.107 since it applies to all of part 350.

    Section 350.107 What entities are eligible for funding under this part?

    The heading for § 350.107 is changed to replace the word “jurisdictions” with “entities,” to add “under this part,” and to remove the reference to MCSAP.

    The Agency redesignates the existing section as paragraph (a) and adds a reference to MCSAP at the beginning of the paragraph. The definition of “State or States,” is moved to the definition section in § 350.105.

    In accordance with the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(l), we added a new paragraph (b) to section 350.107 that describes the entities eligible for funding in the High Priority Program.

    Section 350.109 What are the national Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) elements?

    FMCSA adds “Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP)” to the heading of § 350.109 to clarify that the elements apply to the MCSAP Program.

    Section 350.110 What are the national High Priority Program elements?

    In accordance with the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(l), the Agency adds § 350.110 to describe the national High Priority Program elements.

    B. Section 350, Subpart B Section 350.201 What conditions must a State meet to qualify for MCSAP Funds?

    The FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(A-BB) requires amendments to the conditions a State must qualify for MCSAP funds.

    In § 350.201, the adjective MCSAP is added to the heading. In paragraph (a) the words “standards, and orders” are added. Paragraph (b) is not changed. The word “Lead” is added to paragraph (c) to reflect the agency responsible for the plan throughout the States. In paragraphs (d) and (e), the words “standards, and orders” are added to reflect the statutory language.

    Paragraph (f) is rewritten to cross-reference the maintenance of effort requirements now re-codified in § 350.301 in accordance with FAST Act section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(f). In paragraph (g), the words “legal authority for” are removed. The Agency removes the words “prepare and submit” and replaces them with “provide” in paragraph (h). Paragraph (i) is changed to reflect the language of the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(G).

    In paragraph (j) the word “declare” is replaced with “demonstrate.” Paragraph (k) has no changes. In paragraph (l) the words “other CMV safety enforcement programs” are replaced with “development and implementation of the programs to improve motor carrier, CMV, and driver safety.” Paragraph (m) is unchanged.

    Paragraph (n) reflects the addition of the words “and data systems” to “FMCSA information technology.” No changes are made to paragraphs (o) and (p). Paragraph (q)(1) and (2) are the same, however, section 5101(a) of the FAST Act adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(O), required a change to (3) to reflect “activities related to criminal interdiction,” not only those “affecting the transportation of controlled substances.”

    Existing paragraph (r) is removed. Existing paragraph (s) becomes new paragraph (r) and is not changed. Existing paragraph (t) becomes new paragraph (s) and is changed by updating the citations. New paragraph (t) is moved from existing paragraph (u) and simplified. Existing paragraph (v) becomes new paragraph (u) and removes the words “MCSAP agencies have policies that stipulate.” New paragraph (v) is existing paragraph (w) revised. Existing paragraph (x) is now new paragraph (w) with introduction of “provide that the State will.” In making these changes, paragraphs (r) and (v) are no longer conditions of participation.

    New paragraph (x) is derived from existing paragraph (y) with the addition of “excluding a weigh station,” as required by the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(W). New paragraph (y) is existing paragraph (z) with changed CFR citations and one additional U.S.C. citation. New paragraphs (z), (aa), (bb), and (cc) are copied directly from the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(Y-BB).

    Section 350.203 What conditions must an applicant meet to qualify for High Priority Program Funds?

    The contents of existing § 350.329 are moved to new § 350.203. The changes and the reorganization conform to the requirements of the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(l). The heading of the section is changed; it uses the term “applicant,” clarifying that High Priority program funding is available to other entities identified in § 31102(l)(2), in addition to “a State or local agency,” Paragraph (a) is unchanged. FMCSA changes the introductory text of paragraph (b), using the term “applicants” rather than “local agencies” and providing a cross reference. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and (b)(6) through (9) are mostly unchanged from the existing rule; however, clarifying language was added to expand the range of entities eligible for High Priority Program funds. As required by section 31104(b), as amended by the FAST Act section 5101(c), in paragraph (b)(5), FMCSA lowered the amount that an applicant must agree to fund from 20 percent to 15 percent.

    Section 350.205 How and when does a State apply for MCSAP funding?

    FMCSA requires the State to submit its commercial vehicle safety plan “to FMCSA,” instead of to “the Division Administrator/State Director.”

    Section 350.206 How and when does one apply for High Priority Program funding?

    As stated in the FAST Act section 5101(c), amending 49 U.S.C. 31104(e), FMCSA adds a new § 350.206 to demonstrate that FMCSA will publish a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to establish criteria for eligible activities to be funded under the High Priority Program, paralleling § 350.205.

    Section 350.207 What response does a State receive to its CVSP submission?

    To conform to the language of the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(i), FMCSA changes paragraph (b) by adding that FMCSA will give the State a written explanation for withholding approval and allow the State to modify and resubmit the Plan. In paragraph (c), FMCSA adds that disapproval of the Plan is final only for “that fiscal year.” Paragraph (d) is unchanged.

    Section 350.208 What response will the applicant for a High Priority Program receive?

    The FAST Act did not amend the current process, but separated the MCSAP and High Priority Programs (section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(l)). FMCSA adds a new § 350.208 to state the response an applicant will receive to a grant application, paralleling § 350.207 to demonstrate the separation of the MCSAP and High Priority Grant Programs. Paragraph (a) covers grant approvals, and paragraph (b) covers grant denials.

    Section 350.210 How does an applicant demonstrate it satisfies the conditions for High Priority Program Funding?

    FMCSA adds new § 350.210 to refer applicants for High Priority Program Funding to new § 350.203, which describes the conditions the applicant must meet to qualify, which were established in 49 U.S.C. 31102(l), and to parallel existing § 350.209.

    Section 350.211 What is the format of the certification required by § 350.209?

    Section 350.211 describes the format of the certification required by § 350.209. It is revised and reorganized to conform to the language of the FAST Act, section 5101(a), amending 49 U.S.C. 31102. The introductory text is unchanged. In paragraph ((a), FMCSA added references to “standards and orders” and “the standards and orders of the Federal Government.” In ((b), the language was changed to include references to “Lead State Agency” and standards and orders. Paragraph (c) is changed by adding a reference to standards and orders. In paragraph (d), FMCSA adds “or other method a State may use that is adequate to obtain the necessary information” as an alternative to right of entry. Paragraph (e) is not changed. In (f), FMCSA adds a reference to “investigations.” Paragraph (g) is modified by substituting the word “demonstrate” for “declare.” Paragraph (h) is based on existing paragraph 8, but completely changed to conform to the FAST Act, section 5101(a), creating 49 U.S.C. 31102(f). A new paragraph (i) is added to ensure States protect the effectiveness of programs to improve safety.

    Existing paragraphs 9 through 14 are redesignated as new paragraphs (j) through (o), and conformed to the language of the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 31102(c)(2)(J)-(O). New paragraph (j) is unchanged. In new paragraph (k), the word “fines” is changed to the word “sanctions”; and the word “equitable” is changed to the word “reasonable” per section 5101(c) of the FAST Act. New paragraph (l) is changed by adding the requirement that the State “dedicate sufficient resources” to a program that provides FMCSA with information. In new paragraph (m), FMCSA adds a new reference to 23 U.S.C. 148(c). FMCSA adds “regulations” to the list of items a State should enforce in new paragraph (n). In new paragraph (o), FMCSA removes the reference to MCSAP Agencies. Existing paragraph 15 is removed.

    New paragraph (p) is the same as existing paragraph 16. New paragraph (q) substitutes the word “registration” for the phrase “operating authority” throughout, and adds a reference to the U.S. Code. In paragraph (r), FMCSA states that the State “will cooperate in the enforcement of financial responsibility” rather than “enforce the financial responsibility requirements.” It also adds a reference to the U.S. Code and removes a cross reference to § 392.9a. Paragraphs (s) and (t) remain the same. Paragraph 21, new paragraph (u), is changed by adding language to clarify that station means bus station. The phrase “excluding a weigh station” is added to clarify that planned stops do not include weigh stations, as required by the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(W). In paragraph (v), cross references to the CFR are added.

    Paragraphs (w) through (z) are new and required by the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(Y)-(Z). Paragraph (w) requires the State to conduct safety audits of new entrant motor carriers. The State must also verify the work of third parties that conduct safety audits on the State's behalf. Paragraph (x) provides that the State must certify that it either participates in the PRISM or demonstrates an alternative approach for identifying and taking action on out of service motor carriers.

    As amended by the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(AA), paragraph (y) provides that a border State must conduct a border CMV safety program or forfeit MCSAP funds based on border-related activities. In accordance with the FAST Act, section 5101(a) adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(BB), if a State meets all the MCSAP requirements and funds operations and maintenance costs associated with innovative technology deployment, paragraph (z) requires the State to certify that it agrees to comply with “all MCSAP requirements and funds operation and maintenance costs associated with Innovative Technology Deployment with MCSAP funds” and “Innovative Technology Deployment requirements established pursuant to 49 CFR 350.310 and 350.311.”

    Section 350.213 What must a State CVSP include?

    As required by the FAST Act, section 5101(a), creating 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(O), section 350.213(b)(3) is changed by adding the word “Criminal,” clarifying the type of interdiction activities, and changing the paragraph so it no longer covers only the transportation of controlled substances. The changes to paragraph (b)(4) include adding a reference to 49 U.S.C. 31134 and removing a reference to 49 CFR part 365. The paragraph now requires an applicant to certify that it will “cooperate in the enforcement of” financial responsibility requirements.

    Section 350.215 What are the consequences for a State that fails to perform according to an approved CVSP or otherwise fails to meet the conditions of this part?

    Pursuant to section 5101(a) of the FAST Act, adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(k), section 350.215(e) is completely revised. It now provides that an adverse decision will result in withdrawing approval of the plan and withholding all MCSAP funding or finding the State in noncompliance and withholding between 5 and 50 percent of the funding over the years of noncompliance. The remainder of the regulation remains unchanged.

    Section 350.301 What level of effort must a State maintain to qualify for MCSAP funding?

    Section 350.301(a) clarifies that the requirements apply each fiscal year to the “Lead State Agency.” It also clarifies that by “average aggregate expenditure” it means “level of effort.” Paragraph (b) is restated to allow States to exclude expenditures for federally sponsored demonstration and pilot CMV safety programs, strike forces, activities related to border enforcement, and for new entrant safety audits. However the State must exclude State matching funds, as currently required. Paragraph (c) contains language changes to conform to the FAST Act.

    To comply with the FAST Act section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(f), paragraphs (d) and (e) are added and paragraphs (a)-(c) are revised. Paragraph (d) allows States to use certain amounts as part of the State's maintenance of effort. Paragraph (e) provides that FMCSA may waive or modify the requirements of § 350.301 at the request of the State. Paragraph (e) provides that a State may request, and FMCSA may make, a reasonable adjustment to the level of effort required.

    Section 350.303 What are the State and Federal shares of expenses incurred under the MCSAP and High Priority Programs?

    The heading of § 350.303 is revised to clarify that this section refers to both the MCSAP and High Priority Program. As required by FAST Act, section 5101(c), amending 49 U.S.C. 31104(b), new paragraph (a) increases the percent of eligible costs that FMCSA will reimburse from 80 percent to at least 85 percent. It changes the reference to “costs incurred in the administration of an approved CVSP” to “costs incurred under the MCSAP and High Priority Program.” Paragraph (b) makes language changes and also changes the cross reference from 49 CFR part 18, which has been removed, to 2 CFR part 200, the Office of Management and Budget provision dealing with “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.” FMCSA adds paragraph (c) to provide that, when “. . . the amounts are not applied to the maintenance of effort required under § 350.301,”States may use amounts generated under 49 U.S.C. 14504a as part of the State's match required for MCSAP, as required in the FAST Act section 5101(a) which revised 49 U.S.C. 31102(g).

    Section 350.305 Are U.S. Territories subject to the MCSAP matching funds requirement?

    Section 350.305, including the heading, is changed by adding references to MCSAP to clarify that this section refers to MCSAP matching funds. The rest of the provision remains unchanged.

    Section 350.308 How long are High Priority Program funds available?

    As required by the FAST ACT section 5101(c), amending 49 U.S.C. 31104(f), FMCSA adds a new § 350.308 to specify how long High Priority Program funds are available, paralleling existing § 350.307. Paragraph (a) describes how long funds for CMV safety activities will be available. Paragraph (b) states how long funds for Innovative Technology Deployment activities will be available.

    Section 350.309 What activities are eligible for reimbursement under the MCSAP?

    In § 350.309, existing paragraph (c) becomes paragraph (c)(1), and the language is changed to conform to the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(h), In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), the reference to “controlled substance” is replaced with “criminal activity, including the trafficking of human beings.”

    FMCSA moves the content of existing paragraph (d) to paragraph (c)(2), and revises it. In paragraph (c)(2)(i), the reference to fiscal year 2003 is removed. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), the percent of MCSAP Basic funds available for enforcement activities related to non-CMVs is raised from 5 percent to 10 percent. FMCSA removes existing paragraph (d).

    Section 350.310 What types of activities and projects are eligible for reimbursement under the High Priority Program?

    FMCSA adds new § 350.310 to describe the activities and programs eligible for funding under the new High Priority Program, in parallel with § 350.309. New § 350.310 contains some of the information in existing § 350.319, but has been revised and reorganized to reflect the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(l). Paragraphs (a) through (e) provide a list of eligible activities. Paragraph (f) makes both Non-Lead State Agencies and Lead State Agencies supporting PRISM eligible for High Priority Program funding. Paragraph (g) states that the conduct of Safety Data Improvement Projects is an eligible activity for some entities and references the requirements for such a project. Paragraph (h) includes the improvement of CMV safety and compliance with regulations on the list of eligible activities. Paragraph (i) authorizes reimbursement for the implementation and maintenance of Innovative Technology Deployment of CMV information systems and networks.

    Section 350.311 What specific items are eligible for reimbursement under the MCSAP and High Priority Program?

    FMCSA adds § 350.311(a) to provide that FMCSA shall establish criteria for eligible activities and publish those criteria in accordance with the FAST Act, section 5101(c), amending 49 U.S.C. 31104(e). Existing § 350.311 becomes new § 350.311(b), and language and cross references are changed from 49 CFR part 18, which has been removed, to 2 CFR part 200, the Office of Management and Budget provision dealing with “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.”

    Section 350.313 How are MCSAP funds allocated?

    FMCSA completely revises § 350.313 to reflect the new organization of grants under the FAST Act. Because of grant program consolidation under sections 5101(a) and 5101(c) of the FAST Act, MCSAP funds are now only allocated in two ways, so paragraphs (a) (1) and (2), (b) and (c) are deleted. The remaining language is unchanged but renumbered. Paragraph (a) provides that Basic Program Funds are allocated in accordance with § 350.323. Paragraph (b) specifies that Incentive Funds are allocated in accordance with § 350.327.

    Section 350.319 [Removed]

    Existing § 350.319 is removed consistent with the FAST Act's revision of the High Priority Program, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(l). Some elements of this section are moved to § 350.310.

    Section 350.321 [Removed]

    Section 350.321 is removed, consistent with section 5101(e) of the FAST Act's removal of New Entrant Funds as a separate grants program and inclusion of them under the general MCSAP funds.

    Section 350.323 What criteria are used in the Basic Program Funds allocation?

    FMCSA alters paragraph (a) by adding the word “First” to indicate the order in which these procedures occur. As required by the FAST Act, section 5106(d), paragraphs (b)-(d) are added. FMCSA adds a new paragraph (b) to provide that the funding for certain grants awarded to a State will be averaged. New paragraph (c) provides that the total amount of MCSAP Basic funding is the sum of the amounts in paragraphs (a) and (b). In new paragraph (d), FMCSA explains how and why the Agency will adjust the total amount of MCSAP Basic funding. New paragraph (e) includes part of existing paragraph (b), and the language remains unchanged by the FAST Act, but the table has been removed.

    Section 350.329 [Removed]

    The contents of existing § 350.329 are moved to § 350.203 and revised. Existing § 350.329 is removed.

    Section 350.331 How does a State ensure its laws and regulations are compatible with the FMCSRs and HMRs?

    Section 331(a) is clarified and changed to provide that the State must submit copies of any new or amended State law or regulation on CMV safety to FMCSA, as well as review them. Existing paragraph (b) is removed, as it pertains to the review of a State law or regulation. Existing paragraphs (c) and (d) become new paragraphs (b) and (c). New paragraph (b) is changed by revising the introduction to remove the references to the “annual review” and the “annual CVSP,” instead referencing just the review and CVSP.

    Section 350.335 What are the consequences if a State has laws or regulations incompatible with the Federal regulations?

    In accordance with the FAST Act, section 5101(a), adding 49 U.S.C. 31102(k), in § 350.335, FMCSA combines existing paragraph (a), (b), and (d) into a new paragraph (a) and adds an introductory paragraph. In new paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), FMCSA removes the references to Basic Program Funds and Incentive Funds. In new paragraph (a)(3) the reference to Basic Program is changed to MCSAP Basic Program. Existing paragraph (c) is removed. Existing paragraph (e) becomes new paragraph (b)

    VI. Rulemaking Analyses Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    FMCSA has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). As explained above, this final rule is strictly ministerial in that it incorporates nondiscretionary statutory requirements. These statutory changes went into effect on October 1, 2016. The regulatory changes included in this rule are necessary to make FMCSA's regulations consistent with the FAST Act, and their economic impact will not exceed the $100 million annual threshold. Any costs associated with this action are attributable to the nondiscretionary statutory provisions. This final rule is not expected to generate substantial congressional or public interest. Therefore, a full regulatory impact analysis has not been conducted, nor has there been a review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    Although a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary because the level of economic significance does not exceed the $100 million annual threshold, FMCSA considered the net impact of the FAST Act provisions implemented by this final rule. This rule's provisions provide reimbursements for technology, staffing, enforcement, maintenance, and training activities related to FMCSA regulations and should ease the economic burden on regulated entities. The net impacts of these provisions are expected to be small and affect a small number of individuals and businesses.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA is not required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604(a) for this final rule because the Agency has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking prior to this action. FMCSA has determined that it has good cause to adopt the rule without notice and comment.

    Assistance for Small Entities

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

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the SBA's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $155 million (which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2014 levels) or more in any 1 year.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), nor does it revise any existing approved collections of information.

    E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

    FMCSA has determined that this rule would not impose substantial direct costs on States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

    E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

    E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

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

    E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

    Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII), and the Agency therefore finds that there will be no impact on the privacy of individuals.

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

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

    E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this action.

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

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

    E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This final rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)

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

    National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

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

    In addition to the NEPA requirements to examine impacts on air quality, the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) also requires FMCSA to analyze the potential impact of its actions on air quality and to ensure that FMCSA actions conform to State and local air quality implementation plans. This non-discretionary action falls within the CAA de minimis standards and is not subject to the Environmental Protection Agency's General Conformity Rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).

    Additionally, FMCSA evaluated the effects of this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 12898 and determined that there are no environmental justice issues associated with its provisions nor any collective environmental impacts resulting from its promulgation. Environmental justice issues would be raised if there were a “disproportionate” and “high and adverse impact” on minority or low-income populations.

    List of Subjects for 49 CFR Part 350

    Grant programs-transportation, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    PART 350—MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND HIGH PRIORITY PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 350 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13902, 31101-31104, 31108, 31136, 31141, 31161, 31310-31311, 31502; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    2. The heading for part 350 is revised as set out above. 3. Section 350.101 is revised to read as follows:
    § 350.101 What is the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and High Priority Program?

    (a) What is the MCSAP? The MCSAP is a Federal grant program that provides financial assistance to States to reduce the number and severity of accidents and hazardous materials incidents involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). The goal of the MCSAP is to reduce CMV-involved accidents, fatalities, and injuries through consistent, uniform, and effective CMV safety programs. Investing grant monies in appropriate safety programs will increase the likelihood that safety defects, driver deficiencies, and unsafe motor carrier practices will be detected and corrected before they become contributing factors to accidents. The MCSAP also sets forth the conditions for participation by States and local jurisdictions and promotes the adoption and uniform enforcement of State safety rules, regulations, and standards compatible with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and Federal Hazardous Material Regulations (HMRs) for both interstate and intrastate motor carriers and drivers.

    (b) What is the High Priority Program? The High Priority Program is a discretionary financial assistance program that supports, enriches, and augments State CMV safety programs through partnerships with States, local governments, federally recognized Indian tribes, other political jurisdictions, and other persons to carry out high priority activities and projects that augment motor carrier safety activities and, projects planned in accordance with the MCSAP. It also promotes the deployment of innovative technology for the CMV information systems and networks.

    4. Amend § 350.103 by revising the introductory text and paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 350.103 What is the purpose of this part?

    The purpose of this part is to ensure that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and States, local government agencies, other political jurisdictions, federally recognized Indian tribes, and other organizations and persons work in partnership to establish programs to improve motor carrier, CMV, and driver safety to support a safe and efficient transportation system by—

    (d) Assessing and improving State-wide performance by setting program goals and meeting performance standards, measures, and benchmarks.

    5. Amend § 350.105 by: a. Revising the definitions of “10-year average accident rate,” “Accident rate,” “Basic Program Funds,” and “Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP);” b. Removing the definition of “High Priority Activity Funds;” c. Adding definitions for “Innovative Technology Deployment funds,” “Lead State Agency,” “Level of effort,” and “Maintenance of effort” in alphabetical order; d. Revising the definition of “Operating Authority;” e. Adding a definition for “Plan” in alphabetical order; f. Removing the definition of “New Entrant Funds;” and g. Adding a definition for “State or States” in alphabetical order.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 350.105 What definitions are used in this part?

    10-year average accident rate means for each State, the aggregate number of large truck-involved fatal crashes (as reported in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)) for a 10-year period divided by the aggregate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the same 10-year period.

    Accident rate means for each State, the total number of fatal crashes involving large trucks (as measured by the FARS for each State) divided by the total Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for each State for all vehicles.

    Basic Program Funds means total MCSAP funds less the Administrative Takedown and Incentive Funds.

    Commercial vehicle safety plan (CVSP) or the Plan means the document outlining the State's CMV safety objectives, strategies, activities, and performance measures.

    Innovative Technology Deployment funds means funds provided to States for carrying out the deployment of innovative technology that support commercial vehicle information systems and networks.

    Lead State Agency means the State CMV safety agency designated by the Governor to be responsible for administering the Plan throughout the State.

    Level of effort—see Maintenance of effort.

    Maintenance of effort means the level of effort Lead State Agencies are required to maintain each fiscal year in accordance with 49 CFR 350.301. Maintenance of effort is also referred to as “maintenance of expenditure” and “level of effort.”

    New Entrant Safety Audits means the safety audits of interstate, and, at the State's discretion, intrastate, new entrant motor carriers under 49 U.S.C. 31144(g) that are required as a condition of MCSAP eligibility under § 350.201(z).

    Operating authority means the registration required by 49 U.S.C. 13902 and 31144, 49 CFR parts 365 and 368, and § 392.9a.

    Plansee Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan or CVSP.

    State or States means all of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

    6. Section 350.107 is revised to read as follows:
    § 350.107 What entities are eligible for funding under this part?

    (a) For MCSAP, all of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are eligible to receive MCSAP grants directly from FMCSA.

    (b) For the High Priority Program, the Administrator may make discretionary grants to and enter into cooperative agreements with States, local governments, federally recognized Indian tribes, other political jurisdictions as necessary, and any person to carry out high priority activities and projects that augment motor carrier safety activities and to States for projects planned in accordance with the Innovative Technology Deployment Program.

    7. The heading for § 350.109 is revised to read as follows:
    § 350.109 What are the national Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) elements?
    8. Add § 350.110 to read as follows:
    § 350.110 What are the national High Priority Program elements?

    FMCSA may generally use these funds to support, enrich, or evaluate State CMV safety programs and to accomplish the objectives listed below:

    (a) Increase public awareness and education on commercial motor vehicle safety.

    (b) Target unsafe driving of commercial motor vehicles and noncommercial motor vehicles in areas identified as high risk crash corridors.

    (c) Improve the safe and secure movement of hazardous materials.

    (d) Improve safe transportation of goods and persons in foreign commerce.

    (e) Demonstrate new technologies to improve commercial motor vehicle safety.

    (f) Support participation in performance and registration information systems management developed under 49 U.S.C. 31106—

    (1) For entities not responsible for submitting the CVSP under this part, or

    (2) For entities responsible for submitting the CVSP under this part—

    (i) Before October 1, 2020, to achieve compliance with the requirements of participation; and

    (ii) Beginning October 1, 2020, or once compliance is achieved, whichever is sooner, for special initiatives or projects that exceed routine operations required for participation.

    (g) Conduct Safety Data improvement Projects—

    (1) That complete or exceed the requirements of the program developed to meet § 350.201(r) of this part for entities not responsible for submitting the CVSP under this part; or

    (2) That exceed the requirements of the program developed to meet § 350.201(r) of this part for entities that are responsible for submitting the CVSP under this part.

    (h) Otherwise improve commercial motor vehicle safety regulations.

    9. Revise § 350.201 to read as follows:
    § 350.201 What conditions must a State meet to qualify for MCSAP Funds?

    To qualify for MCSAP Funds, each State must:

    (a) Assume responsibility for improving motor carrier safety by adopting and enforcing State safety laws and regulations, standards, and orders that are compatible with Federal regulations, the FMCSRs (49 CFR parts 390-397) and the HMRs (49 CFR parts 107 (subparts F and G only), 171-173, 177, 178 and 180), and standards, and orders of the Federal Government, except as may be determined by the Administrator to be inapplicable to a State enforcement program.

    (b) Implement performance-based activities, including deployment and maintenance of technology to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of CMV safety programs.

    (c) Designate a Lead State Agency responsible for administering the CVSP throughout the State.

    (d) Give satisfactory assurances that the Lead State Agency has or will have the legal authority, resources, and qualified personnel necessary to enforce the FMCSRs and HMRs or compatible State laws or regulations, standards and orders in the CVSP.

    (e) Give satisfactory assurances that the State will devote adequate resources to the administration of the CVSP including the enforcement of the FMCSRs, HMRs, or compatible State laws, regulations, standards, and orders throughout the State.

    (f) Provide that the total expenditure of amounts of the Lead State Agency responsible for administering the Plan will be maintained at a level of effort each fiscal year in accordance with 49 CFR 350.301.

    (g) Provide a right of entry (or other method a State may use that is adequate to obtain necessary information) and inspection to carry out the CVSP.

    (h) Provide that all reports required in the CVSP under this section be available to FMCSA upon request.

    (i) Provide that the Lead State Agency adopt the reporting standards and use the forms for recordkeeping, inspections, and investigations that FMCSA prescribes.

    (j) Require all registrants of CMVs to demonstrate their knowledge of applicable FMCSRs, HMRs, or compatible State laws or regulations, standards, and orders.

    (k) Grant maximum reciprocity for inspections conducted under the North American Inspection Standards through the use of a nationally accepted system that allows ready identification of previously inspected CMVs.

    (l) Ensure that activities described in 49 CFR 350.309, if financed through MCSAP funds, will not diminish the effectiveness of the development and implementation of the programs to improve motor carrier, CMV, and driver safety.

    (m) Ensure that the Lead State Agency will coordinate the CVSP, data collection and information systems, with the State highway safety improvement program under 23 U.S.C. 148(c).

    (n) Ensure participation in appropriate FMCSA information technology and data systems and other information systems by all appropriate jurisdictions receiving funding under this section.

    (o) Ensure information is exchanged with other States in a timely manner.

    (p) Provide satisfactory assurances that the State will undertake efforts that will emphasize and improve enforcement of State and local traffic laws and regulations related to CMV safety.

    (q) Provide satisfactory assurances that the State will address activities in support of the national program elements listed in § 350.109, including the following three activities:

    (1) Activities aimed at removing impaired CMV drivers from the highways through adequate enforcement of regulations on the use of alcohol and controlled substances and by ensuring ready roadside access to alcohol detection and measuring equipment.

    (2) Activities aimed at providing training to MCSAP personnel to recognize drivers impaired by alcohol or controlled substances.

    (3) Activities related to criminal interdiction, including human trafficking, when conducted with an appropriate CMV inspection, and appropriate strategies for carrying out those interdiction activities, including interdiction activities that affect the transportation of controlled substances (as defined in section 102 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 802) and listed in part 1308 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations) by any occupant of a CMV.

    (r) Establish and dedicate sufficient resources to a program to ensure that accurate, complete, and timely motor carrier safety data are collected and reported, and to ensure the State's participation in a national motor carrier safety data correction system prescribed by FMCSA.

    (s)(1) Provide that the State will enforce registration (i.e., operating authority) requirements under 49 U.S.C. 13902 and 31134, and 49 CFR 392.9a by prohibiting the operation of (i.e., placing out of service) any vehicle discovered to be operating without the required operating authority or beyond the scope of the motor carrier's operating authority.

    (2) Ensure that the State will cooperate in the enforcement of financial responsibility requirements under 49 U.S.C. 13906, 31138, 31139, and 49 CFR part 387.

    (t) Ensure consistent, effective, and reasonable sanctions.

    (u) Ensure that roadside inspections will be conducted at locations that are adequate to protect the safety of drivers and enforcement personnel.

    (v) Provide that the State will include in the training manual for the licensing examination to drive a CMV and the training manual for the licensing examination to drive a non-CMV information on best practices for driving safely in the vicinity of non-CMVs and CMVs.

    (w) Provide that the State will conduct comprehensive and highly visible traffic enforcement and CMV safety inspection programs in high-risk locations and corridors.

    (x) Except in the case of an imminent or obvious safety hazard, ensure that an inspection of a vehicle transporting passengers for a motor carrier of passengers is conducted at a bus station, terminal, border crossing, maintenance facility, destination, or other location where a motor carrier may make a planned stop (excluding a weigh station).

    (y) Ensure that it transmits to roadside inspectors the notice of each Federal exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) and 49 CFR 390.23 and 390.25 provided to the State by FMCSA, including the name of the person granted the exemption and any terms and conditions that apply to the exemption.

    (z) Except for a territory of the United States, conduct new entrant safety audits of interstate and, at the State's discretion, intrastate new entrant motor carriers under 49 U.S.C. 31144(g). The State must verify the quality of the work conducted by a third party authorized to conduct new entrant safety audits under 49 U.S.C. 31144(g) on its behalf and the State remains solely responsible for the management and oversight of the activities.

    (aa) Agree to fully participate in performance and registration information systems management under 49 U.S.C. 31106(b) not later than October 1, 2020, by complying with the conditions for participation under paragraph (3) of that section, or demonstrate to the FMCSA an alternative approach for identifying and immobilizing a motor carrier with serious safety deficiencies in a manner that provides an equivalent level of safety.

    (bb) In the case of a State that shares a land border with another country, conduct a border CMV safety program focusing on international commerce that includes enforcement and related projects or forfeit all funds based on border-related activities.

    (cc) Comply with the requirements of the innovative technology deployment program in 49 U.S.C. 31102(l)(3) if the State funds operation and maintenance costs associated with innovative technology deployment with its MCSAP funding.

    10. Add § 350.203 to read as follows:
    § 350.203 What conditions must an applicant meet to qualify for High Priority Program Funds?

    (a) States must meet the requirements of § 350.201, as applicable.

    (b) If applicable, other applicants, as described in § 350.107, must meet the following conditions:

    (1) Prepare a proposal in accordance with § 350.213, and coordinate the proposal with the Lead State Agency to ensure the proposal is consistent with State and national CMV safety program priorities.

    (2) Prepare a proposal that is responsive to the notice of funding availability.

    (3) Certify that the applicant has the legal authority, resources, and trained and qualified personnel necessary to perform the functions specified in the proposal.

    (4) Designate a person who will be responsible for implementation, reporting, and administering the approved proposal and will be the primary contact for the project.

    (5) Agree to fund up to 15 percent of the proposed request.

    (6) Agree to prepare and submit all reports required in connection with the proposal or other conditions of the grant or cooperative agreement.

    (7) Agree to use the forms and reporting criteria required by the Lead State Agency and/or the FMCSA to record work activities to be performed under the proposal.

    (8) Certify that the local agency will impose sanctions for violations of CMV and driver laws and regulations that are consistent with those of the State.

    (9) Certify participation in national databases appropriate to the project.

    11. Amend § 350.205 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 350.205 How and when does a State apply for MCSAP funding?

    (a) The Lead State Agency must submit the State's CVSP to FMCSA, on or before August 1 of each year.

    12. Add § 350.206 to read as follows:
    § 350.206 How and when does one apply for High Priority Program funding?

    The FMCSA establishes and publishes application instructions and criteria for eligible activities to be funded with financial assistance agreements under this section in a notice of funding availability which is published at least 30 days before the financial assistance program application period closes.

    13. Revise § 350.207 to read as follows:
    § 350.207 What response does a State receive to its CVSP submission?

    (a) FMCSA will notify the State, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the CVSP whether FMCSA—

    (1) Approves the CVSP; or

    (2) Withholds approval of the CVSP because it does not meet the requirements of this part, or is not adequate to ensure effective enforcement of the FMCSRs and HMRs or compatible State laws and regulations.

    (b) If FMCSA withholds approval—

    (1) FMCSA will give the State a written explanation of the reasons for withholding approval of the CVSP and allow the State to modify and resubmit the CVSP for approval.

    (2) The State will have 30 days from the date of the notice to modify and resubmit the CVSP.

    (c) Disapproval of a resubmitted CVSP is final for that fiscal year.

    (d) Any State aggrieved by an adverse decision under this section may seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. chapter 7.

    14. Add § 350.208 to read as follows:
    § 350.208 What response will the applicant for a High Priority Program receive?

    (a) If the grant or cooperative agreement is approved, the applicant will receive a grant agreement to execute.

    (b) If the grant or cooperative agreement is denied, the applicant will receive a letter of denial from the Agency.

    15. Add § 350.210 to read as follows:
    § 350.210 How does an applicant demonstrate it satisfies the conditions for High Priority Program Funding?

    An applicant for a High Priority Program Grant or cooperative agreement should refer to § 350.203. There is no separate certification for this program.

    16. Revise § 350.211 to read as follows:
    § 350.211 What is the format of the certification required by § 350.209?

    The State's certification must be consistent with the following content: I (name), (title), on behalf of the State (or Commonwealth) of (State), as requested by the Administrator as a condition of approval of a grant under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31102, as amended, do hereby certify as follows:

    (a) The State has adopted commercial motor carrier and highway hazardous materials safety regulations, standards and orders that are compatible with the FMCSRs and the HMRs, and the standards and orders of the Federal Government.

    (b) The State has designated (name of Lead State Agency) as the Lead State Agency to administer the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan throughout the State for the grant sought and (names of agencies) to perform defined functions under the CVSP. The Lead State Agency has the legal authority, resources, and qualified personnel necessary to enforce the State's commercial motor carrier, driver, and highway hazardous materials safety laws, regulations, standards, and orders.

    (c) The State will obligate the funds or resources necessary to provide a matching share to the Federal assistance provided in the grant to administer the Plan submitted and to enforce the State's commercial motor carrier safety, driver, and hazardous materials laws, regulations, standards, and orders in a manner consistent with the approved Plan.

    (d) The laws of the State provide the State's enforcement officials right of entry (or other method a State may use that is adequate to obtain the necessary information) and inspection sufficient to carry out the purposes of the CVSP, as approved, and provide that the State will grant maximum reciprocity for inspections conducted pursuant to the North American Standard Inspection procedure, through the use of a nationally accepted system allowing ready identification of previously inspected CMVs.

    (e) The State requires that all reports relating to the program be submitted to the appropriate State agency or agencies, and the State will make these reports available, in a timely manner, to the FMCSA on request.

    (f) The State has uniform reporting requirements and uses FMCSA-designated forms for record keeping, inspection, investigations, and other enforcement activities.

    (g) The State has in effect a requirement that all registrants of CMVs demonstrate their knowledge of the applicable Federal or State CMV safety laws or regulations.

    (h) The State must ensure that the total expenditure of amounts of the Lead State Agency will be maintained at a level of effort each fiscal year in accordance with 49 CFR 350.301.

    (i) The State will ensure that MCSAP-funded enforcement of activities under 49 CFR 350.309 will not diminish the effectiveness of the development and implementation of the programs to improve motor carrier, CMV, and driver safety.

    (j) The State will ensure that CMV size and weight enforcement activities funded with MCSAP funds will not diminish the effectiveness of other CMV safety enforcement programs.

    (k) The State will ensure that violation sanctions imposed and collected by the State are consistent, effective, and reasonable.

    (l) The State will:

    (1) Establish and dedicate sufficient resources to a program to provide FMCSA with accurate, complete, and timely reporting of motor carrier safety information that includes documenting the effects of the State's CMV safety programs;

    (2) Participate in a national motor carrier safety data correction program (DataQs);

    (3) Participate in appropriate FMCSA systems including information technology and data systems and other information systems; and

    (4) Ensure information is exchanged in a timely manner with other States.

    (m) The State will ensure that the Plan, data collection, and information data systems are coordinated with the State highway safety improvement program under sec. 148(c) of title 23, U.S. Code. The name of the Governor's highway safety representative (or other authorized State official through whom coordination was accomplished) is ______. (Name)

    (n) The State has undertaken efforts to emphasize and improve enforcement of State and local traffic laws and regulations as they pertain to CMV safety.

    (o) The State will ensure that it has departmental policies stipulating that roadside inspections will be conducted at locations that are adequate to protect the safety of drivers and enforcement personnel.

    (p) The State will ensure that MCSAP-funded personnel, including sub-grantees, meet the minimum Federal standards set forth in 49 CFR part 385, subpart C, for training and experience of employees performing safety audits, compliance reviews, or driver/vehicle roadside inspection.

    (q) The State will enforce registration (i.e., operating authority) requirements under 49 U.S.C 13902, 31134, and 49 CFR 392.9a by prohibiting the operation of any vehicle discovered to be operating without the required registration or beyond the scope of the motor carrier's registration.

    (r) The State will cooperate in the enforcement of financial responsibility requirements under 49 U.S.C. 13906, 31138, 31139, and 49 CFR part 387.

    (s) The State will include, in the training manual for the licensing examination to drive a non-CMV and the training manual for the licensing examination to drive a CMV, information on best practices for safe driving in the vicinity of noncommercial and commercial motor vehicles.

    (t) The State will conduct comprehensive and highly visible traffic enforcement and CMV safety inspection programs in high-risk locations and corridors.

    (u) The State will ensure that, except in the case of an imminent or obvious safety hazard, an inspection of a vehicle transporting passengers for a motor carrier of passengers is conducted at a bus station, terminal, border crossing, maintenance facility, destination, or other location where motor carriers may make planned stops (excluding a weigh station).

    (v) The State will transmit to roadside inspectors the notice of each Federal exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) and 49 CFR 390.23 and 390.25 as provided to the State by FMCSA, including the name of the entity granted the exemption and any terms and conditions that apply to the exemption.

    (w) Except for a territory of the United States, the State will conduct safety audits of interstate and, at the State's discretion, intrastate new entrant motor carriers under 49 U.S.C. 31144(g). The State will verify the quality of the work conducted by a third party authorized to conduct safety audits under 49 U.S.C. 31144(g) on its behalf and the State remains solely responsible for the management and oversight of the activities.

    (x) The State fully participates in the performance and registration information systems management under 49 U.S.C. 31106(b) not later than October 1, 2020, or demonstrates to FMCSA an alternative approach for identifying and immobilizing a motor carrier with serious safety deficiencies in a manner that provides an equivalent level of safety.

    (y) In the case of a State that shares a land border with another country, the State will conduct a border CMV safety program focusing on international commerce that includes enforcement and related projects or it will forfeit all MCSAP funds based on border-related activities.

    (z) If a State meets all MCSAP requirements and funds operation and maintenance costs associated with innovative technology deployment with MCSAP funds, the State agrees to comply with the Innovative Technology Deployment requirements established pursuant to 49 CFR 350.310 and 350.311.

    Date Signature
    17. Amend § 350.213 by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) to read as follows:
    § 350.213 What must a State CVSP include?

    (b) * * *

    (3) Criminal interdiction activities, including human trafficking, and appropriate strategies for carrying out those interdiction activities, including interdiction activities affecting the transportation of controlled substances by any occupant of a CMV.

    (4) Activities to enforce registration requirements under 49 U.S.C. 13902 and 31134 and to cooperate in the enforcement of financial responsibility requirements under 49 U.S.C. 13906, 31138 and 31139 and 49 CFR part 387.

    18. Amend § 350.215 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 350.215 What are the consequences for a State that fails to perform according to an approved CVSP or otherwise fails to meet the conditions of this part?

    (e) Any adverse decision will result in FMCSA—

    (1) Withdrawing approval of the Plan and withholding all MCSAP funding; or

    (2) Finding the State in noncompliance and withholding—

    (i) Up to 5 percent of MCSAP funds during the fiscal year that the FMCSA notifies the State of its noncompliance;

    (ii) Up to 10 percent of MCSAP funds for the first full fiscal year of noncompliance;

    (iii) Up to 25 percent of MCSAP funds for the second full fiscal year of noncompliance; and

    (iv) Not more than 50 percent of MCSAP funds for the third and any subsequent full fiscal year of noncompliance.

    19. Revise § 350.301 to read as follows:
    § 350.301 What level of effort must a State maintain to qualify for MCSAP funding?

    (a) Each fiscal year, the State must maintain the average aggregate expenditure (level of effort) of the Lead State Agency, exclusive of Federal funds and State matching funds, for CMV safety programs eligible for funding under this part at a level at least equal to the average level of that expenditure for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

    (b) In determining a State's average level of effort, FMCSA—

    (1) May allow the State to exclude State expenditures for federally sponsored demonstration and pilot CMV safety programs and strike forces.

    (2) May allow the State to exclude expenditures for activities related to border enforcement and new entrant safety audits;

    (3) Shall require the State to exclude Federal funds; and

    (4) Shall require the State to exclude State matching funds.

    (c) The State must include costs associated with activities performed during the base period by the Lead State Agency that receives funds under this part. It must include only those activities which meet the current requirements for funding eligibility under the grant program.

    (d) States may use amounts generated under 49 U.S.C. 14504a as part of the State's maintenance of effort, provided the amounts are not applied to the match required under 49 CFR 350.303.

    (e) Waivers and Modifications—Upon the request of a State, FMCSA may waive or modify the requirements of this section for a total of 1 fiscal year per request if FMCSA determines that the waiver or modification is reasonable, based on circumstances described by the State.

    20. Revise § 350.303 to read as follows:
    § 350.303 What are the State and Federal shares of expenses incurred under the MCSAP and High Priority Program?

    (a) FMCSA will reimburse at least 85 percent of the eligible costs incurred under the MCSAP and High Priority Program.

    (b) In-kind contributions are acceptable in meeting the matching share if they represent eligible costs as established by 2 CFR part 200 or FMCSA policy.

    (c) States may use amounts generated under 49 U.S.C. 14504a as part of the State's match required for MCSAP, provided the amounts are not applied to the maintenance of effort required under § 350.301.

    21. Revise § 350.305 to read as follows:
    § 350.305 Are U.S. Territories subject to the MCSAP matching funds requirement?

    The Administrator waives the requirement for matching funds under the MCSAP for the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

    22. Add § 350.308 to read as follows:
    § 350.308 How long are High Priority Program funds available?

    (a) Funds for CMV safety activities under 49 CFR 350.310(a)-(h) obligated to an entity will remain available for the rest of the fiscal year in which they were obligated and the next 2 full fiscal years.

    (b) Funds for Innovative Technology Deployment activities under 49 CFR 350.310(i) obligated to a State will remain available for the rest of the fiscal year in which they were obligated and the next 4 full fiscal years.

    23. Amend § 350.309 by revising paragraph (c) and removing paragraph (d).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 350.309 What activities are eligible for reimbursement under the MCSAP?

    (c) The following activities are also eligible for reimbursement when part of the approved Plan

    (1) When accompanied by an appropriate North American Standard Inspection and inspection report—

    (i) Enforcement of CMV size and weight limitations at locations, excluding fixed-weight facilities, such as near steep grades or mountainous terrains, where the weight of a CMV can significantly affect the safe operation of the vehicle, or at ports were intermodal shipping containers enter and leave the United States; and

    (ii) Detection of and enforcement activities taken as a result of criminal activity, including the trafficking of human beings, in a CMV or by any occupant, including the operator of the CMV; and

    (2) For documented enforcement of State traffic laws and regulations designed to promote the safe operation of CMVs, including documented enforcement of such laws and regulations relating to non-CMVs when necessary to promote the safe operation of CMVs, if—

    (i) The number of motor carrier safety activities, including roadside safety inspections is maintained at a level at least equal to the average level of such activities conducted in the State in fiscal years 2004 and 2005; and

    (ii) The State does not use more than 10 percent of the MCSAP Basic funds for enforcement activities relating to non-CMVs necessary to promote the safe operation of CMVs, unless the Administrator determines that a higher percentage will result in significant increases in CMV safety.

    24. Add § 350.310 to read as follows:
    § 350.310 What types of activities and projects are eligible for reimbursement under the High Priority Program?

    The types of activities eligible for reimbursement under the High Priority Program include:

    (a) Increasing public awareness and education about CMV safety;

    (b) Targeting unsafe driving of CMVs and non-CMVs in areas identified as high risk crash corridors;

    (c) Improving the safe and secure movement of hazardous materials;

    (d) Improving safe transportation of goods and persons in foreign commerce;

    (e) Demonstrating new technologies to improve CMV safety;

    (f) Supporting participation in performance and registration information systems management (PRISM) under 49 U.S.C. 31106(b)—

    (1) For Non-Lead State Agencies; or

    (2) For Lead State Agencies—

    (i) Before October 1, 2020, to achieve compliance with the requirements of participation; and

    (ii) Beginning on October 1, 2020, or once compliance is achieved, whichever is sooner, for special initiatives or projects that exceed routine operations required for participation;

    (g) Conducting safety data improvement projects—

    (1) That complete or exceed the requirements under 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(P) for Non-Lead State Agencies; or

    (2) That exceed the requirements under 49 U.S.C. 31102(c)(2)(P) for Lead State Agencies;

    (h) Improving CMV safety and compliance with CMV safety regulations; and

    (i) Implementing and maintaining the Innovative Technology Deployment of CMV information systems and networks in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31102(l)(3).

    25. Revise § 350.311 to read as follows:
    § 350.311 What specific items are eligible for reimbursement under the MCSAP and High Priority Program?

    (a) FMCSA shall establish criteria for eligible activities to be funded and publish those criteria in a notice of funding availability before the MCSAP and High Priority Program application periods.

    (b) All reimbursable items must be necessary, reasonable, allocable and allowable under this part and 2 CFR part 200. The eligibility of specific items is subject to review by FMCSA. The following types of expenses are eligible for reimbursement:

    (1) Personnel expenses, including recruitment and screening, training, salaries and fringe benefits, and supervision.

    (2) Equipment and travel expenses, including per diem, directly related to the enforcement of safety regulations, including vehicles, uniforms, communications equipment, special inspection equipment, vehicle maintenance, fuel, and oil.

    (3) Indirect expenses as allowed by 2 CFR part 200.

    (4) Expenses related to data acquisition, storage, and analysis that are specifically identifiable as program-related to develop a data base to coordinate resources and improve efficiency, including operation and maintenance costs related to innovative technology deployment.

    (5) Clerical and administrative expenses, to the extent necessary and directly attributable to the MCSAP.

    (6) Expenses related to the improvement of real property (e.g., installation of lights for the inspection of vehicles at night). Acquisition of real property, land, or buildings are not eligible costs.

    26. Revise § 350.313 to read as follows:
    § 350.313 How are MCSAP funds allocated?

    After deducting administrative expenses authorized in 49 U.S.C. 31104(c), the MCSAP funds are allocated among States with approved CVSPs in two ways:

    (a) As Basic Program Funds in accordance with § 350.323 of this part,

    (b) As Incentive Funds in accordance with § 350.327 of this part.

    § 350.319 [Removed]
    27. Remove § 350.319:
    § 350.321 [Removed]
    28. Remove § 350.321
    29. Revise § 350.323 to read as follows:
    § 350.323 What criteria are used in the Basic Program Funds allocation?

    (a) First, the funds are distributed proportionally to the States using the following four, equally weighted (25 percent), factors.

    (1) 1997 Road miles (all highways) as defined by the FHWA.

    (2) All vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as defined by the FHWA.

    (3) Population—annual census estimates as issued by the U.S. Census Bureau.

    (4) Special fuel consumption (net after reciprocity adjustment) as defined by the FHWA.

    (b) Next, the FMCSA will average the funding awarded to a State, or other equitable amounts, in fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015 for—

    (1) Border enforcement grants under 49 U.S.C. 31107; and

    (2) New entrant audit grants under 49 U.S.C. 31144(g)(5).

    (c) FMCSA will add the amount in paragraph (a) of this section to the amount in paragraph (b) of this section to calculate the total amount of MCSAP Basic funding.

    (d) Subject to the availability of funding and notwithstanding fluctuations in the data elements used by FMCSA, the initial amounts resulting from the calculation in paragraph (c) of this section shall be adjusted to ensure that, for each State, the amount shall not be less than 97 percent of the average amount of funding received or other equitable amounts in fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015 for—

    (1) MCSAP funds under 49 U.S.C. 31102;

    (2) Border enforcement grants under 49 U.S.C. 31107; and

    (3) New entrant audit grants under 49 U.S.C. 31144(g)(5).

    (e) Distribution of Basic Program Funds for Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories is subject to allocation as follows:

    (1) U.S. territories receive a fixed amount of $350,000;

    (2) Puerto Rico receives a maximum allocation of 4.944 percent or a minimum allocation of 0.44 percent or $350,000, whichever is greater.

    § 350.329 [Removed]
    30. Remove § 350.329. 31. Amend § 350.331 by: a. Revising paragraph (a); b. Removing paragraph (b); c. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (b) and (c); and d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (b) introductory text.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 350.331 How does a State ensure its laws and regulations are compatible with the FMCSRs and HMRs?

    (a) States must submit a copy of new or amended State laws or regulations on CMV safety immediately after the enactment or issuance.

    (b) A State must conduct a review of its laws and regulations for compatibility and report the results of that review in the CVSP in accordance with § 350.213(l), along with a certification of compliance, no later than August 1 of each year. The report must include the following two items:

    32. Revise § 350.335 to read as follows:
    § 350.335 What are the consequences if a State has laws or regulations incompatible with the Federal regulations?

    (a) FMCSA may initiate a proceeding to withdraw Plan approval or withhold MCSAP funds in accordance with 49 CFR 320.215 in the following situations:

    (1) When a State that currently has compatible CMV safety laws and regulations pertaining to interstate commerce (i.e., rules identical to the FMCSRs and HMRs or have the same effect as the FMCSRs and identical to the HMRs) and intrastate commerce (i.e., rules identical to or within the tolerance guidelines for the FMCSRs and identical to the HMRs) enacts a law or regulation which results in an incompatible rule;

    (2) When a State fails to adopt a new FMCSR or HMR or an amendment to an FMCSR or HMR within 3 years of its effective date; or

    (3) Upon a finding by FMCSA, based upon its own initiative or upon a petition of any person, including any State, that a State law, regulation or enforcement practice pertaining to CMV safety, in either interstate or intrastate commerce, is incompatible with the FMCSRs or HMRs.

    (b) Any decision regarding the compatibility of State law or regulation with the HMRs that requires an interpretation will be referred to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the DOT for such interpretation before proceeding under § 350.215.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87: September 19, 2016. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24925 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 382 and 383 RIN 2126-AB95 General Technical, Organizational, Conforming, and Correcting Amendments to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Correction AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration corrects an inadvertent error in the October 4, 2016 final rule “General Technical, Organizational, Conforming, and Correcting Amendments to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.” Due to an error, the rule unintentionally did not include the word “and” at the end of the next to last condition for a farm vehicle driver to take advantage of the farm vehicle driver exceptions to commercial driver's license standards and alcohol and drug testing requirements. Today's correction makes it clear that all four conditions in each farm vehicle driver exception must be met in order for the exception to be used.

    DATES:

    Effective: October 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David Miller, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Regulatory Development Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202) 366-5370. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published a document in the Federal Register on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68336). This correction updates the amendments published on October 4, 2016. In rule FR Doc. 2016-22996, published on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68336).

    List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 382

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Penalties, Safety, Transportation.

    49 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    Accordingly, 49 CFR part 382 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

    PART 382—CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND ALCOHOL USE AND TESTING 1. The authority citation for part 382 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31301 et seq., 31502; sec. 32934 of Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    2. In § 382.103, revise paragraph (d)(3)(i)(C) to read as follows:
    § 382.103 Applicability.* * * * *

    (d) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (C) Not used in the operations of a for-hire motor carrier, except for an exempt motor carrier as defined in § 390.5 of this subchapter; and

    PART 383—COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES 3. The authority citation for part 383 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 214 and 215 of Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 1012(b) of Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 297, sec. 4140 of Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; sec. 32934 of Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 7208 of Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1593; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    4. In § 383.3, revise paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 383.3 Applicability.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Not used in the operations of a for-hire motor carrier, except for an exempt motor carrier as defined in § 390.5 of this subchapter; and

    Issued on: October 6, 2016. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24922 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    81 199 Friday, October 14, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket Number EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004] RIN 1904-AD61 Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meetings for the Circulator Pumps Working Group To Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meetings and webinars.

    SUMMARY:

    Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) has granted the Circulator Pumps Working Group an extension to allow for more time for discussion on economic analysis and negotiations on standard levels. The Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing additional open meetings have been scheduled for the Circulator Pumps Working Group.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates. Individuals will also have the opportunity to participate by webinar. To register for the webinars and receive call-in information, please register at DOE's Web site: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=66.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joe Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. Email: [email protected]

    Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE published a notice of public meeting in the Federal Register on April 20, 2016 (81 FR 23198) announcing Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice Open Meetings for the Circulator Pumps Working Group to Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures. On January 20, 2016, ASRAC met and unanimously passed the recommendation to form a Circulator Pumps Working Group. The purpose of the working group is to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus regarding definitions, test procedures, and energy conservation standards, to form the basis of proposed energy conservation standards and test procedures. The Working Group consists of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards, and will consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues. Per the ASRAC Charter, the Working Group is expected to make a concerted effort to negotiate a final term sheet by December 31, 2016.

    This notice announces the next series of meetings for this working group. DOE will host public meetings and webinars on the below dates.

    November 3, 2016; 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. at Navigant 1200 19th St. NW., Washington, DC November 4, 2016; 8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. at Navigant 1200 19th St. NW., Washington, DC November 30, 2016; 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. at Navigant 1200 19th St. NW., Washington, DC December 1, 2016; 8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. at Navigant 1200 19th St. NW., Washington, DC

    Members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the meeting and, if time allows, may make oral statements during the specified period for public comment. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, email [email protected] In the email, please indicate your name, organization (if appropriate), and contact information.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24867 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9159; Airspace Docket No. 13-AAL-7] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Healy, AK AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Healy River Airport, Healy, AK, to support the development of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, and for the safety and management of controlled airspace within the National Airspace System.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9159; Airspace Docket No. 13-AAL-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9159/Airspace Docket No. 13-AAL-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page athttp://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Healy River Airport, Healy, AK. This airspace is necessary to support the development of IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport. Class E airspace would be established within a 3.5-mile radius of the Healy River Airport, with segments extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 11.5 miles northwest of the airport, and 10.5 miles south of the airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AAL AK E5 Healy, AK [New] Healy River Airport, Alaska (Lat. 63°52′03″ N., long. 148°58′08″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.5-mile radius of Healy River Airport, and that airspace 2 miles either side of the 333° bearing from the airport extending from the 3.5 mile radius to 11.50 miles northwest of the airport, and that airspace 0.6 miles west and 2.5 miles east of the 169° bearing from the airport extending from the 3.5 mile radius to 10.5 miles south of the airport. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 5, 2016. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24773 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Parts 159 and 173 [USCBP-2016-0065] RIN 1515-AE16 Electronic Notice of Liquidation AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of the Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document proposes to amend the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect that official notice of liquidation, suspension of liquidation, and extension of liquidation will be posted electronically on the CBP Web site. This document also proposes regulatory revisions to reflect that official notice of liquidation will no longer be posted at the customhouses or stations and that official notices of suspension of liquidation and extension of liquidation will no longer be mailed. Additionally, this document proposes to make certain technical corrections to the CBP regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number USCBP-2016-0065.

    Mail: Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attention: Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may also be inspected on regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street, NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325-0118.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Virginia McPherson, ACE Business Office, Office of Trade, 571-468-5181, or [email protected] Randy Mitchell, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of Trade, 202-863-6532, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this proposed rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this regulatory change. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information or authority that support such recommended change. See ADDRESSES above for information on how to submit comments.

    I. Background A. Statutory Authority

    Section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1500), provides CBP with the authority, under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary, to, among other things, give or transmit notice of liquidation pursuant to an electronic data interchange system. See 19 U.S.C. 1500(e). Similarly, CBP is authorized to give notice of extension of liquidation in such form and manner (which may include electronic transmittal) as prescribed by regulation and notice of suspension of liquidation in such manner as considered appropriate. See 19 U.S.C. 1504(b) and (c). Additionally, the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) was established by Subtitle B of Title VI—Customs Modernization, in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, December 8, 1993), to provide for, among other things, the electronic status of liquidation. See 19 U.S.C. 1411.

    B. Current Regulations and Procedures

    CBP defines “liquidation” in section 159.1 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or drawback entries. See 19 CFR 159.1. Currently, notices of liquidation for formal entry, including notices of liquidation by operation of law, are physically posted in the customhouse or station at the port of entry on CBP Form 4333, and this physical posting is deemed the legal evidence of liquidation and provides the date of liquidation. See 19 CFR 159.9(a)-(c). The date of liquidation is important if an importer chooses to protest CBP's decision as to the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or drawback entries. The protest must be filed within a specified number of days from the date of liquidation. See 19 CFR 174.12(e).

    Generally, the bulletin notice of liquidation is prepared on Thursday afternoons and is placed in the public area at the customhouse or station for display so that the public may view it beginning each Friday morning. Each port has a sign posted in a conspicuous place, in accordance with 19 CFR 159.9(b), directing the public to the bulletin notice.

    Courtesy notices of liquidation are sent via a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system or physically mailed on CBP Form 4333-A. See 19 CFR 159.9(d). CBP generally sends the electronic courtesy notice before the posting of official notice. However, because a paper courtesy notice may be received at or about the time the bulletin notice of liquidation has been physically posted, there may be a delay between the official date of liquidation and when the paper courtesy notice is received. Liquidation of an entry may be extended or suspended. See 19 U.S.C. 1504; 19 CFR 159.12 and 159.51. When extension or suspension occurs, official notices are mailed on an appropriately modified CBP Form 4333-A, in accordance with 19 CFR 159.12(b) and (c), and courtesy notices of extension or suspension are provided electronically for electronic filers.

    Individuals interested in perusing the bulletin notices must physically go to the customhouse. In most instances, CBP liquidates entries without changing the duties, fees or charges asserted by the importer; therefore there is generally no need to know the exact date of liquidation for most entries. However, as stated above, the exact date of liquidation is important if an importer wishes to timely file a protest challenging any of the decisions about an entry that are subsumed into the liquidation and enumerated in 19 U.S.C. 1514(a). CBP estimates that protesters or their representatives take 2,500 trips to U.S. customhouses or stations each year to physically view the official bulletin notice. In addition, physically posting the bulletin notice of liquidation, repeated at each customhouse every week, is laborious and time-consuming.

    II. Modernizing Notice of Liquidation A. Electronic Notice

    In this document, CBP is proposing to post official notice of liquidation for all entries, including entries filed in paper form, as well as official notices regarding the extension or suspension of liquidation, at www.cbp.gov. This proposed electronic posting will replace both the physical posting or lodging of bulletin notices in the customhouse as the legal evidence of liquidation and the mailed notices of extension or suspension as official notice. The information will be accessible via a conspicuous link on the www.cbp.gov Web site, labeled Bulletin Notices of Liquidation. Accordingly, upon the effective date of these regulations, CBP would no longer physically post bulletin notice of liquidation in the customhouse or station or mail notices of suspension or extension.

    The electronic bulletin notices will be searchable on the CBP Web site by using two or more of the following data elements:

    1. Entry Number 2. Filer 3. Importer of Record Number 4. Port of Entry 5. Liquidation Date (with searchable date range) 6. Posted Date (date of posting of event with searchable date range) 7. Entry Date (with searchable date range) 8. Event Type (such as, Liquidated, Re-liquidated, Suspended, Extended) 9. Basis (Reason for the liquidation, suspension or extension) 10. Action (CBP's final determination of the duties, taxes, and fees due on the entry, i.e., No Change; Change Increase; Change Decrease) For example, conducting a search by entering the port of entry and selecting a posted date would return results for all notices posted for that port for that date. However, searching with the fields specific to an interested party, such as entry number or importer of record number, will return more targeted results. When viewing the results of a search, importer of record numbers will not be displayed on the CBP Web site. CBP may add more search fields as additional capabilities are deployed.

    The liquidation information posted electronically will be updated daily. When liquidation notices are posted on www.cbp.gov, there will no longer be a need for importers or their representatives to go to the customhouse or station to obtain the official date of liquidation. Once it has been posted electronically, the information will be available on www.cbp.gov for a minimum of 15 months. Notices that are no longer available on the CBP Web site will be accessible by CBP personnel. Requests for notices that have been removed from the CBP Web site may be directed to the relevant port of entry.

    Electronic filers, using their ACE Portal Account, would be able to access historical liquidation information that is no longer available on the CBP Web site, run queries for information on recent liquidations, extensions, and suspensions, run targeted reports to conduct in-house audits, identify systemic errors, and provide insight into entries under review by CBP, all in support of improved compliance with trade laws. Obtaining an ACE Portal Account is free, and registration information is available at: https://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/ace-secure-data-portal-account-application. For more general information on ACE Portal Accounts, please see: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated/getting-started/using-ace-secure-data-portal.

    In addition to posting the official notice of liquidation on www.cbp.gov, CBP intends to continue sending electronic courtesy notices of liquidation, extension, and suspension via a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system to the electronic filer when entries liquidate or are extended or suspended. However, paper courtesy notices of liquidation and paper notices of extension or suspension of liquidation will no longer be mailed.

    B. Explanation of Proposed Amendments

    This section of the document explains the proposed amendments to various parts of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) to implement the above-described changes regarding the electronic posting of notice. Accordingly, the following sections are proposed to be revised as follows:

    CBP is proposing to amend section 159.9 throughout, with one exception in paragraph (c)(2)(iii), discussed below, to provide for the proposed changes discussed above by replacing references to the physical posting or lodging bulletin notice of liquidation, CBP Form 4333, with references to electronic notice provided on www.cbp.gov, including for entries liquidated by operation of law. We propose to amend paragraph (c)(1) by removing the last sentence stating that “CBP will endeavor to provide the filer with electronic notification of this date as an informal, courtesy notice of liquidation” because this sentence is redundant as paragraph (d) deals with courtesy notices of liquidation. This document proposes to also amend paragraph (c)(2)(i) by adding the phrase “and will be posted on www.cbp.gov within a reasonable period after each liquidation by operation of law and will be dated with the date of liquidation by operation of law” at the end of the paragraph. CBP further proposes deleting paragraph (c)(2)(ii) because the proposed changes to paragraph (c)(2)(i) make it redundant. This document proposes to renumber paragraph (c)(2)(iii) as (c)(2)(ii) and to revise it by adding the phrase “For liquidation notices posted or lodged in the customhouse,” to the beginning of the paragraph to ensure protestants are clear on the responsibility to file a timely protest based on the method of posting of notice of liquidation if posted in the customhouse prior to the effective date of these proposed amendments.

    CBP is proposing to add a new paragraph (c)(2)(iii) for liquidation notices posted on www.cbp.gov regarding protests of decisions of entries liquidated by operation of law. Further, we propose to amend paragraph (d) of section 159.9 to state that courtesy notice of liquidation will be provided electronically only for entries that were filed electronically.

    Because bulletin notices of liquidation will not be physically posted at the customhouse or the station, CBP is proposing to amend section 159.10 by removing the words “posting or lodging of” in paragraph (b), removing the words “on CBP Form 4333 posted or lodged” in paragraph (c)(1), and by removing the words “on a bulletin notice of liquidation, CBP Form 4333,” in paragraph (c)(3).

    Also, because bulletin notices of liquidation will not be physically posted at the customhouse or the station, we propose to amend section 159.11 at paragraph (a) by replacing the words “on the bulletin notice of liquidation, CBP Form 4333,” with “electronically”.

    Additionally, CBP proposes to amend section 159.12 at paragraphs (b) and (c) to state that official notice of extension and suspension, and the reasons therefor, will be posted on www.cbp.gov and that courtesy notice will be sent through a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. This document proposes to amend paragraph (d)(2) of section 159.12 to state that, if the port director finds good cause, notice of extension will be posted on www.cbp.gov and a courtesy notice will be sent through a CBP-authorized electronic system. CBP further proposes to amend paragraph (f)(1) of section 159.12 by removing the word “bulletin” from the last sentence. This document proposes to remove paragraph (g) of section 159.12 because sections 159.9 and 159.10 already deal with notice of liquidation.

    C. Technical Corrections

    CBP is also proposing to make certain technical corrections in this document. These proposed amendments update the regulatory language to reflect statutory changes.

    Sections 159.11(a) and 159.12(f) refer to the timing of liquidation. In addition to the changes made to these sections regarding the electronic posting of notice, these sections are also being modified to reflect updated language that aligns with 19 U.S.C. 1504, which was amended in 2004 by the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 108-429, 118 Stat. 683, December 3, 2004) to provide that entries are deemed liquidated based on the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duties asserted by the importer of record regardless of when asserted. The current regulations state that an entry may only be deemed liquidated based on the rate, duty, value, quantity, and amount of duties asserted by the importer at the time of entry. Accordingly, this document proposes to update the regulatory language of §§ 159.11(a) and 159.12(f)(1) to reflect this amendment. Also, as 19 U.S.C. 1504(d) no longer requires CBP, when liquidation of an entry continues to be suspended beyond four years due to a statute or court order, to liquidate the entry within 90 days from when the suspension is removed, CBP is proposing to remove section 159.12(f)(2).

    Section 173.4a provides for the correction of clerical errors prior to liquidation. The section implements section 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520). Section 1635 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-280, 170 Stat. 780, August 17, 2006) modified 19 U.S.C. 1520. Prior to this amendment, 19 U.S.C. 1520 authorized refunds prior to liquidation of an entry or reconciliation, whenever it is ascertained that excess duties, fees, or exactions have been deposited or paid by reason of clerical error. Under the 2006 amendment, the clause, “by reason of clerical error,” was deleted from the statute. This document proposes to revise the section heading for § 173.4a and updates the regulatory language to reflect this amendment.

    III. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This section examines the impact of this rule on small entities per the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires agencies to assess the impact of regulations on small entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people).

    Background

    Most goods imported into the United States are subject to duty assessments, which CBP conducts during a process known as liquidation. During this liquidation process, CBP performs a final computation of duties (not including vessel repair duties) on the entry covering the imported merchandise and then closes out the entry. In accordance with current regulations, CBP officially notifies importers,1 as well as the public, of a formal entry's liquidation by posting a weekly bulletin notice of liquidation in a readily-located and consulted place in the customhouse or station at each port of entry.2 These notices are available for importers and the public to peruse for nearly two weeks before they are placed in CBP storage. CBP provides the same official notice of liquidation for informal entries where a duty cannot be determined at the time of entry and for reliquidated dutiable entries.3 For other informal, mail, and baggage entries, CBP furnishes official notice of liquidation to an importer (and their sureties when required) by a suitable printed statement appearing on the receipt issued for duties collected, by release of the merchandise under a free entry, or by acceptance of the free entry after release under a special permit for immediate delivery.4 Once CBP provides official notice of liquidation or reliquidation, importers generally have 180 days to file a protest challenging certain aspects of their entry's liquidation.5 In addition to these official notices, CBP endeavors to provide importers (and their sureties) informal, courtesy notices of liquidation and reliquidation for entries scheduled to be liquidated or deemed liquidated by operation of law. For the majority of importers filing entries, who actually file electronically, CBP generally sends these filers (and their sureties) courtesy notices of liquidation and reliquidation via a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system before the official notice (and protest period's start date). For the small portion of importers who file entries by paper, CBP typically mails paper courtesy notices of liquidation and reliquidation using CBP Form 4333-A to these filers on or around the date of the official notice's posting. These courtesy notices are not direct, formal, and decisive notices of liquidation or reliquidation; however, based on anecdotal evidence, most importers rely on these courtesy notices to determine liquidations and reliquidations to avoid the time and resource costs incurred to view official bulletin notices at U.S. customhouses or stations.

    1 For the purposes of this analysis, “importers” can also refer to agents, such as brokers, who act on behalf of importers.

    2See 19 CFR 159.9(b).

    3See 19 CFR 159.10.

    4See 19 CFR 159.10.

    5 For entries filed before December 18, 2004, the time limit is within 90 days after liquidation, but for entries filed on or after that date, it is now 180 days (see CFR part 174; see 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(3) as amended by section 2103(2)(B), Pub. L. 108-429).

    Some liquidations may be extended or suspended. If liquidation is extended or suspended, CBP officially notifies the importer and his/her surety by mail using CBP Form 4333-A, as appropriately modified.6 CBP also provides importers who file entries electronically and their sureties with electronic courtesy notices of extension and suspension, which are generally sent in advance of mailed notifications. Although these courtesy notices are not direct, formal, and decisive notices of extension or suspension, CBP believes that most importers (and all sureties) rely on them to determine extensions and suspensions because importers receive them before the official notice and they contain the same information. Importers who file entries by paper do not receive electronic or paper courtesy notices of extension and suspension.

    6See 19 CFR 159.12.

    In an effort to modernize the liquidation, reliquidation, extension, and suspension notification processes, CBP, through this rulemaking, proposes to discontinue physically posting official bulletin notices of liquidation and reliquidation at U.S. port of entry customhouses and stations. Instead, CBP would post these official notices in a readily-located, conspicuous place on the CBP Web site: www.cbp.gov. Additionally through this rule, CBP would begin posting electronically on www.cbp.gov official notices of extension and suspension that are currently mailed. CBP would tie all electronic notices directly to an already-developed, automated process by which entries are liquidated, reliquidated, extended, or suspended, ensuring that these actions and CBP's official notifications of these actions occur simultaneously. This rule would not change the method in which CBP provides electronic courtesy notices of liquidation, reliquidation, extension, or suspension, but it would discontinue the practice of mailing any paper notices. For other informal, mail, and baggage entries, CBP would continue to furnish official notices of liquidation and reliquidation to importers (and their sureties when required) by a suitable printed statement appearing on the receipt issued for duties collected, by release of the merchandise under a free entry, or by acceptance of the free entry after release under a special permit for immediate delivery. As described next, these regulatory changes would introduce benefits and costs to importers, including small entities.

    For most importers (and their sureties), this rule would simply change the way in which they can access official notices of liquidation, reliquidation, extension, and suspension. Instead of posting weekly official bulletin notices of liquidation and reliquidation at each U.S. customhouse and station and mailing official notices of extension and suspension, CBP would publish these notices on the CBP Web site once this rule is in effect. CBP would also discontinue mailing all paper courtesy notices of liquidation and reliquidation with this rule. Because the vast majority of importers (and all their sureties) already rely on the electronic courtesy notices of liquidation, reliquidation, extension, and suspension that CBP provides, this rule's transition to electronic official notice publications would presumably only affect a small portion of importers. Specifically, this transition to electronic notice publications would only affect those importers who currently rely on official bulletin notices physically posted at U.S. customhouses and stations and those importers who receive and rely on paper courtesy notifications of liquidation and reliquidation and paper official notices of extension and suspension due to their paper entry filings.

    Number of Small Entities Affected by Rule

    Using historical data, CBP estimates that importers took an average of 2,500 trips to U.S. customhouses or stations each year for the single purpose of viewing official bulletin notices because the official bulletin notice's posting date was significant to a protest that importer planned to file.7 CBP also estimates that CBP mailed an average of 23,500 paper courtesy notices of liquidation and reliquidation and 3,100 paper notices of extension and suspension each year to importers who filed paper entries.8 Considering this historical data, CBP estimates that this rule could affect up to approximately 29,100 importers per year. To the extent that the same importer took more than one trip to the U.S. customhouse or station to view an official bulletin notice or received and relied on more than one paper notice, the number of importers affected by this rule would be lower. Nonetheless, because the majority of importers are small businesses, CBP believes this rule would affect a substantial number of small entities.

    7 Based on the 2,500 Applications for Further Review (AFRs) filed with protests in 2015. Importers or their attorneys who file AFRs depend on the exact dates of liquidation or reliquidation to file a timely protest, and thus likely travel to a U.S. customhouse or station to physically view official bulletin notices with the official dates of liquidation and reliquidation. Using the 2015 AFR filings as a proxy for trips taken to view official bulletin notices, CBP estimates that importers or their attorneys took 2,500 trips to U.S. customhouses or stations each year for the single purpose of viewing official bulletin notices. Sources: 19 CFR 174.12(e) and email correspondence with CBP's Office of Trade on July 15, 2016.

    8 Based on data received through email correspondence with CBP's Office of Trade on May 26, 2016; June 22-24, 2016; August 29, 2016; and September 21, 2016.

    Impacts of Rule on Small Entities

    This rule's transition to fully electronic notices would require the estimated 29,100 importers who currently rely on official bulletin notices physically posted at U.S. customhouses and stations and those who rely on paper notices of liquidation, reliquidation, extension, and suspension to visit the CBP Web site to determine entry liquidations, reliquidations, extensions, and suspensions.9 To view this rule's official bulletin notices on the CBP Web site, CBP assumes that these importers would spend an added 4 minutes (0.0667 hours) 10 navigating the CBP Web site to find a liquidation, reliquidation, extension, or suspension notice, at a time cost of $2.01 based on the assumed hourly wage rate for importers.11 Most affected importers would presumably visit the CBP Web site once per year to view an entry's official notice of liquidation, reliquidation, extension, or suspension, for a total cost of $2.01 per year.12 However, some affected importers, such as those who receive extension and suspension notices that are in effect for an unknown amount of time, could visit the CBP Web site more than once per year for an entry, incurring the access cost of $2.01 each time they visit the CBP Web site. Even if an importer accesses the CBP Web site twice a month for an entry, or 24 times per year, he/she would incur only a $48.24 cost to do so. The average value per entry was $69,300 in FY 2015.13 The range of annual importer costs for this rule ($2.01 to $48.24) amounts to between 0.003 percent and 0.07 percent of this average entry value. Likewise, if an importer processes multiple entries per year, his/her total costs from this rule would be higher but the value of their entries would also be higher, meaning that the average cost to the importer would be between 0.003 percent and 0.07 percent of the entry value regardless of the number of entries the importer files per year. CBP does not consider this to be a significant economic impact.

    9 Importers could set up an Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) account to receive electronic courtesy notices of liquidation, reliquidation, extension, and suspension, but the time cost to do so is likely longer than the time it takes to view official notices on the CBP Web site. As such, CBP assumes that importers who receive and rely on paper notices of liquidation, reliquidation, extension, and suspension now would visit the CBP Web site for official notice rather than set up an ACE account to receive electronic courtesy notices once this rule is effective.

    10 The 4-minute added time burden represents the incremental change in the time burden over the current paper notification process. Source: Email correspondence with CBP's Office of Trade on April 26, 2016.

    11 The time cost estimate is equal to the assumed hourly wage for importers ($30.09) multiplied by the hourly time burden for a trade member to navigate the CBP Web site to find a liquidation, reliquidation, extension, or suspension notice (0.0667 hours), and then rounded. CBP bases the $30.09 hourly wage rate for importers on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2015 median hourly wage rate for Cargo and Freight Agents ($20.13), which CBP assumes best represents the wage for importers, by the ratio of BLS' average 2015 total compensation to wages and salaries for Office and Administrative Support occupations (1.4799), the assumed occupational group for importers, to account for non-salary employee benefits. CBP then adjusted this figure, which was in 2015 U.S. dollars, to 2016 U.S. dollars by applying a 1.0 percent annual growth rate to the figure, as recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation's value of travel time guidance.

    Source of median wage rate: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics, “May 2015 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, United States- Median Hourly Wage by Occupation Code: 43-5011.” Updated March 30, 2016. Available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/2015/may/oes435011.htm. Accessed June 1, 2016.

    The total compensation to wages and salaries ratio is equal to the calculated average of the 2015 quarterly estimates (shown under Mar., June, Sep., Dec.) of the total compensation cost per hour worked for Office and Administrative Support occupations ($24.9475) divided by the calculated average of the 2015 quarterly estimates (shown under Mar., June, Sep., Dec.) of wages and salaries cost per hour worked for the same occupation category ($16.8575). Source of total compensation to wages and salaries ratio data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Historical Listing March 2004—March 2016, “Table 3. Civilian workers, by occupational group: employer costs per hours worked for employee compensation and costs as a percentage of total compensation, 2004-2016 by Respondent Type: Office and administrative support occupations.” June 9, 2016. Available at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ececqrtn.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2016.

    Source of suggested growth rate: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Policy. The Value of Travel Time Savings: Departmental Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations Revision 2 (2015 Update), “Table 4 (Revision 2-corrected): Recommended Hourly Values of Travel Time Savings.” April 29, 2015. http://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Revised%20Departmental%20Guidance%20on%20Valuation%20of%20Travel%20Time%20in%20Economic%20Analysis.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2016.

    12 Importers would likely access the CBP Web site once a year to determine whether CBP has officially liquidated, reliquidated, extended, or suspended their entry. If CBP liquidates or reliquidates an entry, which would be the case for the importers who currently take 2,500 trips to U.S. customhouses or stations to view official bulletin notices and who receive 23,500 paper courtesy notices of liquidation and reliquidation annually, the importer would likely not have to access the CBP Web site again after the initial Web site visit to determine the entry's liquidation status. However, in a small number of cases, an importer may have to access the Web site more than once per year, over the course of more than one year to determine his/her entry's reliquidation status. If CBP extends or suspends an entry, which would be the case for the importers who receive 3,100 paper notices of extension and suspension annually, the importer may have to access the CBP Web site more than once per year, over the course of more than one year to determine the status of his/her entry's extension or suspension. However, considering the typical timeframes of extensions and suspensions, importers are most likely to access the CBP Web site only once per year for information on their entry's extension or suspension. Moreover, importers would likely receive information from CBP indicating whether CBP has reliquidated their entry or their extension or suspension has ended.

    13 Based on fiscal year 2015 U.S. entry and import value data. Source of entry data: U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2015. May 2016. Available at https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-May/summary-performance-financial-info-2015.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2016. Source of import value data: U.S. Census Bureau. FT920: U.S. Merchandise Trade Selected Highlights—October 2014 through September 2015 Releases, “Exhibit 3: U.S. Imports—U.S. Customs District of Entry—Total General Customs Value by Month.” December 5, 2014-November 4, 2015. Available at https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/ft920_index.html. Accessed September 22, 2016.

    Along with the minor Web site access cost imposed by this rule, this rule would provide benefits to importers who currently rely on official bulletin notices physically posted at U.S. customhouses and stations. This rule's electronic publication of official bulletin notices of liquidation and reliquidation would allow these importers to avoid visiting U.S. customhouses and stations for formal entry liquidation and reliquidation information, which typically occur 2,500 times a year. For each trip to a U.S. customhouse or station avoided, importers would save an estimated 45 minutes (0.75 hours), which would result in a time cost saving of $22.57 using the average hourly wage for importers of $30.09.14 Importers would also save $16.20 in travel costs per trip based on the estimated distance members sustain from traveling to and from a U.S. customhouse or station—30 miles—and the IRS's $0.54 standard mileage rate for business purposes.15 To the extent that some trips are taken for multiple purposes, not just for viewing an official bulletin notice of liquidation or reliquidation, fewer costs would be avoided and the benefits of this rule per trip would be lower.

    14 The time cost estimate is equal to the assumed hourly wage for importers ($30.09) multiplied by the estimated hourly time burden for a trade member to travel to and from a U.S. customhouse or station (0.75 hours), and then rounded.

    15 Source of miles traveled: Based on estimates from CBP's Office of Trade on May 2, 2016. Source of mileage rate: Internal Revenue Service. 2016 Standard Mileage Rates for Business, Medical and Moving Announced. IR-2015-137, December 17, 2015. Available at https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/2016-Standard-Mileage-Rates-for-Business-Medical-and-Moving-Announced. Accessed April 19, 2016.

    The electronic bulletin notices introduced with this rule would also provide benefits of eased access, relatively quicker notification, and extended viewing to importers. In particular, this electronic transition would allow importers to easily view and query a complete, consolidated list of U.S. entry liquidations, reliquidations, extensions, and suspensions, thus facilitating the process by which these individuals obtain such entry information. For importers who typically rely on paper courtesy notices for liquidation and reliquidation information, which they receive by mail after the official notice's posting, this electronic posting would provide the added benefit of more timely notice and additional protest time. Importers who receive and rely on paper courtesy notices would also benefit from this rule's consolidated electronic notice posting. This change would allow importers and their agents to view liquidation, reliquidation, extension, and suspension notices simultaneously instead of individually as they currently do through paper notices. Furthermore, importers would have almost 14 more months to view official liquidation, reliquidation, extension, and suspension notices before having to request access to the notices through CBP.

    Conclusion

    Although CBP believes that this rule would affect a substantial number of small entities, specifically importers, CBP does not believe that the (negative) economic impact of this rule on small entities would be significant. Accordingly, CBP certifies that this regulation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. CBP welcomes any comments on this conclusion.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As there is no collection of information proposed in this document, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable.

    Signing Authority

    This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.

    List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 159

    Antidumping, Countervailing duties, Customs duties and inspection, Foreign currencies.

    19 CFR Part 173

    Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection.

    Proposed Amendments to the CBP Regulations

    For the reasons given above, parts 159 and 173 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 159 and 173) are proposed to be amended as set forth below:

    PART 159—LIQUIDATION OF DUTIES 1. The general authority citations for part 159 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 66, 1500, 1504, 1624.

    2. Section 159.9 is revised to read as follows:
    § 159.9 Notice of liquidation and date of liquidation for formal entries.

    (a) Notice of liquidation. Notice of liquidation of formal entries will be provided on CBP's public Web site, www.cbp.gov.

    (b) Posting of notice. The notice of liquidation will be posted for the information of importers in a conspicuous place on www.cbp.gov in such a manner that it can readily be located and consulted by all interested persons.

    (c) Date of liquidation—(1) Generally. The notice of liquidation will be dated with the date it is posted electronically on www.cbp.gov for the information of importers. This electronic posting will be deemed the legal evidence of liquidation.

    (2) Exception: Entries liquidated by operation of law. (i) Entries liquidated by operation of law at the expiration of the time limitations prescribed in section 504, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1504), and set out in §§ 159.11 and 159.12, will be deemed liquidated as of the date of expiration of the appropriate statutory period and will be posted on www.cbp.gov within a reasonable period after each liquidation by operation of law and will be dated with the date of liquidation by operation of law.

    (ii) For liquidation notices posted or lodged in the customhouse, pursuant to section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514) and part 174 of this chapter, a protest of a decision relating to an entry made before December 18, 2004, must be filed within 90 days from the date of liquidation of an entry by operation of law or within 90 days from the date the bulletin notice thereof is posted or lodged in the customhouse, or, in the case of a protest of a decision relating to an entry made on or after December 18, 2004, within 180 days from the date of liquidation of an entry by operation of law.

    (iii) For liquidation notices posted on www.cbp.gov, pursuant to section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514) and part 174 of this chapter, a protest of a decision relating to an entry made before December 18, 2004, must be filed within 90 days from the date of liquidation of an entry by operation of law or within 90 days from the date notice thereof is posted on www.cbp.gov, or, in the case of a protest of a decision relating to an entry made on or after December 18, 2004, within 180 days from the date of liquidation of an entry by operation of law.

    (d) Courtesy notice of liquidation. CBP will endeavor to provide importers or their agents with a courtesy notice of liquidation for all electronically filed entries liquidated by CBP or deemed liquidated by operation of law. The courtesy notice of liquidation that CBP will endeavor to provide will be electronically transmitted pursuant to a CBP authorized electronic data interchange system if the entry was filed electronically in accordance with part 143 of this chapter. This notice will serve as an informal, courtesy notice and not as a direct, formal, and decisive notice of liquidation.

    § 159.10 [amended]
    3. Section 159.10 is amended as follows: a. By removing the words “posting or lodging of” from the last sentence in paragraph (b); b. By removing the words “on CBP Form 4333 posted or lodged” from the last sentence of paragraph (c)(1); and c. By removing the words “on a bulletin notice of liquidation, CBP Form 4333,” from the last sentence of paragraph (c)(3). 4. Paragraph (a) of § 159.11 is revised to read as follows:
    § 159.11 Entries liquidated by operation of law.

    (a) Time limit generally. Except as provided in § 159.12, an entry not liquidated within one year from the date of entry of the merchandise, or the date of final withdrawal of all merchandise covered by a warehouse entry, will be deemed liquidated by operation of law at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duties asserted by the importer of record. Notice of liquidation will be given electronically as provided in §§ 159.9 and 159.10(c)(3). CBP will endeavor to provide a courtesy notice of liquidation in accordance with § 159.9(d).

    5. In § 159.12, remove paragraph (g) and revise paragraphs (b), (c), (d)(2), and (f) to read as follows:
    § 159.12 Extension of time for liquidation.

    (b) Notice of extension. If the port director extends the time for liquidation, as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the official notice of extension and reasons therefor will be posted on www.cbp.gov. The port director will also endeavor to transmit a courtesy notice of extension to the entry filer and surety through a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system.

    (c) Notice of suspension. If the liquidation of an entry is suspended as required by statute or court order, as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the official notice of suspension will be posted on www.cbp.gov. The port director will also endeavor to transmit a courtesy notice of suspension to the entry filer and surety through a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (2) At importer's request. If the statutory period has been extended for one year at the importer's request, and the importer thereafter determines that additional time is necessary, it may request another extension in writing before the original extension expires, giving reasons for its request. If the port director finds that good cause (as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section) exists, the official notice of extension extending the time for liquidation for an additional period not to exceed one year will be posted on www.cbp.gov, and CBP will endeavor to transmit a courtesy notice of the extension through a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system.

    (f) Time limitation. An entry not liquidated within four years from either the date of entry, or the date of final withdrawal of all the merchandise covered by a warehouse entry, will be deemed liquidated by operation of law at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duty asserted by the importer of record, unless liquidation continues to be suspended by statute or court order. CBP will endeavor to provide a courtesy notice of liquidation, in accordance with § 159.9(d), in addition to the notice specified in § 159.9(c)(2)(ii).

    PART 173—ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN GENERAL 6. The general authority citations for part 173 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 66, 1501, 1520, 1624.

    7. Revise § 173.4a to read as follows:
    § 173.4a Refund of excess duties, fees, charges, or exaction paid prior to liquidation.

    Pursuant to section 520(a)(4), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(a)(4)), whenever an importer of record declares or it is ascertained that excess duties, fees, charges, or exactions have been deposited or paid, the port director may, prior to liquidation of an entry or reconciliation, take appropriate action to refund the deposit or payment of excess duties, fees, charges, or exactions.

    R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: October 11, 2016. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24858 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-126452-15] RIN 1545-BN06 Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies [RICs] and Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs]; Hearing AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public hearing on notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides a notice of a public hearing on proposed IRS regulations that are affecting the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine by the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

    DATES:

    The public hearing is being held on Wednesday, November 9, 2016, at 10 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Wednesday, October 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building.

    Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-126452-15), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-126452-15), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-126452-15).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Austin M. Diamond-Jones (202) 317-5363; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-126452-15) that was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36816).

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that submit written comments by October 26, 2016, must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by Wednesday, October 26, 2016.

    A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or by contacting the Publications and Regulations Branch at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).

    Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2016-24901 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-150992-13] RIN 1545-BM03 Election To Take Disaster Loss Deduction for Preceding Year AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations under section 165(i) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) relating to the election to take a disaster loss in the preceding year. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. This document also invites comments from the public regarding these proposed regulations.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by January 12, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-150992-13), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-150992-13), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-150992-13).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Daniel Cassano at (202) 317-7011; concerning comments or a request for a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo Taylor (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions

    Final and temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to section 165(i) of the Code. The temporary regulations extend the due date by which a taxpayer may elect to treat an allowable loss occurring in a disaster area and attributable to a Federally declared disaster as sustained in the taxable year immediately prior to the taxable year in which the disaster occurred, as provided in section 165(i). The temporary regulations provide rules governing the time and manner of making a section 165(i) election, as well as the time and manner of revoking a section 165(i) election. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the amendments.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The Department of the Treasury and the IRS request comments concerning the extension of the due date by which a taxpayer may make a section 165(i) election, as well as the time and manner in which a taxpayer may revoke a section 165(i) election. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.

    A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person who timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these regulations are Daniel Cassano and Christopher Wrobel of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting). However, other personnel from the Department of the Treasury and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, the Internal Revenue Service proposes to amend 26 CFR part 1 as follows:

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

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    2. Section 1.165-11 is amended by: a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a) through (e) and b. Adding reserved paragraphs (f) through (i).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 1.165-11 Election in respect of losses attributable to a disaster.

    (a) through (i) [Reserved]. [The text of proposed § 1.165-11(a) through (i) is the same as the text of § 1.165-11T(a) through (i) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24674 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 2 [NPS-WASO-21549; GPO Deposit Account 4311H2] RIN 1024-AE32 General Regulations; Areas of the National Park System, Sale and Distribution of Printed Matter and Other Message Bearing Items AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to revise its general rule governing the sale and distribution of printed matter to include the free distribution of message-bearing items that do not meet the NPS regulatory definition of “printed matter.” This change would give visitors an alternative channel of communication while protecting the resources and values of the National Park System.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by December 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE32, by any of the following methods:

    Electronically: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments after searching for “RIN 1024-AE32”.

    Hard copy: Mail or hand-deliver to: Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses National Manager, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2355, Washington, DC 20240.

    Instructions: It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. All comments received must include the agency name and RIN for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in any way other than those specified above, and bulk comments in any format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be considered. Organizations should direct their members to submit comments individually using one of the methods described above.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lee Dickinson, Special Park Use Program Manager, at (202) 513-7092 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background National Park System

    Currently consisting of over 400 units in 50 states, the District of Columbia and multiple territories, the National Park System covers more than 84 million acres. These units are located in a wide range of environments as diverse as the United States itself. The size of these units also varies tremendously, ranging from Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and National Preserve, Alaska, at 13.2 million acres, to Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial, Pennsylvania, at 0.02 acres.

    About one-third of the units—such as Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee; Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona; Everglades National Park, Florida; and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks, Hawaii—preserve nature's many and varied gifts to the nation. The other two-thirds of the units recognize benchmarks of human history in America. These units protect elements of great native cultures, far older than European exploration and settlement; present battle sites from the Revolutionary and Civil Wars—including the key surrender fields of both great conflicts; embrace Thomas Edison's New Jersey laboratories where he and his staff led a technological revolution more dramatic even than the coming of the computer age; and more. These historical park units reflect the development of both art and industry in America, along with landmarks of social and political change.

    As a broader understanding of history took hold, the National Park System eventually grew to include the historic homes of civil rights, political, and corporate leaders, and the lands of the poor, struggling to build lives for themselves on a Nebraska homestead claim or in an urban community. It now embraces the birthplace, church, and grave of Dr. Martin Luther King at Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Site, Georgia; the birth of jazz at New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park, Louisiana; the flowering of a literary giant at the Eugene O'Neill National Historical Site, California; and the artistic grace of a great sculptor's studios at Saint-Gaudens National Historical Site, New Hampshire. Because of the lessons they help us remember, the National Park System also includes the Japanese American World War II internment camp in the desert at Manzanar National Historical Site, California, as well as Andersonville National Historical Site, Georgia, one of the very bleakest of the Civil War prison sites.

    The National Park System is habitat for 247 threatened or endangered species, has more than 167 million items in museum collections, has 75,000 archaeological sites, and 27,000 historic and prehistoric structures. The National Park System also has an extensive physical infrastructure, which includes thousands of buildings, tens of thousands of miles of trails and roads, and almost 30,000 housing units, campgrounds, and picnic areas as well as 3,000 water and waste water treatment systems.

    Over 307 million visitors visited the National Park System in 2015, where visitors find not only visual, educational, and recreational experiences but also inspirational, contemplative, and spiritual experiences. For Native Americans, certain national parks are also considered sacred religious sites, where the National Park Service (NPS) asks visitors to respect these long-held beliefs, such as by voluntarily not walking under a natural bridge.

    Proposed Rule

    First Amendment activities in units of the national park system are governed by longstanding but ever-evolving First Amendment jurisprudence; by the statutes and regulations governing the national park system as a whole; and by park-specific statutes and regulations.

    Title 36 CFR 2.52 currently allows the sale or distribution only of printed matter and only in areas of a park designated by the superintendent. The regulation defines “printed matter” as “message-bearing textual printed material such as books, pamphlets, magazines, and leaflets, provided that it is not solely commercial advertising.”

    The NPS recognizes, however, that items other than “printed matter” may also contain or present speech, either literal or symbolic, that is not solely commercial and whose expression may be protected by the First Amendment. Accordingly, the NPS now proposes to allow the free distribution of message-bearing items other than printed matter in areas of a park designated by the superintendent, subject to compliance with the regulations at 36 CFR 2.51, 2.52, and 5.3. These items include readable electronic media like CDs, DVDs, and flash drives; articles of clothing like hats and accessories like buttons and pins; key chains; and bumper stickers.1

    1 This proposed rule therefore enshrines in regulation NPS Policy Memorandum 14-01, (January 28, 2014), which requires superintendents to allow the free distribution of message-bearing items to the public other than printed matter, so long as the activity occurs within an area designated as available for First Amendment activities under 36 CFR 2.51(c)(l) and otherwise complies with 36 CFR 2.52.

    Under the proposed rule, message-bearing items other than printed matter may not be sold within a park unit; they may only be distributed free of charge. This restriction is necessary to prevent the proliferation of unregulated commercial activity that would be inconsistent with park resources and values, that would impinge upon and degrade park scenery, and that would disrupt the atmosphere of peace and tranquility that is an important part of the visitor experience in many park units.

    The proposed revision to § 2.52 to allow the free distribution of other message-bearing items, is consistent with the NPS's National Capital Region (NCR) regulation, 36 CFR 7.96(k), that allows the free distribution of other message-bearing items. As discussed in the preambles to the proposed and final rules for the NCR regulation, 59 FR 25855 (1994) and 60 FR 17639 (1995), the NPS promulgated § 7.96 to resolve serious issues created by unregulated sales of merchandise on NPS-administered lands that resulted in conflicting and excessive commercialism; degraded aesthetic values; had negative impacts on visitor circulation and contemplation and historic scenes; and inhibited the conservation of park property. In upholding the constitutionality of the NCR regulation limiting the sales of such items, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the regulation was “content neutral” and “narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests” and offered “ample alternative channels of communication” insofar as “members may display and give the audio tapes and [religious] beads to members of the public so long as they do not try to exact a payment or request a donation in exchange for them.” ISKCON of Potomac v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 949, 952, 958 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

    Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

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

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The rule expands opportunities for individuals and organizations to engage in small-group demonstrations and the sale or distribution of printed matter for which no permit need be issued. Other organizations with interest in the rule will not be effected economically.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

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

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

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

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    Takings (Executive Order 12630)

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

    Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This proposed rule only affects use of federally-administered lands and waters. It has no outside effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

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

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

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

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

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB has approved the information collection requirements associated with NPS Special Park Use Permits and has assigned OMB Control Number 1024-0026 (expires 10/31/16). An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. We have determined that the rule is categorically excluded under 516 DM 12.5(A)(10) as it is a modification of existing NPS regulations that does not increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area or causing physical damage to it. Further, the rule will not result in the introduction of incompatible uses which might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it. Finally, the rule will not conflict with adjacent ownerships or lands uses, or cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.

    We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

    Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

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

    Clarity of This Rule

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

    (a) Be logically organized;

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

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

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

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

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

    List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 2

    Environmental protection, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 2 as set forth below:

    PART 2—RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION 1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102.

    2. Amend § 2.52 as follows: a. Revise the section heading. b. Revise the paragraph (a) subject heading. c. Add two sentences at the end of paragraph (a). d. Revise paragraph (b) introductory text.

    The revisions and additions to read as follows:

    § 2.52 Sale of printed matter and the distribution of printed matter and other message-bearing items.

    (a) Printed Matter and Other Message Bearing Items. * * * The term “other message-bearing items” means a message-bearing item that is not “printed matter,” that is distributed free of charge and without asking for payment or a donation, and is not solely commercial advertising. Other message-bearing items include, but are not limited to: Readable electronic media such as CDs, DVDs, and flash drives; clothing and accessories such as hats and key chains; buttons; pins; and bumper stickers.

    (b) Permits and the small group permit exception. The sale or distribution of printed matter, and the free distribution of other message-bearing items, is allowed within park areas if it occurs in an area designated as available under § 2.51(c)(2) and when the superintendent has issued a permit for the activity, except that:

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Michael Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24641 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0824; FRL-9952-75] RIN 2070-ZA16 Tebufenozide; Proposed Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document proposes to establish tolerances for residues of tebufenozide in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document and amend the existing tolerance for almond, hulls under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0824, 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 Confidential Business Information (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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. This Proposal

    EPA on its own initiative, under FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), is proposing to establish tolerances for residues of the insect growth regulator tebufenozide, in or on bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 3.0 part per million (ppm); caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 3.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome group 11-10 at 1.0 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.1 ppm; sugarcane, cane at 1.0 ppm; sugarcane, molasses at 3.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.0 ppm. The Agency is also proposing to amend the existing tolerance for almond, hulls to raise the tolerance from 25 ppm to 30 ppm. Further, upon the establishment of these tolerances, the Agency is proposing to delete the existing tolerances for apple; berry, group 13; fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome; nut, tree, group 14; pistachio; vegetable, fruiting, group 8; and walnut since they will be superseded by the newly established tolerances.

    The EPA is proposing to establish tolerances on sugarcane, cane; and sugarcane, molasses since permanent tolerances established in a September 22, 1999 Final Rule in the Federal Register (64 FR 51251) were later inadvertently removed from 40 CFR 180.482. See 67 FR 35045 (May 17, 2002). Additionally, EPA is proposing to convert several existing crop group tolerances to updated crop group tolerances consistent with its policy as stated in its most recent crop group rulemaking. See 81 FR 26471, 26474 (May 3, 2016). EPA has stated that it will convert tolerances for any pre-existing crop group to tolerances with coverage under the revised crop group through the registration review process and in the course of evaluating new uses for a pesticide. Id. As part of the registration review for tebufenozide, EPA considered the pesticide exposures to commodities included in the updated crop groups and determined that they are safe. Finally, in order to harmonize with Codex, the following tolerance levels are proposed to be amended: fruit, citrus, group 10-10 will be increased from 0.80 to 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 will be lowered from 1.5 to 1.0 ppm; and almond, hulls will be increased from 25 to 30 ppm.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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....”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2), for tolerances for residues of tebufenozide. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows:

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 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.

    The toxic effects of tebufenozide in mammalian species arise primarily from methemoglobinemia associated with denaturation of hemoglobin and concomitant Heinz body formation in erythrocytes, resulting in a rapid turnover of red blood cells with increased hematopoiesis, splenic discoloration, and other spleen effects. This type of toxicity is often typical of compounds with a hydrazine moiety, and is consistent with the structure of tebufenozide. The hematologic effects have been observed in all mammalian species tested to date (rat, mouse, dog, and rabbit), with no indication of any significant differences between sexes. There is no evidence that tebufenozide is neurotoxic, or that it causes reproductive or developmental toxicity. There is no indication of increased susceptibility of fetuses or pups (effects occur above maternally toxic doses). There was no toxicity noted in a 21-day dermal toxicity study and no immunotoxicity was observed in immunotoxicity studies in both rats and mice. Tebufenozide is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice and no evidence of mutagenicity.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by tebufenozide as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document “Tebufenozide: Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review” on pages 18-24 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0824-0024.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    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 toxicology 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for tebufenozide used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Tebufenozide for Use in Human Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/safety factors RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects Acute dietary (All populations) No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose was identified in the toxicity database. Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day Chronic RfD = 0.02 mg/kg/day 90-day and 1-year dog studies (Cocritical) UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • cPAD = 0.02 mg/kg/day
  • LOAEL = 8.7 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weight gains, alterations in hematology parameters, changes in organ weights, and histopathological lesions in the bone, spleen, and liver.
    Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) NOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE = 100 90-day and 1-year dog studies (Cocritical) UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x LOAEL = 8.7 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weight gains, alterations in hematology parameters, changes in organ weights, and histopathological lesions in the bone, spleen, and liver. Dermal (All durations) No dermal endpoint was selected based on a lack of systemic toxicity in the dermal study and no concern for susceptibility. Inhalation (All durations) Inhalation (or oral) study NOAEL= 2.0 mg/kg/day (inhalation toxicity assumed to be equivalent to oral toxicity 100%) Occupational LOC for MOE = 100 90-day and 1-year dog studies (Cocritical) UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x LOAEL = 8.7 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weight gains, alterations in hematology parameters, changes in organ weights, and histopathological lesions in the bone, spleen, and liver. Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: This chemical is classified as “not likely” to be a human carcinogen. A cancer risk assessment is not required. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to tebufenozide, EPA considered exposure under the proposed tolerances as well as all existing tebufenozide tolerances in 40 CFR 180.482. EPA assessed dietary exposures from tebufenozide in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for tebufenozide; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16. This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA incorporated tolerance-level residues, average percent crop treated (PCT) estimates for some commodities, and DEEM 7.81 default processing factors as appropriate.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that tebufenozide is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.” Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue information in the dietary assessment for tebufenozide; tolerance level residues were assumed for all food commodities. The Agency did use some PCT information for the dietary assessment.

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    • Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    • Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    • Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: blueberries: 10%; cabbage, caneberries, cauliflower, celery, lettuce, parsley, pecans, peppers, tomatoes and walnuts: each at 5%; almonds, broccoli, pistachios, spinach, and turnip roots: each at 2.5%; apples, citrus, cotton, grapes and pears: each at 1%.

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 to 7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which tebufenozide may be applied in a particular area.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for tebufenozide in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of tebufenozide. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    The residues of concern in drinking water was recently updated to include parent and metabolite RH-112651 for ground water and parent plus 3 metabolites, RH-112651, RH-112703, and RH-96595 for surface water. The Total Toxic Residues (TTR) approach was used, assuming presence of parent tebufenozide plus all three of its major metabolites, RH-112651, RH-112703, and RH-9659 in both ground and surface water in its assessment of tebufenozide residues in drinking water. Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) with the Provisional Cranberry Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater (PRZM-GW) model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of tebufenozide for chronic exposures are estimated to be 105.8 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 107.2 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 107 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Tebufenozide is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Ornamentals in outdoor residential areas. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For adult handlers, it is assumed that residential use will result in short-term (1 to 30 days) duration for dermal and inhalation exposures. However, since a dermal hazard was not identified, only the residential inhalation exposure from applications to garden/trees via backpack sprayer was assessed. Although an incidental oral endpoint was identified, incidental oral exposure is not expected based on the on application to ornamentals in outdoor residential areas.

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. 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's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has previously developed guidance documents for establishing common mechanism groups (CMGs) (Guidance for Identifying Pesticide Chemicals and Other Substances that have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity (1999)) and conducting cumulative risk assessments (CRAs) (Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pesticide Chemicals that have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity (2002)). In 2016, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs released another guidance document entitled Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for Screening Analysis. All three of these documents can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0422.

    The agency has utilized this framework for tebufenozide and determined that halofenozide, tebufenozide, and methoxyfenozide (diacylhydrazines) form a candidate CMG. This group of pesticides is considered a candidate CMG because they share characteristics to support a testable hypothesis for a common mechanism of action. Following this determination, the Agency conducted a screening-level cumulative risk assessment consistent with the 2016 guidance document. This screening assessment indicates that that cumulative dietary and residential aggregate exposures for the diacylhydrazine candidate CMG, including tebufenozide, are below EPA's levels of concern. The Agency's screening level cumulative analysis can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document “Diacylhydrazines Cumulative Screening Risk Assessment: Methoxyfenozide and Tebufenozide” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0824.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    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.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicology data for tebufenozide provides no indication of enhanced sensitivity of infants and children based on the results from developmental studies conducted with rats and rabbits as well as two-generation reproduction studies conducted with rats.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for tebufenozide is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that tebufenozide is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that tebufenozide results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary exposure assessment used tolerance-level residues and was only partially refined by use of PCT information. EPA does not expect post-application exposures for infants and children. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to tebufenozide in drinking water, which includes the use of the TTR approach. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by tebufenozide.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, tebufenozide is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to tebufenozide from food and water will utilize 37% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of tebufenozide is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Tebufenozide is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to tebufenozide. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 550 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for tebufenozide is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, tebufenozide is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for tebufenozide.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for US population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, tebufenozide is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to tebufenozide residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid chromatography using ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UV)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize US tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with US food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has established MRLs for tebufenozide in or on sugarcane; fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11-10; and almond, hulls. The proposed US tolerances would be harmonized with the Codex MRLs.

    C. International Trade Considerations

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to reduce the tolerance in or on fruit, pome, group 11-10 from 1.5 to 1.0 ppm. The Agency is proposing this reduction in order to harmonize with the Codex MRL. The reduction is appropriate based on available data and residue levels resulting from registered use patterns.

    In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA will notify the WTO of its intent to revise this tolerance. In addition, the SPS Agreement requires that Members provide a “reasonable interval” between the publication of a regulation subject to the Agreement and its entry into force in order to allow time for producers in exporting Member countries to adapt to the new requirement. Although the WTO has determined that six months would be a reasonable interval, it has also recognized that some circumstances may warrant implementation of a regulation without the de facto six month implementation delay, e.g., where exporting countries can adapt to the new requirements within a shorter interval. (Ref. 1 at 100).

    EPA is proposing not to provide a reasonable interval between the publication of this rule and the date it becomes effective because it believes that exporting countries do not need time to adjust to the new requirement. With very few exceptions, all of the global maximum residue levels for tebufenozide on pome fruits are already at or below EPA's proposed level of 1.0 ppm. Although Mexico allows 1.5 ppm on crabapple, pear, and quince, Mexico defaults to the US tolerance levels. Similarly, although Hong Kong has established a maximum residue level of 1.5 ppm for pear and Asian pear, it has not exported those fruits to the United States in the past 2 years. As a result, EPA believes that a reasonable interval between the publication of this rule and the effective date of these tolerances is not necessary and proposes to make the reduction effective upon publication of the final rule.

    This proposed reduction in tolerance is not discriminatory; the same food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to domestically produced and imported foods.

    V. Conclusion

    EPA proposes to establish tolerances for residues of tebufenozide in bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 3.0 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 3.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome group 11-10 at 1.0 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.1 ppm; sugarcane, cane at 1.0 ppm; sugarcane, molasses at 3.0 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.0 ppm. The Agency is also proposing to amend the existing tolerance for almond, hulls to raise the tolerance from 25 ppm to 30 ppm. Further, upon the establishment of these tolerances, the Agency is proposing to delete the existing tolerances for apple; berry, group 13; fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome; nut, tree, group 14; pistachio; vegetable, fruiting, group 8; and walnut since they will be superseded by the newly established tolerances.

    VI. References

    Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, 222-23, WT/DS406/AB/R (Apr. 4, 2012) (adopted Apr. 24, 2012) available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/406abr_e.pdf.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this proposed rule in Unit II, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify and revoke specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions (e.g., establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule 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). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or 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.). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed rule 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 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposed rule that would change EPA's previous analysis. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposed rule, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This proposed rule does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 30, 2016. Michael L. Goodis, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:

    PART 180—TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Amend the table in § 180.482(a)(1) as follows: a. Remove the entries for “Apple”; “Berry group 13”; “Fruit, citrus, group 10”; “Fruit, pome”; “Nut, tree, group 14”; “Pistachio”; “Vegetable, fruiting, group 8”; and “Walnut”; b. Revise the entry for “Almond, hulls”; and c. Add alphabetically the entries for “Bushberry subgroup 13-07B”; “Caneberry subgroup 13-07A”; “Fruit, citrus, group 10-10”; “Fruit, pome, group 11-10”; “Nut, tree, group 14-12”; “Sugarcane, cane”; “Sugarcane, molasses”; and “Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10”.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 180.482 Tebufenozide; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million Almond, hulls 30 *    *    *    *    * Bushberry subgroup 13-07B 3.0 *    *    *    *    * Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 3.0 *    *    *    *    * Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 2.0 Fruit, pome, group 11-10 1.0 *    *    *    *    * Nut, tree, group 14-12 0.1 *    *    *    *    * Sugarcane, cane 1.0 Sugarcane, molasses 3.0 *    *    *    *    * Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 1.0 *    *    *    *    *    
    [FR Doc. 2016-24650 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Part 8360 [LLCOF02000 L12200000.DU0000 16X] Notice of Proposed Supplementary Rules for Public Lands in Colorado: Cache Creek Placer Area AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed supplementary rules.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Colorado is proposing supplementary rules for 2,160 acres of public lands addressed in the Cache Creek Placer Area Management Plan, approved on February 23, 2016. These proposed supplementary rules would apply to public lands administered by the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office in Chaffee County, Colorado. The proposed rules would implement decisions found in the Cache Creek Placer Area Management Plan relating to the collection of mineral materials within the Cache Creek parcel.

    DATES:

    Please send comments to the address below by December 13, 2016. Comments received or postmarked after this date may not be considered in the development of the final supplementary rules.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by the following methods: Mail or hand deliver to Kalem Lenard, Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM Royal Gorge Field Office, 3028 E. Main Street, Cañon City, CO 81212. You may also send comments via email to [email protected] (include “Proposed Supplementary Rules” in the subject line).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kalem Lenard, Outdoor Recreation Planner, at the above address, by phone at 719-269-8538, or by email at [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The Service is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Comment Procedures

    Written comments on the proposed supplementary rules should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed supplementary rules, and should explain the reason for any recommended change. Where possible, comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the rules that the comment is addressing. The BLM is not obligated to consider or include in the Administrative Record for the final rules comments that the BLM receives after the close of the comment period (see DATES), unless they are postmarked or electronically dated before the deadline, or comments delivered to an address other than one of the addresses listed above (see ADDRESSES). Comments, including names, street addresses and other contact information of respondents, will be available for public review at the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office, at the address above. Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    II. Background

    Cache Creek Placer Area is located immediately west and south of the town of Granite, Colorado, and includes Cache Creek, which flows into the Arkansas River. It was the site of one of the first large mining communities in Colorado during the late 1800s. In January 2000, the BLM acquired 2,160 acres through which Cache Creek flows, extending from the San Isabel National Forest boundary to Highway 24. The BLM acquired the parcel through a grant from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a Federal program that conserves irreplaceable lands and improves outdoor recreation opportunities throughout the nation. The BLM purchased it to help protect crucial elk and riparian habitat as well as to provide recreational opportunities. Recreational mineral collection is one of the activities occurring in the area. Collection methods include gold panning and hand sluicing. The 2,160-acre parcel is not open to the General Mining Law of 1872. The rising price of gold has increased the interest in mineral collection, therefore increasing use at Cache Creek. Due to the high volume of soil that recreational mineral collectors are processing, excessive levels of sediment have collected at the Cache Creek stream, impacting a recovering fishery. The increase in use has also led to user conflicts and human safety hazards, such as unstable holes and large trees. Conflicts with off-leash dogs disturbing other visitors as well as pet waste left in the wetland area are also a common occurrence.

    The Cache Creek parcel is not open to the General Mining Law. The parcel is regulated under 43 CFR 8365.1-5, which confines mineral extraction to only “recreational” mineral specimen collection. These regulations do not allow motorized or mechanical devices to aid in mineral specimen collection.

    In 2012, the BLM began the public input process for a management plan for the 2,160-acre Cache Creek parcel to manage the increasing impacts and conflicts related to increased recreational use. The management strategy allows hobby recreational placer activities to continue, while mitigating impacts to resources. The public process included presentations and site tours with the Front Range Resource Advisory Council and collaboration with stakeholders and user groups. On March 3, 2014, the BLM held a 30-day public scoping period requesting public input. Based on feedback received during this process, the BLM developed a proposed action and draft Environmental Assessment (EA), which was released for a 30-day public review on December 5, 2014. The BLM incorporated comments into the Final EA and corresponding Decision Record signed on February 23, 2016.

    The decision designated the Cache Creek parcel as a Special Area, defined as an area where the BLM “determines that the resources require special management and control measures for their protection” under 43 CFR 2932.5. The decision also provides that a Special Recreation Permit (SRP) will be required for recreational placer activities only. In addition, the decision requires a fee to obtain a permit from Memorial Day weekend to November 30.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Supplementary Rules

    The proposed supplementary rules would implement the Cache Creek Placer Area Management Plan as follows:

    In accordance with 43 CFR subpart 2932, an SRP would be required for recreational mineral collection activities related to placer mining activities. As authorized by 43 CFR 2932.31(d), persons 16 years of age and older would be required to pay a fee of $5 per day or $25 annually. Digging within the Cache Creek parcel would be limited to a designated area. The SRP would allow in-situ gold panning (but not digging) in the Cache Creek stream throughout the parcel and outside of the designated area. Dogs and other animals would be required to be on leashes within the designated area. Additional terms and conditions can be found in DOI-BLM-CO-200-2012-0038 DN.

    The planning area consists of approximately 2,160 acres of public lands within Chaffee County, Colorado, in the following described townships:

    Colorado, Sixth Principal Meridian T. 12 S., R. 80 W., Sections 1 and 2. T. 11 S., R. 80 W., Sections 34-36. T. 12 S., R. 79 W., Section 6. T. 11 S., R. 79 W., Section 31.

    The BLM has determined that these proposed supplementary rules are necessary to enhance public safety, protect natural and cultural resources, and reduce conflicts among public land users.

    IV. Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The proposed supplementary rules are not a significant regulatory action and are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The proposed supplementary rules would not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy and would not adversely affect in a material way productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local or tribal governments or communities. The proposed supplementary rules would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The proposed supplementary rules do not materially alter the budgetary effects of entitlements; grants; user fees or loan programs; or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor do they raise novel legal or policy issues. These proposed supplementary rules would merely impose limitations on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and human health and safety.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    These proposed supplementary rules implement key decisions in the Cache Creek Placer Area Management Plan. During the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for the Management Plan, the BLM fully analyzed the substance of these proposed supplementary rules in an EA (DOI-BLM-CO-200-2012-0069 EA). The BLM signed the Decision Record for the EA on February 23, 2016, and found the proposed supplementary rules implementing the plan decisions would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). A detailed statement under NEPA is not required. The Cache Creek Placer Area Management Plan EA, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Decision Record are on file in the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office at the address specified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed supplementary rules would have no effect on business entities of any size. The proposed supplementary rules would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and the environment and human health and safety. Therefore, the BLM certifies under the RFA that these proposed supplementary rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    These proposed supplementary rules are not a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These proposed supplementary rules would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources, the environment and human health and safety. These proposed supplementary rules would not:

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;

    (2) Cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local agencies, or geographic regions; or

    (3) Have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The proposed supplementary rules would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year; nor would they have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The proposed supplementary rules would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources, the environment and human health and safety. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings)

    The proposed supplementary rules do not constitute a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally-protected property rights. The proposed supplementary rules would not address property rights in any form and would not cause the impairment of constitutionally-protected property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that these proposed supplementary rules would not cause a “taking” of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The proposed supplementary rules would not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that these proposed supplementary rules do not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM has determined that these proposed supplementary rules would not unduly burden the judicial system and that they meet the requirements of Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

    Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that these proposed supplementary rules do not include policies that have tribal implications and would have no bearing on trust lands or on lands for which title is held in fee status by Indian tribes or U.S. Government-owned lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    Information Quality Act

    In developing these proposed supplementary rules, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554).

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

    These proposed supplementary rules do not comprise a significant energy action. These proposed supplementary rules would not have an adverse effect on energy supply, production or consumption and have no connection with energy policy.

    Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation

    In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that the proposed supplementary rules would not impede facilitating cooperative conservation; would take appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; would properly accommodate local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and would provide that the associated programs, projects and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements for special recreation permits. The relevant OMB control number is 1004-0119, which expires December 31, 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Proposed Supplementary Rules Author

    The principal author of these proposed supplementary rules is Kalem Lenard, Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM, Royal Gorge Field Office.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities for supplementary rules found at 43 U.S.C. 1740, 43 U.S.C. 315a, and 43 CFR 8365.1-6, the BLM Colorado State Director proposes supplementary rules for public lands within the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office to read as follows:

    Supplementary Rules for the Cache Creek Placer Area Management Plan Definitions

    Cache Creek parcel is defined as the 2,160-acre parcel of public land in Chaffee County, Colorado within the 6th Principal Meridian T. 12 S., R. 80 W. Sections 1 and 2; T. 11 S., R. 80 W. Sections 34-36; T. 12 S., R. 79 W. Section 6; and T. 11 S., R. 79 W. Section 31.

    Cache Creek Placer Area is defined as the area directly south and adjacent to the BLM Cache Creek parking area and shown on maps provided by the BLM along with on the ground signing, where possible.

    Prohibited Acts

    Unless otherwise authorized, the following acts are prohibited on all public lands, roads, trails and waterways administered by the BLM within the Cache Creek parcel:

    1. No persons may collect minerals by any means within the Cache Creek parcel without a Special Recreation Permit (SRP).

    2. Persons 16 years of age and over must pay a fee of $5 per day or $25 annually to obtain an SRP.

    3. You must not violate terms and conditions of the SRP.

    4. You must not bring an animal into the Cache Creek Placer Area between Memorial Day Weekend and November 30 unless the animal is on a leash not longer than 6 feet and secured to a fixed object or under control of a person, or is otherwise physically restricted at all times.

    Exceptions

    The following persons are exempt from these supplementary rules: Any Federal, State, local government officer or employee acting within the scope of their duties; members of any organized law enforcement, rescue, or firefighting force in performance of an official duty; and any persons, agencies, municipalities or companies whose activities are authorized in writing by the BLM.

    Enforcement

    Any person who violates any of these supplementary rules may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Colorado law.

    Ruth Welch, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24610 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    81 199 Friday, October 14, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Fremont-Winema National Forest; Bly and Chiloquin Ranger Districts; Oregon; East Hills Project Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of commercial and non-commercial vegetation management activities, prescribed burning, road activities, stream and aquatic habitat improvements, and other restoration activities. The project is located on the Bly and Chiloquin Ranger Districts, Fremont-Winema National Forest, Klamath County, Oregon.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by November 14, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected May 2017 and the final environmental impact statement is expected August 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Eric Watrud, Acting Forest Supervisor, Fremont-Winema National Forest, c/o Jody Perozzi, PO Box 25, Bly, OR 97622. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 541-353-2750.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jody Perozzi, Environmental Coordinator Bly Ranger District; PO Box 25, Bly, OR 97622. Phone: 541-353-2723. Email: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The East Hills Project area encompasses approximately 169,000 acres, including 138,733 acres of National Forest System lands managed by the Forest Service, and approximately 30,500 acres of the Sycan Marsh Preserve owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy. The majority of the project is within the Klamath Tribes' former 1954 reservation. The project area is located approximately 10 miles northwest of the town of Bly, OR. The project area crosses two Ranger District boundaries: Bly (38%) and Chiloquin (62%), and is managed under two National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) as amended: the 1990 Winema LRMP and the 1989 Fremont LRMP. The Sycan Wild and Scenic River flows through the middle of the project area forming the boundary between lands managed under the Fremont LRMP and those managed under the Winema LRMP. The legal description of the project area includes Townships 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 South, and Ranges 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 East, Willamette Meridian, Klamath County, Oregon.

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the project is to conduct restoration management activities to improve forest resiliency and sustainability, maintain and enhance habitat diversity, manage the road system, and restore hydrologic functioning, thereby moving the landscape towards the goals, objectives, and desired future conditions directed by the Fremont and Winema LRMPs, as amended by the Eastside Screens and INFISH. The underlying needs for the East Hills Project derive from the differences between the current landscape condition, and the goals, objectives, and desired future conditions directed by the Fremont and Winema LRMPs, as amended by the Eastside Screens and INFISH. To promote an ecologically resilient landscape consistent with the desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plans there is a need to: (1) Reduce stand densities to improve vigor and increase resilience to insects, disease, drought, and wildfire; (2) Maintain and promote development of late/old seral (LOS) habitat consistent with the historic range of variability (HRV); (3) Maintain LOS components, by protecting and releasing large and old trees from competition; (4) Restore dominance of ponderosa pine and other fire- and drought-tolerant species; (5) Create spatial heterogeneity within stands and across the landscape; (6) Create age class diversity in climax lodgepole pine stands; (7) Reduce fuel loads and reintroduce fire on the landscape; (8) Enhance and restore non-forested habitat diversity; (9) Conserve, improve, and restore habitat for wildlife and botanical species; (10) Improve mule deer habitat; (11) Conserve and restore cultural plants; (12) Maintain and restore aspen and other hardwoods; (13) Restore and enhance natural stream function and associated habitats; (14) Reduce road densities; (15) Maintain opportunities for sustainable recreation activities; and (16) Provide forest products as a by-product of meeting the above objectives.

    Proposed Action

    The Forest proposed action includes restoration activities for the following resources: vegetation management, stream and aquatic habitat, and road systems to address the purpose and need. These activities would occur over approximately the next 10 years.

    Vegetation management will include a combination of commercial thinning, small tree thinning, prescribed burning, and other fuels treatments. The use of different methods would be determined by site conditions, accesibility and specific resource protection needs. The proposal includes four different vegetation restoration treatment emphasis areas: (1) Mixed conifer; (2) lodgepole pine; (3) meadow/riparian; (4) ponderosa pine.

    The proposed action contains stream restoration and fish passage activities including repair of headcuts and incised stream channels, large wood addition, streambank stabilization, and culvert replacements.

    Approximately 19 miles of roads are proposed to be closed and approximately 243 miles of roads are proposed for decommissioning post-implementation. Maintenance level increases are proposed for approximately 8 miles of roads to provide through routes of open roads.

    The East Hill Project will also include a variety of project design and resource protection measures that serve to mitigate the impact of activities to resources, including air quality, cultural and heritage, wildlife, aquatic species, soils, water, scenic, botanical species and invasive plant species prevention. The proposed action may also include project-specific amendments to the Fremont and Winema National Forest LRMPs.

    Possible Alternatives

    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of these will be the “no action” alternative in which none of the proposed actions would be implemented. Additional alternatives may be considered in response to issues raised by the public during the scoping process or due to additional concerns for resource values identified by the interdisciplinary team.

    Responsible Official

    The Forest Supervisor of the Fremont-Winema National Forest, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, OR 97630, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official, I will decide if the proposed action will be implemented. I will document the decision and rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision. I have delegated the responsibility for preparing the draft EIS and final EIS to the District Ranger, Bly Ranger District.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Based on the purpose and need, the Responsible Official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, the environmental consequences, and public comments on the analysis in order to make the following decision: (1) Whether to implement timber harvest and associated fuels treatments, prescribed burning, road management activities, and stream improvements, including design features and potential mitigation measures to protect resources; and if so, how much and at what specific locations; (2) What, if any, project-specific Forest Plan Amendments will be necessary to implement the project; (3) What, if any, specific project monitoring requirements are needed to assure design features and potential mitigation measures are implemented and effective, and to evaluate the success of the project objectives.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The interdisciplinary team will continue to seek information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribal governments, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.

    Dated: October 7, 2016. Eric Watrud, Acting Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24854 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Northern New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/santafe/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held November 17-18, 2016 starting at 10:00 a.m. on November 17 and 8:00 a.m. on November 18. All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Santa Fe National Forest Supervisor's Conference Room, 11 Forest Lane, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508. Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Santa Fe National Forest Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reuben Montes, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 505-438-5356 or via email at [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend funding of project proposals. The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by November 10, 2016 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Reuben Montes, RAC Coordinator, 11 Forest Lane, Santa Fe, NM 87508; by email to [email protected] or via facsimile to 505 438 5391. Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Joseph Norrell, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Santa Fe National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24868 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Notice of Availability of the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project and Equitrans Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the USFS Draft Associated Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA; Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended; and the National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended (NFMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have participated as cooperating agencies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the preparation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (MVP) and Equitrans Expansion Project (Equitrans) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Draft EIS addresses the impacts of these projects, the associated draft Jefferson National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) amendments of the USFS, and the application to the BLM for a right-of-way grant sought by Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC (Mountain Valley) for the MVP project. With this agency-specific Notice of Availability, the BLM and the USFS are announcing the opening of the FERC comment period. Comments need to be timely and specific, showing a direct relationship to the proposal and include supporting reasons.

    DATES:

    To ensure that comments will be considered, the FERC must receive written comments on the MVP Project and Equitrans Project Draft EIS within 90 days following the date of publication of the FERC Notice of Availability (NOA) for the draft EIS in the Federal Register. The FERC's NOA also lists public meetings where interested groups and individuals can attend and present oral comments on the draft EIS.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments related to the MVP Project and Equitrans Project Draft EIS, including any comments related to the BLM consideration of the issuance of a right-of-way grant to cross federal lands, the USFS consideration of LRMP amendments, and/or the USFS consideration of submitting a concurrence to BLM, to the FERC by any of the four methods listed below. The FERC encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP16-10-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, you can submit oral comments at any of the FERC-sponsored public sessions that are scheduled in the FERC Notice of Availability for the draft EIS.

    Your comments must reference the FERC Docket number for the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, LP, Docket No. CP16-10-000, to be correctly attributed to this specific project. Copies of the MVP Project and Equitrans Project Draft EIS are available for inspection in the office of the Forest Supervisor for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information about the projects is available from the FERC's Office of External Affairs at 866-208-FERC (3372), or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). On the FERC's Web site, go to “Documents & Filings,” click on the “eLibrary” link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number CP16-10. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], or toll free at 866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact 202-502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issues by the FERC such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This NOA is specific to the BLM and the USFS and provides notice that these agencies have participated as cooperating agencies with FERC in the preparation of the MVP Project and Equitrans Project Draft EIS. The Mountain Valley Pipeline route would cross about 3.4 miles of lands managed by the USFS, the Jefferson National Forest, in Monroe County, West Virginia and Giles and Montgomery counties, Virginia. The Equitrans Expansion Project would not cross the Jefferson National Forest.

    The FERC is the NEPA Lead Federal Agency for the environmental analysis of the construction and operation of the proposed MVP and Equitrans Projects. Under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185 et seq.), the BLM is the federal agency responsible for issuing right-of-way grants for natural gas pipelines across federal lands under the jurisdiction of two or more federal agencies. Therefore, the BLM is considering the issuance of a right-of-way grant to Mountain Valley for pipeline construction across the lands under the jurisdiction of the USFS and the USACE.

    Before issuing the right-of-way grant, the BLM would acquire the written concurrences of the USFS and USACE. Through this concurrence process, the USFS would submit to the BLM any specific stipulations applicable to lands, facilities, water bodies, and easements for inclusion in the right-of-way grant.

    In order for the potential actions to be consistent with the LRMP, the USFS would need to make several amendments to the LRMP. The amendments would provide for the construction and operation of the natural gas pipeline to occur on the Jefferson National Forest. The USFS would need to make these amendments before USFS could issue a letter of concurrence to the BLM.

    The FERC's draft EIS includes the consideration of a BLM right-of-way grant across federal lands for the USFS and USACE and the associated USFS LRMP amendments. The BLM and USFS can adopt FERC's EIS for agency decisions if the analysis provides sufficient evidence to support the agencies' decisions and the agencies are satisfied that agency comments and suggestions have been addressed.

    The BLM's purpose and need for the proposed action in FERC's draft EIS is to respond to a right-of-way grant application submitted by the applicant to the BLM on April 5, 2016 to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission a new 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline across approximately 3.4 miles of lands managed by the USFS and about 125 feet of federal lands managed by the USACE.

    The USFS's purpose and need for the proposed action is to evaluate the following amendments to the LRMP for the Jefferson National Forest and to consider issuing a concurrence to the BLM for the right-of-way grant.

    The first type of LRMP amendment would be a “plan-level amendment” that would change land allocations. This would change future management direction for the lands reallocated to the new management prescription (Rx) and is required by LRMP Standard FW-248.

    Proposed Amendment 1: The LRMP would be amended to reallocate 186 acres to the Management Prescription 5C-Designated Utility Corridors from these Rxs: 4J-Urban/Suburban Interface (56 acres); 6C-Old Growth Forest Communities-Disturbance Associated (19 ac); and 8A1-Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes (111 acres).

    Rx 5C-Designated Utility Corridors contain special uses which serve a public benefit by providing a reliable supply of electricity, natural gas, or water essential to local, regional, and national economies. The new Rx 5C land allocation would be 500 feet wide (250 feet wide on each side of the pipeline), with two exceptions: (1) The area where the pipeline crosses Rx 4A-Appalachian National Scenic Trail Corridor would remain in Rx 4A; and (2) the new 5C area would not cross into Peters Mountain Wilderness so the Rx 5C area would be less than 500 feet wide along the boundary of the Wilderness.

    The second type of amendment would be a “project-specific amendment” that would apply only to the construction and operation of this pipeline. The following standards would require a temporary “waiver” to allow the project to proceed. These amendments would not change LRMP requirements for other projects or authorize any other actions.

    Proposed Amendment 2: The LRMP would be amended to allow construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline to exceed restrictions on soil conditions and riparian corridor conditions as described in LRMP standards FW-5, FW-9, FW-13, FW-14 and 11-017, provided that mitigation measures or project requirements agreed upon by the Forest Service are implemented as needed. Proposed Amendment 3: The LRMP would be amended to allow the removal of old growth trees within the construction corridor of the Mountain Valley Pipeline. (Reference LRMP Standard FW-77) Proposed Amendment 4: The LRMP would be amended to allow the Mountain Valley Pipeline to cross the Appalachian National Scenic Trail on Peters Mountain. The Scenic Integrity Objective for the Rx 4A area and the Trail will be changed from High to Moderate. This amendment also requires the SIO of Moderate to be achieved within five to ten years following completion of the project to allow for vegetation growth. (Reference LRMP Standards 4A-021 and 4A-028)

    The decision for a right-of-way grant across federal lands would be documented in a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the BLM. The BLM's decision to issue, condition, or deny a right of way would be subject to BLM administrative review procedures established in 43 CFR 2881.10 and the procedures established in section 313(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The USFS concurrence to BLM to issue the right-of-way grant would not be a decision subject to the NEPA and therefore would not be subject to USFS administrative review procedures. The USFS would issue its own draft ROD for the LRMP amendments that would be subject to administrative review prior to final decision. Proposed Amendment 1 was developed in accordance to 36 CFR part 219 (2012 version) regulations and would be subject to the administrative review procedures under 36 CFR part 219 subpart B. Proposed Amendments 2, 3 and 4 were developed in accordance to 36 CFR part 219 (2012) regulations but would be subject to the administrative review procedures under 36 CFR part 218 regulations subparts A and B, per 36 CFR 219.59(b). Refer to the applicable administrative review regulations for eligibility requirements.

    The BLM is requesting public comments on the issuance of a right-of-way grant that would allow the MVP to be constructed on Federal lands managed by the USFS and USACE. The USFS is requesting public comments on the consideration of submitting a concurrence to BLM and the draft amendments of the LRMP to allow for the MVP Project on the Jefferson National Forest. All comments must be submitted to the FERC, the Lead Federal Agency within the timeframe stated in FERC's Notice of Availability for their draft EIS. Refer to Docket CP16-10-000 (Mountain Valley Pipeline) in all correspondence to ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the record. You may submit comments to the FERC using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. Only those who submit timely and specific written comments regarding the proposed project during a public comment period are eligible to file an objection with the USFS. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that the entire text of your comments—including your personal identifying information— would be publicly available through the FERC eLibrary system, if you file your comments with the Secretary of the FERC.

    Responsible Official for USFS LRMP Amendments: The Forest Supervisor for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests is the Responsible Official for the LRMP Amendments.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.

    Dated: September 21, 2016. Karen Mouritsen, State Director, Eastern States. Dated: September 13, 2016. Joby P. Timm, Forest Supervisor, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24833 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Advisory Council (Council) will meet in Sandpoint, Idaho. The Council is authorized under Section 5(d) of the National Trails System Act of 1968 (Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Additional information concerning the Council, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Council's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/working-together/advisory-committees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on the following dates and times:

    • Wednesday, October 14, 2015 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PDT

    • Thursday, October 15, 2015 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PDT

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

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Best Western Edgewater Resort, 56 Bridge Street, Sandpoint, Idaho. Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Pacific Northwest Regional Office of the United States Forest Service: 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204. Please call ahead at 503-808-2468 to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt McGrath, Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Program Manager, by phone at 425-583-9304, or by email at [email protected].

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to provide:

    1. Overview of legislation, policy, and interagency planning requirements for National Scenic Trails;

    2. Discussion of planning approach, process, and schedule for the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail comprehensive plan; and

    3. Recommendations regarding the work, priorities, and schedule for the Advisory Council.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by October 2, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Matt McGrath, Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Program Manager, 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 3A, Everett, Washington 98201, or by email to [email protected].

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

    Dated: September 26, 2016. Dianne C. Guidry, Deputy Regional Forester.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24828 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    October 20, 2016 1:00 p.m. EDT.

    PLACE:

    U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on October 20, 2016, starting at 1:00 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC, at the CSB offices located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 910. The Board will discuss open investigations, the status of audits from the Office of the Inspector General; financial and organizational updates, and a review of the agency's action plan. An opportunity for public comment will be provided.

    Additional Information

    The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the “Contact Person for Further Information,” at least three business days prior to the meeting.

    A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference: 1-888-862-6557 Confirmation Number 43587416.

    The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.

    Public Comment

    The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.

    Contact Person for Further Information

    Hillary Cohen, Communication Manager, at [email protected] or (202) 446-8094. Further information about this public meeting can be found on the CSB Web site at: www.csb.gov.

    Dated: October 11, 2016. Kara A. Wenzel, Acting General Counsel, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24970 Filed 10-12-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6350-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Questionnaire for Building Permit Official AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before December 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Erica Filipek, U.S. Census Bureau, MCD, CENHQ Room 7K057, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763-5161 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request a three-year extension of the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of the Questionnaire for Building Permit Official (SOC-QBPO). The Census Bureau uses the Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) electronic questionnaire SOC-QBPO to collect information from state and local building permit officials on: (1) The types of permits they issue, (2) the length of time a permit is valid, (3) how they store permits, and (4) the geographic coverage of the permit system. We need this information to carry out the sampling for the Survey of Housing Starts, Sales, and Completions (OMB number 0607-0110), also known as Survey of Construction (SOC). The SOC provides widely used measures of construction activity, including the economic indicators Housing Starts, Housing Completions, and New Housing Sales.

    The current OMB clearance is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2017. We will continue to use the current CAPI questionnaire with minor revisions to question verbiage and questionnaire flow. The overall length of the interview will not change. The sample size will slightly change due to an increase in the number of local governments that issue building permits.

    II. Method of Collection

    The Census Bureau uses its field representatives to obtain information on the operating procedures of a permit office using the SOC-QBPO. The field representative visits the permit office, conducts the interview, and completes this electronic form.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0125.

    Form Number: SOC-QBPO.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: State and local Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,017.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 254 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Sections 131 and 182.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24819 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration First Responder Network Authority [Docket Number: 160929903-6903-01] RIN 0660-XC032 Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the South Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network and Notice of Public Meetings AGENCY:

    First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of availability of a draft programmatic environmental impact statement and of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The First Responder Network Authority (“FirstNet”) announces the availability of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the South Region (“Draft PEIS”). FirstNet also announces a series of public meetings to be held throughout the South Region to receive comments on the Draft PEIS. The Draft PEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed nationwide public safety broadband network in the South Region, composed of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on the Draft PEIS for the South Region on or before December 13, 2016. FirstNet will also hold public meetings in each of the 13 states. See SUPPLMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    At any time during the public comment period, members of the public, public agencies, and other interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments, questions, and concerns about the project for FirstNet's consideration or to attend any of the public meetings. Written comments may be submitted electronically via www.regulations.gov, FIRSTNET-2016-0005, or by mail to Genevieve Walker, Director of Environmental Compliance, First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192. Comments received will be made a part of the public record and may be posted to FirstNet's Web site (www.firstnet.gov) without change. Comments should be machine readable and should not be copy-protected. All personally identifiable information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. The Draft PEIS is available for download from www.regulations.gov, FIRSTNET-2016-0005. A CD containing the electronic files of this document is also available at public libraries (see Chapter 21 of the Draft PEIS for the complete distribution list). See SUPPLMENTARY INFORMATION section for public meeting addresses.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information on the Draft PEIS, contact Genevieve Walker, Director of Environmental Compliance, First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Meetings

    Attendees can obtain information regarding the project and/or submit a comment in person during public meetings. The meeting details are as follows:

    Nashville, Tennessee: October 24, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Hermitage Hotel, 231 6th Avenue North, Nashville, TN 37219

    Atlanta, Georgia: October 25, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Glenn Hotel, 110 Marietta Street NW., Atlanta, GA 30303

    Frankfort, Kentucky: October 25, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Hampton Inn Frankfort, 1310 U.S. Highway 127S, Frankfort, KY 40601

    Morrisville (Raleigh Area), North Carolina: October 26, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Morrisville Fire Station 1, 200 Town Hall Drive, Training Room, Morrisville, NC 27560

    Montgomery, Alabama: October 26, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Renaissance Montgomery Hotel & Spa at the Convention Center, 201 Tallapoosa Street, Montgomery, AL 36104

    Orlando, Florida: October 27, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Courtyard by Marriott Orlando Downtown, 730 N. Magnolia Avenue, Orlando, FL 32803

    Columbia, South Carolina: October 27, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., SpringHill Suites Columbia Downtown, 511 Lady Street, Columbia, SC 29201

    Baton Rouge, Louisiana: November 1, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Louisiana State Police Training Academy, Classroom No. 5, 7919 Independence Boulevard, Baton Rouge, LA 70806

    Sante Fe, New Mexico: November 1, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Hilton Sante Fe Historic Plaza, 100 Sandoval Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501

    Jackson Mississippi: November 2, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Jackson Marriott, 200 E Amite Street, Jackson, MS 39201

    Little Rock, Arkansas: November 3, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Arkansas State Capitol, 500 Woodlane Street, Room 130, Little Rock, AR 72201

    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: November 3, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., OKC-County Health Department, Northeast Regional Health Wellness Campus, 2600 NE 63rd Street, Auditorium, Oklahoma City, OK 73111

    Austin, Texas: November 7, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., The W Austin Hotel, 200 Lavaca Street, Austin, TX 78701

    Dallas, Texas: November 9, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency Dallas, 300 Reunion Boulevard East, Dallas, TX 75207

    Background

    The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 156 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.)) (the “Act”) created and authorized FirstNet to take all actions necessary to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of an interoperable, nationwide public safety broadband network (“NPSBN”) based on a single, national network architecture. The Act meets a longstanding and critical national infrastructure need, to create a single, nationwide network that will, for the first time, allow police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical service professionals, and other public safety entities to effectively communicate with each other across agencies and jurisdictions. The NPSBN is intended to enhance the ability of the public safety community to perform more reliably, effectively, and safely; increase situational awareness during an emergency; and improve the ability of the public safety community to effectively engage in those critical activities.

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) (“NEPA”) requires federal agencies to undertake an assessment of environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a final decision and implementing the action. NEPA requirements apply to any federal project, decision, or action that may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. NEPA also establishes the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), which issued regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (see 40 CFR parts 1500-1508). Among other considerations, CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.28 recommend the use of tiering from a “broader environmental impact statement (such as a national program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analysis (such as regional or basin wide statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared.”

    Due to the geographic scope of FirstNet (all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories) and the diversity of ecosystems potentially traversed by the project, FirstNet has elected to prepare five regional PEISs. The five PEISs were divided into the East, Central, West, South, and Non-Contiguous Regions. The South Region includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The Draft PEIS analyzes potential impacts of the deployment and operation of the NPSBN on the natural and human environment in the South Region, in accordance with FirstNet's responsibilities under NEPA.

    Next Steps

    All comments received by the public and any interested stakeholders will be evaluated and considered by FirstNet during the preparation of the Final PEIS. Once a PEIS is completed and a Record of Decision (ROD) is signed, FirstNet will evaluate site-specific documentation, as network design is developed, to determine if the proposed project has been adequately evaluated in the PEIS or warrants a Categorical Exclusion, an Environmental Assessment, or an Environmental Impact Statement.

    Dated: October 11, 2016. Elijah Veenendaal, Attorney—Advisor, First Responder Network Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24906 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-TL-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-68-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 277—Western Maricopa County, Arizona; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; IRIS USA, Inc. (Plastic Household Storage/Organizational Containers); Surprise, Arizona

    IRIS USA, Inc. (IRIS) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Surprise, Arizona, within FTZ 277. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on September 29, 2016.

    The IRIS facility is located within Site 12 of FTZ 277. The facility is used to produce plastic household storage/organizational containers and pet carriers/pens. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt IRIS from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, IRIS would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to plastic household storage/organizational containers and pet carriers/pens (duty rates range from free to 5.3%) for the foreign-status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: polypropylene resin; plastic handles/buckles; steel latch plates/drawer locks/hinges/latch sets; steel/plastic casters; aluminum tubes; and, rubber caps (duty rates range from 2.5% to 6.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 23, 2016.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: October 7, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24900 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-843] Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products (CLPP) from India, covering the period September 1, 2014, through August 31, 2015. We preliminarily determine that mandatory respondent Navneet Education Ltd. (Navneet) made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) and that mandatory respondent Kokuyo Riddhi Paper Products Private Limited (Kokuyo Riddhi) did not. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective October 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Robinson or George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 2, 2015, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping order on November 9, 2015.1 On February 3, 2016, we subsequently rescinded the review, in part, with respect to two companies, SAB and Super Impex.2

    1 The Department initiated the review with regard to ten companies: Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT Limited (Goldenpalm), Kokuyo Riddhi, Lodha Offset, Magic International Pvt. Ltd. (Magic), Marisa International (Marisa), Navneet, Pioneer Stationery Pvt Ltd (Pioneer), SAB International (SAB), SGM Paper Products, and Super Impex. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 69193 (November 9, 2015).

    2See Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 5707 (February 3, 2016).

    As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to a closure of the Federal Government. As a result, the revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review was June 7, 2016.3 On May 3, 2016, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results to October 5, 2016.

    3See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm `Jonas,'” dated January 27, 2016. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with the Department's practice, the deadline will become the next business day.

    On September 7, 2016, Petitioner submitted new factual information regarding Navneet's U.S. sales data.4 Given the timing of the submission, the Department could not address this new factual information in these preliminary results. The Department invited interested parties to submit comments no later than October 24, 2016,5 and will address the matter in the final results.

    4See Letter titled, “New Factual Information Filed by the Association of American School Paper Suppliers (Petitioner) and Extension of Deadline to Submit New Factual Information Pertaining to Navneet Education Ltd.'s (Navneet) Sales Reporting,” dated September 27, 2016.

    5Id.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the CLPP Order is certain lined paper products. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4811.90.9035, 4811.90.9080, 4820.30.0040, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.6

    6 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Lined Paper Products from India; 2014-2015” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    In response to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire issued on November 9, 2015, Lodha Offset reported that it made no sales of subject merchandise during the POR.7 On November 19, 2015, we issued a non-shipment inquiry instruction to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to confirm Lodha Offset's claim of non-shipment.8 We did not receive any contradictory information from CBP. Based on Lodha Offset's claim of no shipments and because no information to the contrary was received by the Department from CBP, we preliminarily determine that Lodha Offset had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and, therefore, no reviewable transactions, during the POR. For a full discussion of this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    7See Lodha Offset's certified Quantity and Value response, dated November 11, 2015.

    8See CBP message number 5323301, dated November 19, 2015.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price or export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, the Department calculated a de minimis dumping margin for Kokuyo Riddhi and a weighted-average dumping margin 2.54 percent for Navneet for the period September 1, 2014, through August 31, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the Department assigned the weighted-average dumping margin of 2.54 percent calculated for Navneet to the five non-selected companies in these preliminary results, as referenced below.

    Producer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Kokuyo Riddhi Paper Products Private Limited 0.00/de minimis Navneet Education Ltd 2.54 Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT Limited 2.54 Magic International Pvt. Ltd 2.54 Marisa International (Marisa) 2.54 Pioneer Stationery Pvt Ltd (Pioneer) 2.54 SGM Paper Products 2.54
    Assessment Rate

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the weighted-average dumping margin for Kokuyo Riddhi or Navneet is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).9 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent). Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review where applicable.

    9 In these preliminary results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rates established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 3.91 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.10 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.11 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.12 All briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS.

    10See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    11See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    12See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.13 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.14 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.

    13See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    14See 19 CFR 351.310.

    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed.

    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background A. Kokuyo Riddhi B. Navneet C. Extension of Preliminary Results III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of Methodology A. Date of Sale B. Product Comparisons C. Comparisons to Normal Value D. Determination of Comparison Method E. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis F. Export Price G. Normal Value 1. Home Market Viability 2. Level of Trade 3. Sales to Affiliated Customers 4. Cost of Production Analysis a. Calculation of COP b. Test of Comparison Market Prices and COP c. Results of COP Test d. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices H. Margin for Company Not Selected for Individual Examination I. Currency Conversion V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-24823 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration United States Investment Advisory Council: Meeting of the United States Investment Advisory Council AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Investment Advisory Council (Council) will hold a meeting on Monday, October 31, 2016. The Council was chartered on April 6, 2016, to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the promotion and retention of foreign direct investment in the United States. At the meeting, members will deliberate and vote on a set of recommendations to Secretary Pritzker on the facilitation of foreign direct investment into the United States, including data management and provision of information on workforce and investment opportunities across U.S. regions, facilitation of infrastructure investment, and mechanisms to increase investment competitiveness, in addition to other topics. The agenda may change to accommodate Council business. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Council at http://trade.gov/IAC, at least one week in advance of the meeting.

    DATES:

    Monday, October 31, 2016, 1:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m. EDT. The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5 p.m. EDT on October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC Requests to register (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: United States Investment Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, [email protected] Members of the public are encouraged to submit registration requests and written comments via email to ensure timely receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Li Zhou, United States Investment Advisory Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-4501, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Council advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the promotion and retention of foreign direct investment in the United States.

    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. There will be fifteen (15) minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks by 5:00 p.m. EDT on October 24, 2016, for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to the members of the Council.

    In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Li Zhou at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on October 24, 2016, to ensure transmission to the Council members prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered during the meeting. Statements will be posted on the United States Investment Advisory Council Web site (http://trade.gov/IAC) without change, including any business or personal information provided such as names, addresses, email addresses, or telephone numbers. All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. Copies of Council meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

    Dated: October 11, 2016. Li Zhou, Executive Secretary, United States Investment Advisory Council.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24903 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-885] Phosphor Copper From the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that phosphor copper from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The Department also preliminarily determines that critical circumstances do not exist with regard to imports of phosphor copper from Korea. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective October 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Robinson AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In response to petitions filed on March 9, 2016,1 the Department published the notice of initiation of this LTFV investigation concerning imports of phosphor cooper from Korea on April 5, 2016.2 On July 27, 2016, the Department received timely allegations, pursuant to sections 703(e)(l) and 733(e)(l) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of phosphor copper from Korea.3 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.4 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea, dated March 9, 2016 (the Petition).

    2See Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 81 FR 19552 (April 5, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    3See Petitioner's letter “Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea: Petitioner's Critical Circumstances Allegation,” (Critical Circumstances Allegation) dated July 27, 2016.

    4See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is phosphor copper from Korea. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).6 No interested party submitted comments on the scope of this investigation.

    5See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    6See Initiation Notice, 81 FR at 19553.

    Postponement of Deadline for Preliminary Determination

    On August 5, 2016, the Department published the notice of postponement for the preliminary determination in this investigation in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).7 As a result of the 50-day postponement, the revised deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation is October 5, 2016.8

    7See Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 81 FR 51858 (August 5, 2016).

    8Id.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    On July 27, 2016, Metallurgical Products Company (Petitioner) filed a timely critical circumstance allegation pursuant to section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(l), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of phosphor copper from Korea.9 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), when a critical circumstances allegation is submitted more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must issue a preliminary finding whether there is a reason