Federal Register Vol. 81, No.218,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 218 (November 10, 2016)

Page Range78899-79379
FR Document

81_FR_218
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 79379 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass DestructionPDF
81 FR 79055 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 79027 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 78942 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Witch Flounder Trimester Total Allowable Catch Area Closure for the Common Pool FisheryPDF
81 FR 79050 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 79084 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 79045 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
81 FR 78995 - Procurement List; Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 79055 - Notice of Permit Modification Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
81 FR 78996 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 79092 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CAPRICE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 78923 - 2-Pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl-; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
81 FR 79085 - Notice of Request To Release Airport Property at Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW)PDF
81 FR 79091 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FLACA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 78937 - Di-n-butyl Adipate; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
81 FR 79119 - Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Reconfiguration of VA Black Hills Health Care System (BHHCS)PDF
81 FR 78917 - Prothioconazole; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 78999 - Notice of Extension of Public Scoping Period for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization, NevadaPDF
81 FR 78932 - Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 79011 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active IngredientsPDF
81 FR 78913 - Clomazone; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 78941 - Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2016-2017 Commercial Accountability Measures and Closure for King Mackerel in the Florida West Coast Northern SubzonePDF
81 FR 79030 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Electronic ProductsPDF
81 FR 79120 - Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 78954 - Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of Federal Implementation Plan Requirements for TexasPDF
81 FR 79020 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for September 2016PDF
81 FR 79045 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 79013 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for August 2016PDF
81 FR 79010 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
81 FR 78928 - Iron Oxide Yellow; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
81 FR 79012 - Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control ActPDF
81 FR 79020 - Access to Confidential Business Information by Eastern Research Group, Inc.PDF
81 FR 79019 - Access to Confidential Business Information by Battelle Memorial Institute and Its Identified Subcontractor, Avanti CorporationPDF
81 FR 79009 - Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Meeting-December 2016PDF
81 FR 79019 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 79028 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
81 FR 78912 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Great Channel, Between Stone Harbor and Nummy Island, NJPDF
81 FR 78999 - Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-2019 Proposed Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments Public Hearing and Opportunities for Public Review and CommentPDF
81 FR 79005 - Lake Charles Exports, LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement NationsPDF
81 FR 79047 - Notice of December 12, 2016, Meeting for Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 79049 - Notice of December 14, 2016, Meeting of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 79049 - Notice of December 16, 2016, Meeting of the Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site Advisory CommissionPDF
81 FR 78952 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rice Creek, Putnam County, FLPDF
81 FR 79007 - Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement NationsPDF
81 FR 79036 - Health IT Policy Committee Advisory Meeting; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 79008 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
81 FR 79035 - Health IT Standards Committee Advisory Meeting; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 79054 - Arts Advisory Panel MeetingsPDF
81 FR 79056 - Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External EventsPDF
81 FR 79046 - Notice of Emergency Temporary Closure of Public Lands in Benton County, OregonPDF
81 FR 78997 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License to Fox Materials Consulting, LLC; Colorado Springs, COPDF
81 FR 79092 - School Transportation Safety-Thinking Outside the Bus MeetingPDF
81 FR 78911 - Law Enforcement ReportingPDF
81 FR 78994 - New Policy and Procedures Documents Announcing a Change in the Calibration Base Line ProgramPDF
81 FR 78951 - Law Enforcement Operations and InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 78998 - Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 78967 - Notice of Appointment of Members to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 78908 - Removal of the 36-Month Non-Payment Testing Period RulePDF
81 FR 79041 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain TreadmillsPDF
81 FR 79090 - 2016 Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox ProgramPDF
81 FR 79086 - Announcement of Fiscal Year 2016 Rides to Wellness Demonstration and Innovative Coordinated Access and Mobility Grants Competitive Program Project SelectionsPDF
81 FR 79079 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 79071 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Accelerate Its Trade Guaranty, Add New Clearing Fund Components, Enhance Its Intraday Risk Management, Provide for Loss Allocation of “Off-the-Market Transactions,” and Make Other ChangesPDF
81 FR 79063 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to Price Protection Mechanisms and Risk ControlsPDF
81 FR 79081 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adopting New Rules To Reflect the Implementation of Pillar, the Exchange's New Trading TechnologyPDF
81 FR 79068 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 9400 To Include a Cross-ReferencePDF
81 FR 79069 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Fees Related to the MSRB Academic Historical Transaction Data ProductPDF
81 FR 79081 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Additional ItemPDF
81 FR 79050 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Japan, Taiwan, and TurkeyPDF
81 FR 79036 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 79039 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 79039 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 79038 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 79037 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 79041 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 79038 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 79040 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 79047 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; United States Park Police Pre-Employment Suitability Determination ProcessPDF
81 FR 79043 - North Carolina; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 79027 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 79350 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Kodiak Transient Float Replacement ProjectPDF
81 FR 79061 - Information Collection: NRC Forms 542 and 542A, Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest Index and Regional Compact Tabulation, and Continuation PagePDF
81 FR 79055 - Information Collection: NRC Forms 541 and 541A, Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, Container and Waste Description, and Continuation PagePDF
81 FR 79060 - Information Collection: NRC Forms 540 and 540A, Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Shipping Paper) and Continuation PagePDF
81 FR 79044 - North Carolina; Amendment No. 11 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 79044 - Florida; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 79188 - Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, L.L.C., and SND Health Care, L.L.C.; Decision and OrderPDF
81 FR 78969 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Dock Replacement Project in Unalaska, AlaskaPDF
81 FR 79093 - Michelin North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
81 FR 79052 - Waleed Khan, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
81 FR 79051 - Thomas Horiagon, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
81 FR 79044 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 79098 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 79097 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 79095 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1099-INTPDF
81 FR 78949 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Establishment of Class E En Route Airspace; Paso Robles, CAPDF
81 FR 79098 - Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, as Required by Section 6039GPDF
81 FR 79034 - Amendment to Guidance for Industry: Use of Serological Tests To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi Infection in Whole Blood and Blood Components Intended for Transfusion; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 79028 - Product Labeling for Certain Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 79096 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1098-EPDF
81 FR 79117 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 79118 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 78902 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Illinois Towns; Carmi, IL; De Kalb, IL; Harrisburg, IL; Kewanee, IL; Litchfield, IL; Paris, IL; and Taylorville, ILPDF
81 FR 79096 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2016-47PDF
81 FR 79097 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 13614-CPDF
81 FR 79118 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 970PDF
81 FR 79094 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 990-NPDF
81 FR 78904 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Ohio Towns; Marion, OH; Portsmouth, OH; Van Wert, OH; and Versailles, OHPDF
81 FR 78993 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 78906 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Arkansas Towns; Blytheville, AR; Brinkley, AR; Clarksville, AR; and DeQueen, ARPDF
81 FR 78905 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Texas Towns; Levelland, TX; Vernon, TX; and Winters, TXPDF
81 FR 79084 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Disposal of Aeronautical Property at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Hebron, KY (CVG)PDF
81 FR 78947 - Airworthiness Directives; Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. GlidersPDF
81 FR 78967 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China and From Taiwan: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in PartPDF
81 FR 78966 - Public Hearing for the Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support RulePDF
81 FR 78944 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 78899 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 79085 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision and Extension of a Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Hazardous Materials Safety PermitsPDF
81 FR 79122 - Universal ProxyPDF
81 FR 79261 - Energy Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Test Procedure for Commercial Water Heating EquipmentPDF
81 FR 79224 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Packaged BoilersPDF

Issue

81 218 Thursday, November 10, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department NOTICES National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Members, 78967 2016-27161 Army Army Department RULES Law Enforcement Reporting, 78911-78912 2016-27165 PROPOSED RULES Law Enforcement Operations and Investigations, 78951-78952 2016-27163 NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses: Fox Materials Consulting, LLC; Colorado Springs, CO, 78997-78998 2016-27167 Bonneville Bonneville Power Administration NOTICES Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Proposed Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments, 78999-79005 2016-27181 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Great Channel, between Stone Harbor and Nummy Island, NJ, 78912 2016-27184 PROPOSED RULES Drawbridge Operations: Rice Creek, Putnam County, FL, 78952-78954 2016-27176 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 78995-78997 2016-27214 2016-27217 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Engineers Corps

See

Navy Department

Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy LLC and SND Health Care LLC, 79188-79222 2016-27120 Thomas Horiagon, M.D., 79051-79052 2016-27116 Waleed Khan, M.D., 79052-79054 2016-27117 Energy Department Energy Department See

Bonneville Power Administration

See

Energy Information Administration

RULES Energy Conservation Programs: Test Procedure for Commercial Packaged Boilers, 79224-79261 2016-26201 Test Procedure for Commercial Water Heating Equipment, 79261-79348 2016-26211 NOTICES Export Liquefied Natural Gas; Applications: Lake Charles Exports, LLC, 79005-79006 2016-27180 Lake Charles LNG Export Co., LLC, 79007-79008 2016-27175
Energy Information Energy Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 79008-79009 2016-27173 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Meetings: Inland Waterways Users Board, 78998-78999 2016-27162 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances; Exemptions: 2-Pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl-, 78923-78928 2016-27212 Clomazone, 78913-78917 2016-27201 Di-n-butyl Adipate, 78937-78941 2016-27209 Iron Oxide Yellow, 78928-78932 2016-27191 Prothioconazole, 78917-78923 2016-27206 Trifloxystrobin, 78932-78937 2016-27204 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Texas; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter, 78954-78966 2016-27197 Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support Rule: Public Hearing, 78966 2016-26965 NOTICES Access to Confidential Business Information: Battelle Memorial Institute and Avanti Corp., 79019-79020 2016-27188 Eastern Research Group, Inc., 79020 2016-27189 Certain New Chemicals: Receipt and Status Information for August 2016, 79013-79019 2016-27193 Receipt and Status Information for September 2016, 79020-79027 2016-27195 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 79019 2016-27186 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee, 79009-79010 2016-27187 Pesticide Product Registrations; Applications: New Active Ingredients, 79011-79012 2016-27202 New Uses, 79010-79011 2016-27192 Receipt of Information: Toxic Substances Control Act, 79012-79013 2016-27190 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 78899-78902 2016-26810 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Blytheville, Brinkley, Clarksville, and DeQueen, AR, 78906-78908 2016-27093 Carmi, De Kalb, Harrisburg, Kewanee, Litchfield, Paris, and Taylorville, IL, 78902-78904 2016-27101 Levelland, Vernon, and Winters, TX, 78905-78906 2016-27091 Marion, Portsmouth, Van Wert, and Versailles, OH, 78904-78905 2016-27096 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 78944-78947 2016-26813 Alexander Schleicher GmbH and Co. Gliders, 78947-78949 2016-27041 Class E Airspace; Establishment: Paso Robles, CA, 78949-78951 2016-27109 NOTICES Aeronautical Properties; Disposals: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Hebron, KY (CVG), 79084-79085 2016-27090 Airport Property Releases: Malden Regional Airport and Industrial Park, 79085 2016-27211 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 79027 2016-27127 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 79027-79028 2016-27328 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: Florida; Amendment No. 3, 79044 2016-27121 North Carolina; Amendment No. 10, 79043 2016-27128 North Carolina; Amendment No. 11, 79044 2016-27122 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 79028 2016-27185 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hazardous Materials Safety Permits, 79085-79086 2016-26559 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Fiscal Year 2016 Rides to Wellness Demonstration and Innovative Coordinated Access and Mobility Grants Competitive Program Project Selections, 79086-79090 2016-27157 Funding Opportunities: Mobility on Demand Sandbox Program; 2016, 79090-79091 2016-27158 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 79030-79033 2016-27199 Guidance: Product Labeling for Certain Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator Devices, 79028-79030 2016-27106 Use of Serological Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi Infection in Whole Blood and Blood Components Intended for Transfusion; Amendment, 79034-79035 2016-27107 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 79045-79046 2016-27194 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: Health IT Policy Advisory Committee, 79036 2016-27174 Health IT Standards Committee, 79035-79036 2016-27172
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 79044-79045 2016-27115 Inter-American Inter-American Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 79045 2016-27243 2016-27246 Interior Interior Department See

Geological Survey

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Removal of the 36-month Non-payment Testing Period Rule, 78908-78911 2016-27160 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 79095-79098, 79117-79119 2016-27098 2016-27099 2016-27100 2016-27102 2016-27103 2016-27104 2016-27110 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Comment Request for Form 990-N, 79094-79095 2016-27097 Regulation Project, 79097-79098 2016-27111 2016-27113 Quarterly Publication of Individuals Who Have Chosen to Expatriate, 79098-79117 2016-27108 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, 78967-78969 2016-26985 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey, 79050 2016-27146 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 79050 2016-27295 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Temporary Closures of Public Lands: Benton County, OR, 79046-79047 2016-27168 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CAPRICE, 79092 2016-27213 Vessel FLACA, 79091-79092 2016-27210 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 79054-79055 2016-27170 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: School Transportation Safety—Thinking Outside the Bus, 79092-79093 2016-27166 Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Michelin North America, Inc., 79093-79094 2016-27118 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 79040-79041 2016-27134 2016-27135 National Eye Institute, 79038 2016-27136 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 79041 2016-27137 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 79037-79040 2016-27138 2016-27139 2016-27140 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 79036-79037 2016-27143 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 79039 2016-27142 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; King Mackerel in the Florida West Coast Northern Subzone; Commercial Accountability Measures and Closure, 78941-78942 2016-27200 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Witch Flounder Trimester Total Allowable Catch Area Closure for the Common Pool Fishery, 78942-78943 2016-27319 NOTICES Calibration Base Line Program, Procedures and Policy, 78994-78995 2016-27164 Takes of Marine Mammals: Dock Replacement Project, Unalaska, AK, 78969-78993 2016-27119 Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, CA, 78993-78994 2016-27094 Kodiak Transient Float Replacement Project, 79350-79375 2016-27126 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: United States Park Police Pre-Employment Suitability Determination Process, 79047-79049 2016-27129 Meetings: Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory Council, 79049 2016-27178 Mary McLeod Bethune National Council House National Historic Site Advisory Commission, 79049-79050 2016-27177 Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council, 79047 2016-27179 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 79055 2016-27216 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 79055 2016-27352 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization, NV, 78999 2016-27205 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Shipping Paper) and Continuation Page, 79060-79061 2016-27123 Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest Index and Regional Compact Tabulation, and Continuation Page, 79061-79063 2016-27125 Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest, Container and Waste Description, and Continuation Page, 79055-79056 2016-27124 Guidance: Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events, 79056-79060 2016-27169 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of November 8, 2016), 79377-79379 2016-27401 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Universal Proxy, 79122-79186 2016-26349 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 79081, 79084 2016-27147 2016-27247 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 79063-79068 2016-27153 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 79079-79080 2016-27155 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 79069-79071 2016-27149 National Securities Clearing Corp., 79071-79078 2016-27154 NYSE MKT LLC, 79081-79084 2016-27152 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 79068-79069 2016-27150 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Treadmills, 79041-79043 2016-27159 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Reconfiguration of Veterans Affairs Black Hills Health Care System, 79119-79120 2016-27207 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, 79120 2016-27198 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 79122-79186 2016-26349 Part III Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, 79188-79222 2016-27120 Part IV Energy Department, 79224-79348 2016-26211 Part V Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 79350-79375 2016-27126 Part VI Presidential Documents, 79377-79379 2016-27401 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.

81 218 Thursday, November 10, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3985; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-182-AD; Amendment 39-18708; AD 2016-23-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-04-03 for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2010-04-03 required accomplishing repetitive detailed inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in certain wing top skin panels between the front and rear spars on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage, and repair if necessary. This new AD continues to require the repetitive detailed inspections, and also requires supplemental repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in wing top skin panels 1 and 2 at ribs 2 and 3, and repair if necessary. This AD was prompted by development of an ultrasonic inspection program to allow for earlier crack detection and extended repetitive inspection intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective December 15, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3985.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3985; 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 (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2010-04-03, Amendment 39-16196 (75 FR 6852, February 12, 2010) (“AD 2010-04-03”). AD 2010-04-03 applied to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2016 (81 FR 44812) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61327) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by development of an ultrasonic inspection program to allow for earlier crack detection and extended repetitive inspection intervals. The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2010-04-03, and proposed to require supplemental repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in wing top skin panels 1 and 2 at rib 2, and repair if necessary. The SNPRM proposed to expand the inspection area to include rib 3 due to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0005, dated January 7, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Following scheduled maintenance, cracks were found around the wing top skin panels fastener holes at Rib 2, between Stringer (STG) 2 and STG14.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane. The General Visual Inspection required by the existing applicable Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) tasks may not be adequate to detect these cracks.

To address this issue, Airbus developed an inspection programme based on repetitive detailed inspections (DET) to ensure that any visible cracks in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2 along Rib 2 are detected in time and repaired appropriately. EASA issued AD 2008-0211 to require implementation of this inspection programme.

After that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus improved the inspection programme with an ultrasonic inspection to allow earlier crack detection, to subsequently reduce the scope of potential repair action, and to extend the intervals of the repetitive inspections.

Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0200 (later revised), superseding [EASA] AD 2008-0211, retaining its requirements, and to require supplementary repetitive ultrasonic inspections [for cracking] of the wing top skin panel 1 and 2 between STG2 and STG10 at Rib 2 [and repair if needed].

Since EASA AD 2014-0020R1 was issued, a widespread fatigue damage analysis concluded that the inspection programme has to be extended to include the wing top skin panels at Rib 3 attachments. For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0200R1, which is superseded, and extends the inspection area to include Rib 3.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3985.

Comments

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

Clarification of Requirements

We have clarified the terminating action sentence in paragraph (k) of this AD by adding a reference to paragraph (g) of this AD.

We have clarified the average flight time in paragraph (l)(3) of this AD for subsequent inspections after the second inspection interval.

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 03, dated June 30, 2015. This service information describes procedures for detailed and ultrasonic inspections for cracking around the fastener holes of wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at ribs 2 and 3, on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage. 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 28 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $19,040, or $680 per product.

We estimate that it takes about 15 work-hours per product to do any necessary on-condition actions that are required based on the results of the inspections. Required parts will cost about $10,000 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-04-03, Amendment 39-16196 (75 FR 6852, February 12, 2010), and adding the following new AD: 2016-23-01 Airbus: Amendment 39-18708; Docket No. FAA-2015-3985; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-182-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective December 15, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2010-04-03, Amendment 39-16196 (75 FR 6852, February 12, 2010) (“AD 2010-04-03”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by the development of an ultrasonic inspection program to allow for earlier crack detection and extended repetitive inspection intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fastener holes in certain wing top skin panels between the front and rear spars on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within the initial compliance time and thereafter at the repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 03, dated June 30, 2015, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.

(1) Accomplish a detailed inspection for cracking around the fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, along ribs 2 and 3, between the front and rear spars on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage.

(2) Accomplish an ultrasonic inspection for cracking around the fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, along ribs 2 and 3, between stringer (STG) 2 and STG10 on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage.

(h) Compliance Times for Airplanes Not Previously Inspected

(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles or 4,100 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 18,700 flight cycles or 37,400 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.

(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an average flight time (AFT) of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles or 5,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 17,300 flight cycles or 48,400 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.

(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of equal to or more than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles or 7,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 12,800 flight cycles or 64,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.

(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Compliance Times for Airplanes Previously Inspected

For airplanes previously inspected before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008; Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014: At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 03, dated June 30, 2015. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at the repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 3,500 flight hours or 1,700 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.

(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 4,600 flight hours or 1,600 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.

(3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of equal to or more than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 6,100 flight hours or 1,200 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.

(j) Compliance Times if No Ultrasonic Equipment is Available

If no ultrasonic equipment is available for the initial or second inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, accomplish the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. After accomplishing the detailed inspection, do the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the applicable compliance times specified by paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD. Subsequently, repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at the applicable repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.

(1) For airplanes not previously inspected before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), or (j)(2)(iii) of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the initial compliance time specified by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

(2) For airplanes previously inspected before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), or (j)(2)(iii) of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD.

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008.

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010.

(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014.

(k) Repair of Cracking

If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Accomplishing the repair specified in this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, as applicable, for the repaired area only.

(l) Definition of Average Flight Time (AFT)

For the purposes of this AD, the AFT should be established as specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD for the determination of the compliance times.

(1) The inspection threshold is defined as the total flight hours accumulated (counted from take-off to touch-down), divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated at the effective date of this AD.

(2) The initial inspection interval is defined as the total flight hours accumulated divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated at the time of the initial inspection threshold.

(3) The second inspection interval is defined as the total flight hours accumulated divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated between the initial and second inspection threshold. For all inspection intervals onwards, the average flight time is the flight hours divided by the flight cycles accumulated between the last two inspections.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraph (m)(1), (m)(2), or (m)(3) of this AD.

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2010-04-03.

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, if any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(o) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0005, dated January 7, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3985.

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(4) and (p)(5) of this AD.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 15, 2016.

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 03, dated June 30, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 28, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-26810 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6985; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-16] Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Illinois Towns; Carmi, IL; De Kalb, IL; Harrisburg, IL; Kewanee, IL; Litchfield, IL; Paris, IL; and Taylorville, IL AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Carmi Municipal Airport, Carmi, IL; De Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, De Kalb, IL; Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport, Harrisburg, IL; Kewanne Municipal Airport, Kewanne, IL; Litchfield Municipal Airport, Litchfield, IL; Edgar County Airport, Paris, IL; and Taylorville Municipal Airport, Taylorville, IL. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, or implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the above airports. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of Carmi Municipal Airport, De Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport, Litchfield Municipal Airport, Edgar County Airport, and Taylorville Municipal Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, March 2, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Carmi Municipal Airport, Carmi, IL; De Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, De Kalb, IL; Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport, Harrisburg, IL; Kewanne Municipal Airport, Kewanne, IL; Litchfield Municipal Airport, Litchfield, IL; Edgar County Airport, Paris, IL; and Taylorville Municipal Airport, Taylorville, IL.

History

On July 1, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), (81 FR 43124) Docket No. FAA-2016-6985, to modify Class E airspace at Carmi Municipal Airport, Carmi, IL; De Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, De Kalb, IL; Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport, Harrisburg, IL; Kewanne Municipal Airport, Kewanne, IL; Litchfield Municipal Airport, Litchfield, IL; Edgar County Airport, Paris, IL; and Taylorville Municipal Airport, Taylorville, IL. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. The FAA discovered a typographical error in the geographic coordinate of Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport which has been corrected in this action.

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 part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, 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 Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the following airports:

Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Carmi Municipal Airport, Carmi, IL, and updating the geographic coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; Within a 6.8-mile radius (increased from the 6.6-mile radius) of De Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, De Kalb, IL, and updating the geographic coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport, Harrisburg, IL, and updating the geographic coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Kewanee Municipal Airport, Kewanee, IL; Within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Litchfield Municipal Airport, Litchfield, IL, and updating the geographic coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; Within a 6.4-mile radius (increased from the 6.3-mile radius) of Edgar County Airport, Paris, IL, and updating the geographic coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from the 7-mile radius) of Taylorville Municipal Airport, Taylorville, IL, and updating the geographic coordinates of this airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

These airspace reconfigurations are necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, or implementation of RNAV standard instrument procedures at these airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, 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. AGL IL E5 Carmi, IL [Amended] Carmi Municipal Airport, IL (Lat. 38°05′22″ N., long. 88°07′23″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the Carmi Municipal Airport. AGL IL E5 De Kalb, IL [Amended] De Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, IL (Lat. 41°56′02″ N., long. 88°42′20″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of the De Kalb Taylor Municipal Airport, excluding that airspace which overlies the Chicago, IL, Class E airspace area. AGL IL E5 Harrisburg, IL [Amended] Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport, IL (Lat. 37°48′41″ N., long. 88°33′01″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport. AGL IL E5 Kewanee, IL [Amended] Kewanee Municipal Airport, IL (Lat. 41°12′19″ N., long. 89°57′50″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the Kewanee Airport. AGL IL E5 Litchfield, IL [Amended] Litchfield Municipal Airport, IL (Lat. 39°09′45″ N., long. 89°40′29″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of the Litchfield Municipal Airport. AGL IL E5 Paris, IL [Amended] Paris, Edgar County Airport, IL (Lat. 39°41′59″ N., long. 87°40′15″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the Edgar County Airport. AGL IL E5 Taylorville, IL [Amended] Taylorville Municipal Airport, IL (Lat. 39°31′57″ N., long. 89°19′51″ W.) That airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the Taylorville Municipal Airport. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 2, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-27101 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8840; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-20] Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Ohio Towns; Marion, OH; Portsmouth, OH; Van Wert, OH; and Versailles, OH AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Marion Municipal Airport, Marion, OH; Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, Portsmouth, OH; Van Wert County Airport, Van Wert, OH; and Darke County Airport, Versailles, OH. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these airports. This action also updates the geographic coordinates for Southern Ohio Regional Medical Center Heliport, Portsmouth OH; and Darke County Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Also, the name of Southern Ohio Regional Medical Center Heliport (formerly Southern Ohio Medical Center Helipad) is updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, March 2, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Marion Municipal Airport, Marion, OH; Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, Portsmouth, OH; Van Wert County Airport, Van Wert, OH; and Darke County Airport, Versailles, OH.

History

On August 25, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), (81 FR 58413) Docket No. FAA-2016-8840, to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Marion Municipal Airport, Marion, OH; Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, Portsmouth, OH; Van Wert County Airport, Van Wert, OH; and Darke County Airport, Versailles, OH,. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends 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 Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the following airports:

Within a 7-mile radius (reduced from a 7.4-mile radius) of Marion Municipal Airport, Marion, OH;

Within a 6.8-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, Portsmouth, OH, and updating the name and geographic coordinates of Southern Ohio Regional Medical Center Heliport (formerly Southern Ohio Medical Center Helipad), Portsmouth, OH, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Van Wert County Airport, Van Wert, OH;

And within a 6.4-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of Darke County Airport, Versailles, OH, removing the segment extending 7 miles west of the airport, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, 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. AGL OH E5 Marion, OH [Amended] Marion Municipal Airport, OH (Lat. 40°36′59″ N., long. 83°03′49″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Marion Municipal Airport, excluding that airspace within the Bucyrus, OH, Class E airspace area. AGL OH E5 Portsmouth, OH [Amended] Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, OH (Lat. 38°50′26″ N., long. 82°50′50″ W.) Portsmouth, Southern Ohio Regional Medical Center Heliport, OH, Point in Space Coordinates (Lat. 38°45′16″ N., long. 82°58′38″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, and within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space serving Southern Ohio Regional Medical Center Heliport. AGL OH E5 Van Wert, OH [Amended] Van Wert County Airport, OH (Lat. 40°51′50″ N., long. 84°36′23″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Van Wert County Airport. AGL OH E5 Versailles, OH [Amended] Darke County Airport, OH (Lat. 40°12′16″ N., long. 84°31′55″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Darke County Airport. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 2, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-27096 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8828; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-13] Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Texas Towns; Levelland, TX; Vernon, TX; and Winters, TX AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Levelland Municipal Airport, Levelland, TX; Wilbarger County Airport, Vernon, TX; and Winters Municipal Airport, Winters, TX. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these airports. This action also updates the geographic coordinates for Levelland Municipal Airport and Wilbarger County Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, March 2, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Levelland Municipal Airport, Levelland, TX; Wilbarger County Airport, Vernon, TX; and Winters Municipal Airport, Winters, TX.

History

On August 25, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), (81 FR 58417) Docket No. FAA-2016-8828, to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Levelland Municipal Airport, Levelland, TX; Wilbarger County Airport, Vernon, TX; and Winters Municipal Airport, Winters, TX. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends 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 Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the following airports:

Within a 6.6-mile radius (decreased from a 6.7-mile radius) of Levelland Municipal Airport, Levelland, TX, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; Within a 6.6-mile radius (decreased from a 7-mile radius) of Wilbarger County Airport, Vernon, TX, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; And within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of Winters Municipal Airport, Winters, TX, with an extension to the north of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.3 miles, and with a new extension to the south of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.6 miles.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71:

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, 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. ASW TX E5 Levelland, TX [Amended] Levelland Municipal, TX (Lat. 33°33′09″ N., long. 102°22′21″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Levelland Municipal Airport. ASW TX E5 Vernon, TX [Amended] Wilbarger County Airport, TX (Lat. 34°13′32″ N., long. 99°17′02″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Wilbarger County Airport. ASW TX E5 Winters, TX [Amended] Winters Municipal Airport, TX (Lat. 31°56′50″ N., long. 99°59′09″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Winters Municipal Airport, and 1 mile each side of the 352° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.3 miles north of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 180° bearing from the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.6 miles south of the airport. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 2, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-27091 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4172; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-7] Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Arkansas Towns; Blytheville, AR; Brinkley, AR; Clarksville, AR; and DeQueen, AR AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Arkansas International Airport, Blytheville, AR; Blytheville Municipal Airport, Blytheville, AR; Frank Federer Memorial Airport, Brinkley, AR; Clarksville Municipal Airport, Clarksville, AR; and J. Lynn Helms Sevier County Airport, De Queen, AR. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDBs), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the above airports. This action also updates the name of Arkansas International Airport, and the geographic coordinates for Arkansas International Airport, Blytheville Municipal Airport, and Clarksville Municipal Airport, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, March 2, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Arkansas International Airport, Blytheville, AR; Blytheville Municipal Airport, Blytheville, AR; Frank Federer Memorial Airport, Brinkley, AR; Clarksville Municipal Airport, Clarksville, AR; and J. Lynn Helms Sevier County Airport, De Queen, AR.

History

On May 3, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), (81 FR 26505) Docket No. FAA-2016-4172, to modify Class E airspace at Arkansas International Airport, Blytheville, AR; Blytheville Municipal Airport, Blytheville, AR; Frank Federer Memorial Airport, Brinkley, AR; Clarksville Municipal Airport, Clarksville, AR; and J. Lynn Helms Sevier County Airport, De Queen, AR. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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 part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, 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 Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the following airports:

Within 7-mile radius (reduced from an 8-mile radius) of Arkansas International Airport (formerly Eaker AFB), and within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Blytheville Municipal Airport, Blytheville, AR, and updates the airport's geographic coordinates; By removing the 7.3-mile extension to the north from the 6.4-mile radius of Frank Federer Memorial Airport, Brinkley, AR; Within a 7.3-mile radius (reduced from a 7.4-mile radius) of Clarksville Municipal Airport, Clarksville, AR, and updates the airport's geographic coordinates; and Within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of J. Lynn Helms Sevier County Airport, De Queen, AR.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, or implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71:

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment:

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, 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. ASW AR E5 Blytheville, AR [Amended] Blytheville, Arkansas International Airport, AR (Lat. 35°57′52″ N., long. 89°56′38″ W.) Blytheville Municipal Airport, AR (Lat. 35°56′26″ N., long. 89°49′51″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Arkansas International Airport and within a 6.5-mile radius of Blytheville Municipal Airport. ASW AR E5 Brinkley, AR [Amended] Brinkley, Frank Federer Memorial Airport, AR (Lat. 34°52′49″ N., long. 91°10′35″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Frank Federer Memorial Airport.

ASW AR E5 Clarksville, AR [Amended] Clarksville Municipal Airport, AR (Lat. 35°28′15″ N., long. 93°25′38″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile radius of Clarksville Municipal Airport.

ASW AR E5 De Queen, AR [Amended] De Queen, J. Lynn Helms Sevier County Airport, AR (Lat. 34°02′49″ N., long. 94°23′58″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of J. Lynn Helms Sevier County Airport.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 2, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-27093 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9793] RIN 1545-BM01 Removal of the 36-Month Non-Payment Testing Period Rule AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final regulation.

SUMMARY:

This document contains final regulations that remove the rule that a deemed discharge of indebtedness for which a Form 1099-C, “Cancellation of Debt,” must be filed occurs at the expiration of a 36-month non-payment testing period. The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that the rule creates confusion for taxpayers and does not increase tax compliance by debtors or provide the IRS with valuable third-party information that may be used to ensure taxpayer compliance. The final regulations affect certain financial institutions and governmental entities.

DATES:

Effective Date: These regulations are effective on November 10, 2016.

Applicability Date: For dates of applicability, see § 1.6050P-1(h).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eliezer Mishory at (202) 317-6844 (not a toll-free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 6050P of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), relating to the rule in § 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(iv) that the 36-month non-payment testing period is an identifiable event triggering an information reporting obligation on Form 1099-C for discharge of indebtedness by certain entities. On October 15, 2014, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-136676-13) was published in the Federal Register (79 FR 61791). The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to remove the 36-month non-payment testing period. Written comments responding to the proposed regulations were received. The comments have been considered in connection with these final regulations and are available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov or on request. No public hearing was requested or held. After consideration of all the comments, the proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations without significant modification by this Treasury decision.

Statutory Provisions

Section 61(a)(12) provides that income from discharge of indebtedness is includible in gross income. Section 6050P was added to the Code by section 13252 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Public Law 103-66 (107 Stat. 312, 531-532 (1993)). Section 6050P was enacted in part “to encourage taxpayer compliance with respect to discharged indebtedness” and to “enhance the ability of the IRS to enforce the discharge of indebtedness rules.” H.R. Rep. No. 103-111, at 758 (1993). As originally enacted, section 6050P generally required applicable financial entities (generally financial institutions, credit unions, and federal executive agencies) that discharge (in whole or in part) indebtedness of $600 or more during a calendar year to file information returns with the IRS and to furnish information statements to the persons whose indebtedness was discharged. In addition to other information prescribed by regulations, an applicable financial entity is required to include on the information return the debtor's name, taxpayer identification number, the date of the discharge, and the amount discharged. See 26 U.S.C. 6050P(a) (1994).

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321, 1321-368 through 1321-369 (1996)) was enacted on April 26, 1996. Section 31001(m)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) of the 1996 Act amended section 6050P to expand the reporting requirement to cover “applicable entities,” which includes any executive, judicial, or legislative agency, not just federal executive agencies, and any previously covered applicable financial entity. Effective for discharges of indebtedness occurring after December 31, 1999, section 533(a) of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (1999 Act), Public Law 106-170 (113 Stat. 1860, 1931 (1999)), added subparagraph (c)(2)(D) to section 6050P, to further expand entities covered by the reporting requirements to include any organization the “significant trade or business of which is the lending of money.”

On April 4, 2000, the IRS released Notice 2000-22 (2000-1 CB 902) to provide penalty relief to organizations that were newly made subject to section 6050P by the 1999 Act (organizations with a significant trade or business of lending money). The relief applied to penalties for failure to file information returns or furnish payee statements for discharges of indebtedness occurring before January 1, 2001. On December 26, 2000, the IRS released Notice 2001-8 (2001-1 CB 374) to extend the penalty relief for organizations described in Notice 2000-22 for discharges of indebtedness that occurred prior to the first calendar year beginning at least two months after the date that appropriate guidance is issued.

Regulatory History

On December 27, 1993, temporary regulations under section 6050P relating to the reporting of discharge of indebtedness by applicable financial entities were published in the Federal Register (TD 8506; 58 FR 68301). The temporary regulations provided that an applicable financial entity must report a discharge of indebtedness upon the occurrence of an identifiable event that, considering all the facts and circumstances, indicated the debt would never have to be repaid. The temporary regulations provided a non-exhaustive list of three identifiable events that would give rise to the reporting requirement under section 6050P: (1) A discharge of indebtedness under title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code); (2) an agreement between the applicable financial entity and the debtor to discharge the indebtedness, provided that the last event to effectuate the agreement has occurred; and (3) a cancellation or extinguishment of the indebtedness by operation of law. These regulations were effective for discharges of indebtedness occurring after December 31, 1993.

A concurrently published notice of proposed rulemaking (IA-63-93; 58 FR 68337) proposed to adopt those and other rules in the temporary regulations. Written comments were received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, and testimony was given at a public hearing held on March 30, 1994. In response to the comments and testimony, the IRS provided, in Notice 94-73 (1994-2 CB 553), interim relief from penalties for failure to comply with certain of the reporting requirements of the temporary regulations for discharges of indebtedness occurring before the later of January 1, 1995, or the effective date of final regulations under section 6050P.

On January 4, 1996, prior to the amendments made by the 1996 Act, final regulations relating to the information reporting requirements of applicable financial entities for discharges of indebtedness were published in the Federal Register (TD 8654; 61 FR 262) (the 1996 final regulations). The 1996 final regulations were generally effective for discharges of indebtedness occurring after December 21, 1996, although applicable financial entities at their discretion could apply the 1996 final regulations to any discharge of indebtedness occurring on or after January 1, 1996, and before December 22, 1996. Finally, the preamble to these regulations provided that the temporary regulations and the interim relief provided in Notice 94-73 remained in effect until December 21, 1996.

In response to objections by commenters, the 1996 final regulations did not adopt the facts and circumstances test to determine whether a discharge of indebtedness had occurred and information reporting was required. Instead, the 1996 final regulations provided that a person's indebtedness is deemed to be discharged for information reporting purposes only upon the occurrence of an identifiable event specified in an exhaustive list under § 1.6050P-1(b)(2), whether or not an actual discharge has occurred on or before the date of the identifiable event. See § 1.6050P-1(a)(1).

Section 1.6050P-1(b)(2) of the 1996 final regulations listed eight identifiable events that trigger information reporting obligations on the part of an applicable financial entity: (1) A discharge of indebtedness under the Bankruptcy Code; (2) a cancellation or extinguishment of an indebtedness that renders the debt unenforceable in a receivership, foreclosure, or similar proceeding in a federal or state court, as described in section 368(a)(3)(A)(ii) (other than a discharge under the Bankruptcy Code); (3) a cancellation or extinguishment of an indebtedness upon the expiration of the statute of limitations for collection (but only if, and only when, the debtor's statute of limitations affirmative defense has been upheld in a final judgment or decision in a judicial proceeding, and the period for appealing it has expired) or upon the expiration of a statutory period for filing a claim or commencing a deficiency judgment proceeding; (4) a cancellation or extinguishment of an indebtedness pursuant to an election of foreclosure remedies by a creditor that statutorily extinguishes or bars the creditor's right to pursue collection of the indebtedness; (5) a cancellation or extinguishment of an indebtedness that renders a debt unenforceable pursuant to a probate or similar proceeding; (6) a discharge of indebtedness pursuant to an agreement between an applicable entity and a debtor to discharge indebtedness at less than full consideration; (7) a discharge of indebtedness pursuant to a decision by the creditor, or the application of a defined policy of the creditor, to discontinue collection activity and discharge debt; and (8) the expiration of a 36-month non-payment testing period.

The first seven identifiable events are specific occurrences that typically result from an actual discharge of indebtedness. The eighth identifiable event, the expiration of a 36-month non-payment testing period, may not result from an actual discharge of indebtedness. The 36-month non-payment testing period was added to the 1996 final regulations as an additional identifiable event in response to concerns of creditors that the facts and circumstances approach taken in the temporary and proposed regulations was unclear regarding the effect of continuing collection activity. Creditors proposed (among other things) that the final regulations require reporting after a fixed time period during which there had been no collection efforts.

Section 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(iv) of the 1996 regulations sets forth the 36-month non-payment testing period rule (the 36-month rule). Under that rule, a rebuttable presumption arises that an identifiable event has occurred if a creditor does not receive a payment within a 36-month testing period. The creditor may rebut the presumption if the creditor engaged in significant bona fide collection activity at any time within the 12-month period ending at the close of the calendar year or if the facts and circumstances existing as of January 31 of the calendar year following the expiration of the non-payment testing period indicate that the indebtedness has not been discharged. A creditor's decision not to rebut the presumption that an identifiable event has occurred pursuant to the 36-month rule is not an indication that it has discharged the debt, but the creditor is nonetheless required, for information reporting purposes, to report amounts on a Form 1099-C to the debtor taxpayer. Taxpayers receiving Forms 1099-C may conclude that the debts have, in fact, been discharged, causing the taxpayers to erroneously include in income the amounts reported on Forms 1099-C even though creditors may continue to attempt to collect the debt after issuing a Form 1099-C as required by the 36-month rule. See § 1.6050P-1(a)(1) and (b)(2)(iv). Finally, the 1996 final regulations provided that an identifiable event with respect to the 36-month non-payment testing period in § 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(i)(H) and (b)(2)(iv) could not occur prior to December 31, 1997. See § 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(iv)(C) of the 1996 regulations.

On October 25, 2004, final regulations reflecting the amendments to section 6050P(c) made by the 1999 Act were published in the Federal Register (TD 9160; 69 FR 62181). These regulations describe circumstances in which an organization has a significant trade or business of lending money and provide three safe harbors under which organizations will not be considered to have a significant trade or business of lending money.

On November 10, 2008, final and temporary regulations were published in the Federal Register (TD 9430; 73 FR 66539) (the 2008 regulations) to amend the regulations under section 6050P to exempt from the 36-month rule entities that were not within the scope of section 6050P as originally enacted (organizations with a significant trade or business of lending money and agencies other than federal executive agencies). The changes made by the 2008 regulations reduced the burden on these entities and protected debtors from receiving information returns that reported discharges of indebtedness from these entities before a discharge had occurred. The 2008 regulations also added § 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(v), which provided that, for organizations with a significant trade or business of lending money and agencies other than federal executive agencies that were required to file information returns pursuant to the 36-month rule in a tax year prior to 2008 and failed to file them, the date of discharge would be the first identifiable event, if any, described in § 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(i)(A) through (G) that occurs after 2007. On September 17, 2009, final regulations were published in the Federal Register (TD 9461; 74 FR 47728-01) adopting the 2008 regulations without change.

Notice 2012-65

Even after the amendments to the regulations in 2008 and 2009, concerns continued to arise about the 36-month rule, and taxpayers remained confused regarding whether the receipt of a Form 1099-C represents cancellation of indebtedness that must be included in gross income. To address those concerns, in Notice 2012-65 (2012-52 IRB 773 (Dec. 27, 2012)), the Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments from the public regarding whether to remove or modify the 36-month rule as an identifiable event for purposes of information reporting under section 6050P. Ten comments were received, all recommending removal or revision of the 36-month rule. Several commenters generally expressed concerns that the expiration of a 36-month non-payment testing period does not necessarily coincide with an actual discharge of the indebtedness, leading to confusion on the part of the debtor and, in some instances, uncertainty on the part of the creditor regarding whether it may lawfully continue to pursue the debt. Additionally, commenters noted that the IRS's ability to collect tax on discharge of indebtedness income may be undermined if the actual discharge occurs in a different year than the year of information reporting.

Proposed Regulations

In response to the comments received, on October 15, 2014, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-136676-13) proposing removing the 36-month rule was published in the Federal Register (79 FR 61791). The Treasury Department and the IRS agreed that information reporting under section 6050P should generally coincide with the actual discharge of a debt. Because reporting under the 36-month rule may not reflect a discharge of indebtedness, a debtor may conclude that the debtor has taxable income even though the creditor has not discharged the debt and continues to pursue collection. Issuing a Form 1099-C before a debt has been discharged may also cause the IRS to initiate compliance actions even though a discharge has not occurred. Additionally, § 1.6050P-1(e)(9) provides that no additional reporting is required if a subsequent identifiable event occurs. Therefore, in cases in which the Form 1099-C is issued because of the 36-month rule but before the debt is discharged, the IRS does not subsequently receive third-party reporting when the debt is discharged. The IRS's ability to enforce collection of tax for discharge of indebtedness income may, thus, be diminished when the information reporting does not reflect an actual cancellation of indebtedness.

Section 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(i)(H), (b)(2)(iv), and (b)(2)(v) were proposed to be removed on the date final regulations are published in the Federal Register. The proposed regulations also proposed conforming amendments to the effective/applicability date provision, § 1.6050P-1(h).

Explanation and Summary of Comments

The notice of proposed rulemaking invited comments on the proposed removal of the 36-month rule. A public hearing was not requested and none was held. Four comments were received. All commenters supported the proposal and agreed that the 36-month rule did not increase compliance and caused confusion, and supported its removal. Accordingly, these final regulations adopt the proposed regulations without change (except as described in the Applicability Date section of this preamble), remove the 36-month rule from the list of identifiable events, and remove related provisions.

Applicability Date

The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to amend the effective/applicability date paragraph in § 1.6050P-1(h) to remove references to the 36-month rule that were added along with the 36-month rule in TD 9461, 74 FR 47728-01, and such amendments would have been both effective and applicable as of the date of publication of these final regulations in the Federal Register. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is not in the interest of sound tax administration to have the removal of the 36-month rule apply for a portion of a calendar year. Therefore, these final regulations do not adopt the effective/applicability date provision of the proposed regulations. Information returns required to be filed under section 6050P must be filed on or before February 28 (March 31 if filed electronically) of the year following the calendar year in which the identifiable event occurs and payee statements must be furnished on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the identifiable event occurs. The final regulations are applicable to information returns required to be filed, and payee statements required to be furnished, after December 31, 2016. Because the deadline for filing information returns and furnishing payee statements for calendar year 2016 would be after December 31, 2016, the expiration of the 36-month testing period during 2016 does not create a requirement to file information returns and furnish payee statements. However, § 1.6050P-1 (as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 2016) continues to apply to information returns required to be filed, and payee statements required to be furnished, on or before December 31, 2016.

Special Analyses

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, 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. Because the regulations do 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 Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded these final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business, and no comments were received.

Drafting Information

The principal author of these final regulations is Eliezer Mishory of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income Taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed 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 1.6050P-1 is amended by: 1. Removing paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(H), (b)(2)(iv), and (b)(2)(v). 2. Adding the word “or” at the end of paragraph (b)(2)(i)(F). 3. Removing the semicolon and adding a period in its place at the end of paragraph (b)(2)(i)(G). 4. Revising paragraph (h).

The revision reads as follows:

§ 1.6050P-1 Information reporting for discharge of indebtedness by certain entities.

(h) Applicability dates. This section applies to information returns required to be filed, and payee statements required to be furnished, after December 31, 2016. Section 1.6050P-1 (as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 2016) applies to information returns required to be filed, and payee statements required to be furnished, on or before December 31, 2016.

John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: October 17, 2016. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016-27160 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army 32 CFR Part 635 RIN 0702-AA75 [Docket No. USA-2016-HQ-0033] Law Enforcement Reporting AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of the Army is amending its Law Enforcement Regulation. Specifically, Army is clarifying language for contractors who are required to register as sex offenders on Army installations. This change will allow the Department to collect information from registered sex offenders in accordance with their contract requirements. This ensures contractors meet the government requirements under the terms and conditions of the contract.

DATES:

The rule will be effective on December 15, 2016 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before December 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Katherine Brennan, (703) 692-6721.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This direct final rule makes changes to the Department of the Army's Law Enforcement Reporting rule which published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2016 (81 FR 17385).

DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves a change that clarifies language for contractors who are required to register as sex offenders on Army installations per the requirements of their contracts. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

Executive Summary

This rule provides policies and procedures for Army's implementation of Law Enforcement Reporting. The authority citation is 28 U.S.C. 534, 42 U.S.C. 10601, 18 U.S.C. 922, 10 U.S.C. 1562, 10 U.S.C. Chap. 47, 42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq., 10 U.S.C. 1565, 42 U.S.C. 14135a.

The Army is clarifying language for contractors who are required to register as sex offenders on Army installations.

This regulatory action imposes no monetary costs to the Agency or public. The benefit to the public is the Army law enforcement community is ensuring the safety and security of the Army installations by ensuring sex offenders required to register are complying with their registration requirements.

Regulatory Procedures A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Army has certified that the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply because the rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Department of the Army has determined that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply because the rule does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

The Department of the Army has determined that the National Environmental Policy Act does not apply because the rule does not have an adverse impact on the environment.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

It has been certified that this rule does impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved these requirements under OMB Control Number 0702-0128.

E. Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)

The Department of the Army has determined that Executive Order 12630 does not apply because the rule does not impair private property rights.

F. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

The Department of the Army has determined that according to the criteria defined in Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, this rule is not a significant regulatory action.

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risk and Safety Risks)

The Department of the Army has determined that the criteria of Executive Order 13045 do not apply because this rule does not implement or require actions impacting environmental health and safety risks on children.

H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

The Department of the Army has determined that the criteria of Executive Order 13132 do not apply because this rule will not have a substantial 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.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 635

Crime, Law, Law enforcement, Law enforcement officers, Military law.

For reasons stated in the preamble the Department of the Army amends 32 CFR part 635 as follows:

PART 635—LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORTING 1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows: Authority:

28 U.S.C. 534, 42 U.S.C. 10601, 18 U.S.C. 922, 10 U.S.C. 1562, 10 U.S.C. Chap. 47, 42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq., 10 U.S.C. 1565, 42 U.S.C. 14135a.

2. Amend § 635.6 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 635.6 Registration of sex offenders on Army installations (inside and outside the Continental United States)

(a) Sex Offenders on US Army Installations. Garrison Commander's responsibilities: Garrison Commanders will ensure that sex offenders, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section that reside or are employed on an Army Installation register with the installation PM/DES. This includes service members, civilian employees, accompanying dependent family members, and contractors subject to the incorporation of the sex offender registration requirement into the contract.

Thomas S. Blair, Chief, Law Enforcement Branch.
[FR Doc. 2016-27165 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-1004] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Great Channel, Between Stone Harbor and Nummy Island, NJ AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Cape May County (Ocean Drive/CR619) Bridge across the Great Channel, mile 0.7, between Stone Harbor and Nummy Island, NJ. This deviation is necessary to avoid bridge failure and perform emergency bridge repairs. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

This deviation is effective without actual notice from November 10, 2016 through 4 p.m. on December 2, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from November 7, 2016 at 9 a.m., until November 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-1004] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6222, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The County of Cape May, NJ, that owns and operates the Cape May County (Ocean Drive/CR619) Bridge, across the Great Channel, mile 0.7, between Stone Harbor and Nummy Island, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to avoid bridge failure and perform emergency repairs to the bridge, due to mechanical failure of the bascule span motor break, machinery brakes, and span lock mechanisms. The bridge is a bascule draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 11 feet above mean high water.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.720. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position until 4 p.m. on December 2, 2016.

The Great Channel is used by a variety of vessels including small public vessels, commercial vessels, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and Grassy Sound Channel (Ocean Drive/CR619) Bridge, across Grassy Sound Channel, mile 1.0, at North Wildwood, NJ, can be used as an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: November 7, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-27184 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0712; FRL-9953-88] Clomazone; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of clomazone in or on asparagus and soybean, vegetable, succulent. The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES:

This regulation is effective November 10, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 9, 2017, 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-2015-0712, 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0712 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 January 9, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0712, 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 November 25, 2015 (80 FR 73695) (FRL-9937-14), 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# 5E8402) by Interregional Research No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201-W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.425 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide clomazone, 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinone, in or on asparagus at 0.05 parts per million (ppm) and vegetable soybean (edamame) at 0.05 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by FMC Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0712 at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the terminology to correct the commodity definition from vegetable soybean (edamame) to soybean, vegetable, succulent.

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 clomazone including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with clomazone 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 primary target of clomazone is the liver, with hepatocellular cytomegaly and increased liver weight noted in the subchronic rat study. No neurotoxicity studies with clomazone are available; however, based on a weight of the evidence approach, EPA has concluded that a neurotoxicity battery is not required for clomazone. This approach considered all of the available hazard and exposure information including: (1) There is no evidence of clinical signs of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in adult animals in subchronic and chronic studies; (2) the liver is the target organ for clomazone, not the neurological system; (3) clomazone is absorbed and rapidly excreted in rats with 97% of the radioactivity excreted within 168 hours; and (4) the point of departure (POD) and endpoint for chronic dietary risk assessment is based on liver effects in rats which appear to be the most sensitive endpoint. There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of susceptibility in the developmental toxicity study in rabbits or in the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. In the developmental toxicity study in rats, delayed ossification occurred at doses that produced maternal effects (chromorhinorrhea and abdominogenital staining). Although qualitative susceptibility was observed in the developmental toxicity study in rats, the concern is low since there are clear no-observed-adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs) and lowest-observed-adverse-effect-levels (LOAELs) in the study and this study was used for risk assessment, and therefore, is protective of the developmental effects.

In the rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies, there was no evidence of carcinogenicity. Although the mouse carcinogenicity study was classified as unacceptable/guideline since no systemic toxicity was observed at the highest dose tested, the study was considered adequate to assess the carcinogenicity in mice. EPA has determined that an additional mouse carcinogenicity study is not needed. This finding is based upon the following conclusions: (1) The rat is more sensitive than the mouse for the chronic assessment; (2) the consistent effect in rats (decreased body weight and increased liver weight) has been used as the point of departure for the chronic assessment; (3) a new mouse study would only use doses well above the current POD for the chronic assessment; and (4) even if a new mouse study identified positive carcinogenicity effects, that finding would not result in the adoption of a quantitative linear assessment of cancer risk due to the negative carcinogenicity finding in the rat study and the lack of a positive finding for genotoxicity. Clomazone is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.” Quantification of cancer risk is not required.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by clomazone as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Clomazone: Human Health Risk Assessment for the Use of Clomazone on Asparagus and Edamame (Vegetable Soybean)” on pages 11-15 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0712.

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://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

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

Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Clomazone 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) An endpoint was not selected for the general population because no adverse effect in adult animals was identified that resulted from a single exposure. A risk assessment is not required for this population subgroup. Acute dietary (Females 13 to 49 years of age) NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Acute RfD = 1.0 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 1.0 mg/kg/day
  • Developmental Toxicity Study—Rats (MRID 00150291).
  • LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day based on indications of delayed ossification in the form of either partial ossification or the absence of the manubrium, sternebrae 3-4, xiphoid, caudal vertebrae, and meta-carpals.
  • Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 84.4 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.84 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.84 mg/kg/day
  • Two Year Chronic Toxicity Study—Rats (MRID 00132586).
  • NOAEL = 84.4/112.9 mg/kg/day, males/females (highest dose tested).
  • LOAEL was not attained Co-critical 90-day Oral Rat Study (MRID 00132586).
  • NOAEL = 135.2/160.9 mg/kg/day, males/females. LOAEL = 273/319.3 mg/kg/day, males/females, based on decreased body weight, body weight gains, food consumption and increased absolute and relative liver weights in females and increased absolute liver weights in males. Co-critical 2-Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study (MRID 00151108). Parental LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on statistically significantly decreased body weight & body weight gain during pre-mating, and decreased body weight during gestation & lactation M & F. In addition, decreased food consumption in females and hydronephritic kidneys in males. Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.” Quantitative assessment of cancer risk 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. 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 clomazone, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing clomazone tolerances in 40 CFR 180.425. EPA assessed dietary exposures from clomazone 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 clomazone. In estimating acute dietary exposure, 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, 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities, and DEEM 7.81 default processing factors as appropriate.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used DEEM-FCID Version 3.16. This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA incorporated tolerance-level residues, 100 PCT for all 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 clomazone 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 PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for clomazone. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. In drinking water, the residues of concern include clomazone parent and its degradate FMC65317 (N-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-3-hydroxy-2,2-dimenthylpropanamide). The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for clomazone in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of clomazone. 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 Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of clomazone for acute exposures are estimated to be 550 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 85.7 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs of clomazone for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 550 ppb for surface water and 77.4 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For both acute and chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 550 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). Clomazone is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

    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 clomazone to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and clomazone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that clomazone 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 of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits or in the reproductive toxicity study in rats with clomazone. In the developmental toxicity study in rats, effects in the fetuses (delayed ossification) occurred at doses that produced maternal effects (chromorhinorrhea and abdominogenital staining) but were qualitatively more severe. Although qualitative susceptibility was observed in the developmental toxicity study in rats, the concern is low since there are clear NOAELs and LOAELs in this study and the NOAEL in the study was used as the POD for assessment of acute risk. EPA's assessment of acute risk is therefore protective of any developmental effects.

    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 clomazone is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that clomazone is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. For the reasons described above in Unit III.D.2., there is low concern regarding increased susceptibility in the young from exposure to clomazone.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to clomazone in drinking water. There are no existing or pending residential uses. Therefore, these assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by clomazone.

    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). 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 for the general population including infants and children. Therefore, clomazone is not expected to pose an acute risk to these groups.

    However, an acute endpoint was identified for females 13 to 49 years old due to effects observed in fetuses. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to clomazone will occupy 3.0% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years old.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to clomazone from food and water will utilize 3.6% of the cPAD for all infants <1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for clomazone.

    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Clomazone is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Because there are no short- or intermediate-term residential exposures 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 short- and intermediate-term risks), no further assessment of short- and intermediate-term risks are necessary.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rodent carcinogenicity studies, along with the data summarized in Unit III.A., clomazone 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 clomazone residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography (GC) using a nitrogen phosphorus detector (NPD) or mass spectrometer (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 clomazone.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of clomazone, 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinone, in or on asparagus at 0.05 ppm and soybean, vegetable, succulent at 0.05 ppm.

    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: October 21, 2016. Michael 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. In § 180.425, add alphabetically the commodities “Asparagus” and “Soybean, vegetable, succulent” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 180.425 Clomazone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million Asparagus 0.05 *    *    *    *    * Soybean, vegetable, succulent 0.05 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2016-27201 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0722; FRL-9953-71] Prothioconazole; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of prothioconazole in or on cotton gin byproducts and the cottonseed subgroup 20C. Bayer CropScience requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 10, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 9, 2017, 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-2015-0722, 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0722 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 January 9, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0722, 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 November 25, 2015 (80 FR 73695) (FRL-9937-14), 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 5F8381) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.626 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide, prothioconazole in or on cotton, undelinted seed (crop subgroup 20C) at 0.4 parts per million (ppm) and to amend the existing tolerance in or on sugar beet, roots from 0.25 ppm to 0.3 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received in response to the notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has determined that the sugar beet root tolerance does not need to be increased to 0.30 ppm. The reason for this determination is explained in Unit IV.D.

    In the Federal Register of August 29, 2016 (81 FR 59165) (FRL-9950-22), 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 5F8381) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.626 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide, prothioconazole in or on cotton, gin byproducts at 4.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    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 prothioconazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with prothioconazole 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.

    Prothioconazole degrades into different compounds in different matrices, with prothioconazole-desthio (desthio) being the metabolite and degradate of concern. The target organs of prothioconazole and the desthio metabolite include the liver, kidney, bladder, thyroid and blood. In addition, the chronic studies showed body weight and food consumption changes, and toxicity to the lymphatic and gastrointestinal systems.

    Developmental studies show that prothioconazole and its metabolites produce adverse effects including malformations in the conceptus at levels equal to or below maternally toxic levels, particularly those studies conducted using prothioconazole-desthio. Reproduction studies in the rat with prothioconazole and prothioconazole-desthio suggest that these chemicals do not adversely affect reproductive parameters or the offspring except at parentally toxic dose levels. Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, as well as a developmental neurotoxicity study, raise no neurotoxicity concerns. Immunotoxicity data show that prothioconazole is not an immunotoxicant.

    The available carcinogenicity and/or chronic studies in the mouse and rat, using both prothioconazole and prothioconazole-desthio, show no increase in tumor incidence and EPA has concluded that prothioconazole and its metabolites are not carcinogenic.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by prothioconazole 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 titled “Prothioconazole: Human Health Risk Assessment for a Proposed Tolerance on Cottonseed Subgroup 20C, a Tolerance Amendment on Sugar Beet Roots, and New Use Requests for Cotton, Sugar Beet, Soybean, and Dried Shelled Pea and Bean” on page 32 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0722.

    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 prothioconazole used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1. of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Prothioconazole 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 (Females 13-50 years of age) NOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Acute RfD = 0.02 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.02 mg/kg/day
  • Developmental Toxicity study in rabbits.
  • LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on structural alterations including malformed vertebral body and ribs, arthrogryposis, and multiple malformations.
  • Acute dietary (General population including infants and children) No observed effects could be attributable to a single dose exposure. Therefore, a dose and endpoint were not selected for this exposure scenario. Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 1.1 mg/kg/day UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.01 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.01 mg/kg/day
  • Chronic/Carcinogenicity study in rats.
  • LOAEL = 8.0 mg/kg/day based on liver histopathology [hepatocellular vacuolation and fatty change (single cell, centrilobular, and periportal)].
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans based on the absence of significant tumor increases in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies. 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 prothioconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing prothioconazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.626. EPA assessed dietary exposures from prothioconazole 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 prothioconazole for females 13-50 years old. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level values for the proposed new uses and existing tolerances on berries and cucurbit vegetables, average field trial residues for all other commodities and empirical processing factors. With respect to sugar beet, the registrant-proposed tolerance value of 0.30 was incorporated in the dietary assessment, however, the Agency is leaving the tolerance at 0.25 ppm. The use of this higher residue level in the dietary assessment will serve as an overestimate of actual exposure to residues in/on sugar beet roots. 100 percent crop treated (PCT) was assumed for all proposed and established commodities.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level values for the proposed new uses and existing tolerances on berries and cucurbit vegetables, average field trial residues for all other commodities and empirical processing factors. With respect to sugar beet, the registrant-proposed tolerance value of 0.30 was incorporated in the dietary assessment; however, the Agency is leaving the existing tolerance at 0.25 ppm. The use of this higher residue level in the dietary assessment will serve as an overestimate of actual exposure to residues in/on sugar beet roots. 100 PCT was assumed for all proposed and established commodities.

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

    iv. Anticipated residue and 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.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for prothioconazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of prothioconazole. 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 Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of prothioconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 109 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 132 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 97 ppb for surface water and 128 ppb 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 132 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 128 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). Prothioconazole is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

    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.”

    Prothioconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events in mammals (EPA, 2002). In the case of conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological responses is found. Some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to indicate that prothioconazole shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other conazole pesticide, and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach for this tolerance action. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    Prothioconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative pesticides, including prothioconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and non-dietary exposures). The Agency retained a 3X for the LOAEL to NOAEL safety factor when the reproduction study was used. In addition, the Agency retained a 10X for the lack of studies including a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study. The assessment includes evaluations of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497.

    An updated dietary exposure and risk analysis for the common triazole metabolites 1,2,4-triazole (T), triazolylalanine (TA), triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic acid (TP) was completed on April 9, 2015, in association with registration requests for several triazole fungicides, propiconazole, difenoconazole, and flutriafol. That analysis concluded that risk estimates were below the Agency's level of concern for all population groups. The proposed new uses of prothioconazole are not expected to significantly increase the dietary exposure estimates for free triazole or conjugated triazoles. This assessment may be found on http://www.regulations.gov by searching for the following title and docket number: “Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment to Address The New Section 3 Registrations For Use of Propiconazole on Tea, Dill, Mustard Greens, Radish, and Watercress; Use of Difenoconazole on Globe Artichoke, Ginseng and Greenhouse Grown Cucumbers and Conversion of the Established Foliar Uses/Tolerances for Stone Fruit and Tree Nut Crop Groups to Fruit, Stone, Group 12-12 and the Nut, Tree, Group 14-12.; and Use of Flutriafol on Hops” (located in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0788).

    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 are adequate data in the prothioconazole/prothioconazole-desthio toxicological database to characterize the potential for pre-natal or post-natal risks to infants and children: Two-generation reproduction studies in rats; developmental studies in rats and rabbits; and a DNT study in rats. The effects seen in these studies suggest that offspring are more susceptible: Offspring adverse effects were seen at levels below the LOAELs for maternal toxicity and, in general, were of comparable or greater severity compared to the effects observed in adults. However, clear NOAELs are established for offspring and fetal effects. The most sensitive effects (malformed vertebral body and ribs, anthrogryposis, and other multiple malformations) seen in the fetuses of a rabbit developmental study are established as the toxicity endpoints with a POD of 2 mg/kg/day. This POD is protective all fetal and offspring effects seen in the developmental toxicity and developmental neurotoxicity studies.

    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 prothioconazole is complete.

    ii. No neurotoxicity was seen in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies and other studies with prothioconazole or prothioconazole-desthio. Although offspring neurotoxicity was found, characterized by peripheral nerve lesions in the developmental neurotoxicity study on prothioconazole-desthio, the increase was seen only in the highest dose group at 105 mg/kg/day. Further, a NOAEL was established for the peripheral nerve lesions and all of the PODs used in the risk assessment were protective of this finding.

    iii. Evidence of quantitative and qualitative susceptibility of offspring were observed in the developmental studies. However, basing the POD on the offspring in the most sensitive of these studies provides the needed protection of offspring.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and EPA-recommended tolerance values for all of the proposed uses and existing tolerances on berries and cucurbit vegetables, average field trial residue levels for the remaining uses, and empirical processing factors. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to prothioconazole in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by prothioconazole.

    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 prothioconazole will occupy 40% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the only population group of concern.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to prothioconazole from food and water will utilize 77% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for prothioconazole.

    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Both short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, prothioconazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or 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 short-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for prothioconazole.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, prothioconazole 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 prothioconazole residues, including aggregate exposure to residues of the common metabolites of prothioconazole and other related conazole fungicides.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) methods are available for enforcing prothioconazole tolerances in crop and livestock commodities.

    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 MRLs established for prothioconazole in or on cotton.

    The Codex has established MRLs for prothioconazole in or on sugar beet roots at 0.3 ppm. This MRL is different than the tolerances established for prothioconazole in the United States. The U.S. is keeping the tolerance previously established in or on beet, sugar, roots at 0.25 ppm based on an evaluation of the residue data and in order to remain harmonized with Canada. The registrant, Bayer CropScience, has indicated their wish is to harmonize with Canada. Bayer cited data from the International Trade Macro Analysis Branch within the Economic Indicators Division of the U.S. Census Bureau, indicating that Canada and Mexico are the largest trade partners for U.S. exports of processed and refined sugar beets. Therefore, it would be more beneficial for U.S. growers if the U.S. tolerance is harmonized with Canada instead of Codex.

    C. Response to Comments

    A comment was submitted by the Center for Food Safety and was primarily concerned about EPA's consideration of the impacts of prothioconazole on the environment, pollinators, and endangered species. This comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the prothioconazole tolerances under section 408 of the FFDCA, which requires the Agency to evaluate the potential harms to human health, not effects on the environment.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the review of the sugar beet residue data, EPA has determined that increasing the existing tolerance in or on beet, sugar, roots from 0.25 ppm to 0.30 ppm is not necessary, and therefore the sugar beet root tolerance will remain at 0.25 ppm. The registrant has indicated that they support this conclusion.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of prothioconazole in or on cotton gin byproducts at 4.0 ppm and the cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.4 ppm.

    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: November 2, 2016. Michael 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. In § 180.626, add alphabetically the commodities “Cotton, gin byproducts” and “Cottonseed subgroup 20C” to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 180.626 Prothioconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Cotton, gin byproducts 4.0 Cottonseed subgroup 20C 0.4 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2016-27206 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0655; FRL-9953-82] 2-Pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl-; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- (CAS Reg. No. 3470-98-2) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/cosolvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops only at a concentration not to exceed 30% by weight under EPA regulations. SciReg. Inc. on behalf of Taminco U.S., Inc. a subsidiary of Eastman Chemical Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting the establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This rule eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- when used in accordance with the regulations.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 10, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 9, 2017, 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-2015-0655, 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 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0655 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 January 9, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0655, 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. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63731) (FRL-9935-29), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10854) by SciReg Inc. (12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192) on behalf of Taminco U.S., Inc. a subsidiary of Eastman Chemical Company (Two Windsor Plaza, Suite 400, 7540 Windsor Drive, Allentown, PA 18195). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- (CAS Reg. No. 3470-98-2), when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/cosolvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops only. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by SciReg. Inc. on behalf of Taminco U.S., Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No relevant comments were received on the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has limited the concentration of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- in final pesticide formulation not to exceed 30% w/w. This limitation is based on the Agency's risk assessment which can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0655.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

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

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

    The oral LD50 for 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- in the rat is greater than 300 mg/kg. The dermal LD50 in the rat is > 2,000 mg/kg. It is moderately irritating to the eye of New Zealand White rabbits. It is slightly irritating to the skin of New Zealand White rabbits. It is not a skin sensitizer in mice in the local lymph node assay.

    A 90-day subchronic oral toxicity study was conducted with Wistar rats exposed to 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- via gavage dose of 0, 10, 100, and 500 mg/kg/day, according to OECD Test Guideline 408. The following effects were considered to be treatment-related and adaptive in nature and, therefore, not adverse:

    1. The microscopic liver changes in animals of either sex treated with 500 mg/kg/day and males treated with 100 mg/kg/day; however, these changes were not associated with blood chemistry changes. Therefore they were considered as an adaptive response.

    2. The microscopic changes in the adrenals of males treated with 500 and 100 mg/kg/day and the microscopic thymus changes were not associated with any changes in the organ weights, therefore they were not considered as adverse effects. Minor changes in the kidney weights were not associated with any clinical chemistry changes or treatment related histopathological findings; therefore, it was not considered adverse. The NOAEL is 500 mg/kg/day.

    A prenatal development toxicity study was conducted with 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl-, in accordance with OECD Test Guideline 414 using Pregnant Crl:CD(SD) rats exposed to the test item at concentrations of 0, 5, 50, or 500 mg/kg/day by oral gavage. Maternal toxicity was manifested as decreased food consumption and weight loss on days 6 to 19 of gestation at a dose level of 500 mg/kg/day. Developmental toxicity was manifested as decreased fetal weight in female fetuses at the same dose as maternal toxicity, 500 mg/kg/day. There was no evidence of fetal susceptibility. The NOAEL for developmental toxicity of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- was determined to be 50 mg/kg/day.

    Since there is a wide dose spread in the developmental toxicity study in rats, a benchmark dose (BMD) modeling was conducted using decreased fetal weight as an adverse effect. The BMD value is 306 mg/kg/day and the average BMDL is 201 mg/kg/day for a 5% response in decreased fetal body weight.

    Carcinogenicity data are not available for 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl-. In the 90-day toxicity study, the liver, kidney, thymus, and adrenals were target organs, however, they were considered as adaptive response at the dose levels tested. Evaluation of the database for N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) shows similar target organ toxicity as 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- (structurally related chemicals differing only in carbon chain length (1 vs 4 carbon chain length)) and 1-ethylpyrrolidin-2-one (NEP) (2 carbon chain length), as both chemicals are considered suitable surrogates for evaluation. Neither 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl-, N-methylpyrrolidone, nor 1-ethylpyrrolidin-2-one was found to be genotoxic or mutagenic in a number of assays. In carcinogenicity studies, N-methylpyrrolidone was not carcinogenic in two-year rat studies by the inhalation and dietary routes of exposure. An increased incidence of liver adenomas and carcinomas was seen in mice exposed to a dietary level of N-methylpyrrolidone exceeding 1,000 mg/kg/day for 18 months. However, based on the lack of mutagenicity or genotoxicity and the similarity of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- to n-methylpyrrolidone, it can be concluded that 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- should not be considered as potentially carcinogenic at doses below the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day.

    The mutagenic potential of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- was assessed in the Salmonella typhimurium reverse mutation assay, mammalian cell gene mutation and micronucleus tests. 2-Pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- was negative in all assays. Therefore, 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- is not considered mutagenic nor clastogenic.

    There were no studies/data directly related to the possible neurotoxicity of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl. However, evidence of potential neurotoxicity was not observed in functional observation battery (FOB) performed in the 90-day oral toxicity study in the rat. Therefore, pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl is not expected to be neurotoxic.

    There were no studies/data directly related to the immunotoxicity of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl. Thymic atrophy was observed at >100 mg/kg/day in rats treated with 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl for 90 days via gavage. However, microscopic changes in thymus were considered as an adaptive response and not as an adverse effect.

    There were no studies/data directly related to the metabolism, of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl.

    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://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    For purposes of risk assessment, the Agency utilizes the toxicity point of departure identified in the developmental toxicity study in rats for chronic dietary assessment, residential exposure assessment and all dermal and inhalation exposure durations. Since there was a large dose spread, a benchmark dose modeling (BMD) assessment was conducted. The average benchmark model lower confidence limit (BMDL) is 201 mg/kg/day for a 5% response which was based on a 5% decreased fetal body weight. The BMDL of 201 mg/kg/day is used as a point departure for the risk assessment. An uncertainty factor of 10X is applied for interspecies extrapolation and an uncertainty factor of 10X is applied for intraspecies variation. The Food Quality Protection Act factor is reduced to 1X. Therefore, the Agency's level of concern is for Margins of Exposure (MOE) less than 100. No endpoint of concern was identified for acute dietary assessment in the database. Although there was a decrease in body weights in maternal animals on GD7 in the developmental toxicity study in rats, this effect is not considered relevant for acute dietary exposure assessment since the body weights returned to normal on GD8. A cancer risk assessment was not conducted because the Agency concluded that 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl is unlikely to be carcinogenic at the anticipated dietary exposure levels. Dermal and inhalation absorption is assumed 100% of the oral equivalent dose.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl-, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- in food as follows:

    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- can occur following ingestion of foods with residues from treated crops. Because no adverse effects attributable to a single exposure of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- are seen in the toxicity databases, an acute dietary risk assessment is not necessary. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16, and food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). One hundred percent crop treated was assumed, default processing factors, and tolerance-level residues for all foods and use limitations of not more than 30% by weight of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- in pesticide formulations applied to food.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening-level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on screening-level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessment. This value was directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

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

    2-Pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- may be used as an inert ingredient in products that are registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and around the home. The Agency conducted a screening level assessment to represent worst-case residential exposure by assessing 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- in pesticide formulations (Outdoor Scenarios) and in disinfectant-type uses (Indoor Scenarios).

    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 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    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. A developmental toxicity study in rats was available with 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl. Fetal susceptibility was not observed. Maternal and developmental toxicity were observed at the same dose, 500 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.

    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 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl is adequate for FQPA assessment. It includes a 90-day rat oral toxicity study with FOB measurements, a prenatal developmental study in rats, acute toxicity studies and mutagenicity studies.

    ii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility in the database. There are no concerns for the lack of 2-generation reproduction study because the male and female reproductive parameters were evaluated in the 90-day study and no evidence of fetal susceptibility was seen in the rat developmental toxicity study in rats.

    iii. There were no studies/data directly related to the possible neurotoxicity of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl. However, no evidence of potential neurotoxicity was observed in the functional observation battery (FOB) performed in the 90-day oral toxicity study in the rat. Therefore, pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl is not expected to be neurotoxic.

    iv. There were no studies/data directly related to the immunotoxic potential of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl. However, no evidence of potential immunotoxicity was observed in the 90-day oral toxicity study in rats. EPA concluded that the immunotoxicity study is not required at this time.

    v. The dietary food exposure assessment utilizes proposed tolerance level or higher residues and 100% crop treated (CT) information for all commodities. In addition, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. By using these screening-level assessments, chronic exposures/risks will not be underestimated.

    Taking into consideration the available information, EPA concludes the additional 10X FQPA safety factor be reduced to 1X.

    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, 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- 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, 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- from food and water will utilize 21.1% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    2-Pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- may be used as inert ingredients in pesticide products that could result in short-term and intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term and intermediate-term residential exposures to 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl-. Using the exposure assumptions described above, EPA has concluded that the combined short-term and intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in an MOE of 350 for both adult males and females respectively. Adult residential exposure combines high-end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from indoor hard surface, wiping with a high-end post application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not of concern. EPA has concluded the combined short-term and intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 218 for children. Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOEs is not of concern.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on lack of carcinogenicity for N-methyl pyrrolidone (a surrogate chemical of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl-), 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- 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 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- that may be used in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops. That limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for use on growing crops for sale or distribution that exceed 30% of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl-.

    B. Revision to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    The submitter requested an unlimited use of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl in pesticide formulations under 180.920. However, MOEs for the aggregate residential exposure exceeded the Agency's level of concern; therefore the refinement was made using 30% maximum concentration in the final formulation. At that concentration level, the Agency is able to support the safety finding for the inert tolerance exemption; therefore, the Agency is limiting the tolerance exemption to cover residues of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl only when used at levels not to exceed 30% by weight in pesticide formulations.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- (CAS Reg. No. 3470-98-2) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/cosolvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops at a concentration not to exceed 30% by weight in the end-use formulation.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption 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: October 20, 2016. Michael 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. In § 180.920, add alphabetically the inert ingredient “2-Pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- (CAS Reg. No. 3470-98-2)” to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2-Pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- (CAS Reg. No. 3470-98-2) Not to exceed 30% by weight of pesticide formulation Solvent/cosolvent. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-27212 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0159; FRL-9953-21] Iron Oxide Yellow; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of iron oxide yellow (CAS Reg. No. 20344-49-4) when used as an inert ingredient (colorant) in pesticide formulations intended for varroa mite control around bee hives at a maximum concentration not to exceed 0.15% by weight in the pesticide formulation. Technology Sciences Group, Inc. on behalf of Bayer HealthCare LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting the establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of iron oxide yellow.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 10, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 9, 2017, 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-2016-0159, 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 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0159 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 January 9, 2017. 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-2016-0159, 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. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24042) (FRL-9944-86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10884) by Technology Sciences Group, Inc. (1150 18th Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036) on behalf of Bayer HealthCare LLC (Animal Health, P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-0390). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of iron oxide yellow (CAS Reg. No. 20344-49-4), when used as an inert ingredient (colorant) in pesticide formulations intended for varroa mite control around bee hives at a concentration not to exceed 0.15% by weight. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Technology Sciences Group on behalf of Bayer HealthCare Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were not received on the notice of filing.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

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

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    The acute oral toxicity in rats, mice and dogs is low for iron oxide yellow. In an eight-generation reproduction study with rats, iron oxide was administered in the feed at an estimated oral dose of 25 milligram (mg) iron/day. No signs of toxicity were evident, reproductive performance was not affected.

    Ten dogs were fed, from 1 to 9 years, diets containing iron oxide. Daily consumption was estimated to be 428 mg/dog. Two dogs experienced minor irregularities with stools, no other toxicological adverse effects were seen.

    Four dogs were injected (i.v.) weekly for 10 weeks until each dog had received a total of 0.5 to 1.0 g/kg. There were signs of retinitis pigmentosa however there were no negative effects in hepatic function tests and biopsies of the liver, spleen, pancreas and other organs. Hemochromatosis was not induced.

    Iron oxide yellow is poorly absorbed by mammalian systems after ingestion but data indicate it can be absorbed as iron after solubilization in the stomach and reduction to the ferrous form in the duodenum. Absorption of ingested iron in mammalian systems occurs primarily in the upper small intestine. Iron absorption is tightly regulated biologically such that individuals with low body iron stores absorb more iron while those with excess iron stores absorb less iron. Iron balance in the body is maintained by regulation of iron absorption in the upper small intestine because there are no specific mechanisms to eliminate excess iron.

    Iron is an essential element necessary for maintenance of mammalian metabolic systems. Iron intake varies depending on the source of iron, the foods consumed with the iron, the iron oxidation state and the iron needs of the body. For instance, iron from animal origin (heme-iron) is more readily absorbed than iron from vegetable origins (5-20% for meats; 1-10% from vegetable iron). The non-heme iron absorption depends on solubilization of plant-based or inorganic iron in the stomach prior to entry in the intestines. Non-heme iron from ferrous salts is more readily absorbed than iron from ionizable ferric salts, and iron from ferric oxides and hydroxides is the least readily absorbed. Non-heme iron is transported into the duodenal mucosal cells via a transmembrane metal transporter protein that is upregulated when body iron stores are low and down-regulated when body iron stores are high. This mechanism minimizes the likelihood of excess systemic exposure to iron.

    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 the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    An acute effect was not found in the database therefore an acute dietary assessment is not necessary. A NOAEL has not been identified for risk assessment purposes. However, the acceptable daily intake (ADI) level identified by the World Health Organization Joint Expert Committee on Food and Agriculture is used as a safe exposure level for risk assessment purposes.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to iron oxide yellow, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from iron oxide yellow in food as follows:

    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to iron oxide yellow could occur following ingestion of honey with residues from treated beehives. Because no adverse effects attributable to a single exposure of iron oxide yellow are seen in the toxicity databases, an acute dietary risk assessment is not necessary. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16, and food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). One hundred percent crop treated was assumed, default processing factors, and tolerance-level residues for honey and use limitations of not more than 0.15% by weight in pesticide formulations.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening-level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for iron oxide yellow, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) based on screening-level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure model

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). Iron oxide yellow might be used in inert ingredients in products that are registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and around the home, personal (care) products, and cosmetics. The Agency conducted an assessment to represent worst-case residential dietary exposure from honey only. The Agency agrees with the World Health Organization Joint Expert Committee on Food and Agriculture opinion that there was no need for additional human absorption studies. The WHO JEFCA committee concluded that it is unlikely that intake of iron oxides from all sources would exceed the Acceptable Daily Intake of 0-0.5 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). Thus the JEFCA committee did not prepare a toxicological monograph on the iron oxides.

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(c) of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional 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 that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of iron oxide yellow, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

    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 when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicity database for iron oxide yellow contains an eight generation reproduction/developmental toxicity screening study with the rat. No signs of toxicity were evident and reproductive performance was not negatively affected. There is no indication of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the available studies with dogs and rat therefore, there is no need to require neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity studies. Qualitative fetal susceptibility was observed in the 2-generation toxicity study in rats. However, concern for fetal effects are low since they only occurred in the presence of maternal toxicity and protecting against maternal toxicity will subsequently prevent fetal toxicity. In addition, the ADI of 0.5 mg/kg/day, will be protective of fetal effects. In addition, the Agency used conservative exposure estimates, with 100 percent crop treated (PCT), tolerance-level residues, conservative drinking water modeling numbers, and a worst-case assessment of potential residential exposure for infants and children.

    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, iron oxide yellow 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 iron oxide yellow from food (honey) and water will utilize 0.0% of the ADI for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    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).

    Iron oxide yellow may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food (honey). Using the exposure assumptions described above, EPA has concluded that the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposure result in aggregate MOEs of 6,758 for both adult males and females respectively. As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOEs is not of concern.

    EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 4,347 for children. As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOEs 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).

    Iron oxide yellow may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food (honey). Using the exposure assumptions described above, EPA has concluded that the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposure result in aggregate MOEs of 6,758 for both adult males and females respectively. As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOEs is not of concern.

    EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 4,347 for children. As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOEs 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).

    Iron oxide yellow may be used as inert ingredients in pesticide products that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food (honey) and water. Using the exposure assumptions described above, EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 6,758 for adult males and females. As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not of concern. EPA has concluded the combined intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 4,347 for children. As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not of concern.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the data in the toxicological database iron oxide yellow is considered 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 iron oxide yellow residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of iron oxide yellow in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of iron oxide yellow that may be used in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. That limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for use on growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest for sale or distribution that exceed 0.15% of iron oxide yellow.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 for iron oxide yellow (CAS Reg. No. 20344-49-4) when used as an inert ingredient (colorant) in pesticide products intended for varroa mite control around bee hives at a concentration not to exceed 0.15% by weight in the end-use product formulation.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    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: October 24, 2016. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 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. In § 180.910, add alphabetically the inert ingredient “Iron oxide yellow (CAS Reg. No. 20344-49-4)” to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * Iron oxide yellow (CAS Reg. No. 20344-49-4) Not to exceed 0.15% by weight of pesticide formulation Colorant in pesticide formulations for varroa mite control around bee hives *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-27191 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0745; FRL-9954-04] Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of trifloxystrobin in or on Cottonseed subgroup 20C; Cotton, gin byproducts; and amends the existing tolerance on Corn, field, forage. Bayer CropScience LP requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 10, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 9, 2017, 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-2015-0745, 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0745 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 January 9, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0745, 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 June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40594) (FRL-9947-32), 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 5F8380) by Bayer CropScience, 2 TW Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.555 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide trifloxystrobin in or on cotton, undelinted seed, (Crop subgroup 20C) at 0.5 parts per million (ppm); cotton, gin byproducts at 3 ppm; and revising the existing tolerance for corn, field, forage from 6 ppm to 8 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience LP, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has corrected the commodity definitions for the requested cotton commodities. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.D.

    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 trifloxystrobin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with trifloxystrobin 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. Trifloxystrobin exhibits very low toxicity following single oral, dermal and inhalation exposures. It is a strong dermal sensitizer and a mild dermal and eye irritant. In repeated dose studies in rats, mice, and dogs, liver effects and reduced body weights along with reduction in food consumption are the common findings for trifloxystrobin. Liver effects included an increase in liver weights and an increased incidence of hepatocellular hypertrophy and/or hepatocellular necrosis. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, an increase in the incidence of fused sternabrae was seen at a dose 10 times higher than the maternal lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL), while no developmental effects was seen in the rat developmental study at a limit dose. In the rat reproduction study, both parents and offspring showed decreases in body weight during lactation. The rat and rabbit developmental and the rat reproduction toxicity data do not demonstrate an increase in susceptibility in the fetus or other offspring. Trifloxystrobin is classified as: “Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on both the negative results in the battery of mutagenicity tests (except at a cytotoxic dose in one in vitro test), and from the long-term carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. There is no concern for neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the database.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by trifloxystrobin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the document “Trifloxystrobin. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Use on Cottonseed Subgroup 20C and a Tolerance Amendment on Corn Field Forage.,” dated September 13, 2016.

    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://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for trifloxystrobin used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit Unit III B of the final rule published in the Federal Register of June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33192) (FRL-8829-2). However, subsequent to that Federal Register publication, EPA reassessed the liver effects seen in the 28-day dermal toxicity study according to current policy, and determined that these effects should not be considered adverse. The NOAEL for the 28-day dermal study was set at 1,000 mg/kg/day, and a LOAEL was not established. Because the Agency no longer considers there to be a toxic endpoint for dermal exposure, the endpoints assessed as part of this action exclude the endpoint for dermal exposure identified in the table published in the above-referenced Federal Register on June 11, 2010.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to trifloxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing trifloxystrobin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.555. EPA assessed dietary exposures from trifloxystrobin 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 trifloxystrobin. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted the acute dietary assessment assuming tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100% crop treated, tolerance level residues, average residues for some crops, and default processing factors.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that trifloxystrobin 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 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.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for trifloxystrobin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of trifloxystrobin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the PRZM/EXAMS (Pesticide Root Zone Model)/(Exposure Analysis Modeling System) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of trifloxystrobin for acute exposures are estimated to be 29 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 427 ppb for ground water, respectively. For chronic non-cancer exposure assessments, EDWCs are estimated to be 23 ppb for surface water and 365 ppb 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 427 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 365 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).

    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: ornamental plants and turfgrass. EPA assessed residential exposure from relevant registered trifloxystrobin products using the Agency's 2012 Residential Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) along with updates in policy regarding body weight in addition to the following assumptions:

    i. Residential handler exposures. Residential handler exposure is expected to be short-term only. Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners. Dermal handler exposures were not assessed since no adverse systemic dermal hazard was identified for trifloxystrobin.

    ii. Residential post-application exposures. Because dermal hazard has not been identified for trifloxystrobin, a quantitative post-application assessment for dermal exposure is not necessary and the only exposure scenarios quantitatively assessed are for children 1 to <2 years old who may experience short-term incidental oral exposure to trifloxystrobin from treated turf. Incidental oral granule ingestion is not applicable because there is no endpoint identified for the acute dietary duration for infants and children. Intermediate-term incidental oral post-application exposures are not expected because trifloxystrobin is not persistent in soil or water; furthermore, the short-term incidental oral risk estimates would be protective of the possible intermediate-term incidental oral exposures because the POD for both durations is the same. Post-application inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible for the proposed residential uses. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

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

    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 is no indication of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to trifloxystrobin in rats or rabbits. In the prenatal developmental study in rats, there was no developmental toxicity up to or at the limit dose. In the prenatal developmental study in rabbits, developmental toxicity was seen at a dose that was higher than the dose causing maternal toxicity. In the multigeneration study, offspring and parental LOAELs are at the same dose level

    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 trifloxystrobin is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that trifloxystrobin 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 trifloxystrobin 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 exposure databases are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably account for potential exposures. The exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential dietary (food and drinking water) or non-dietary exposures for infants and children from the use of trifloxystrobin. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was conservatively based on 100%CT assumptions and conservative ground water drinking water modeling estimates. The dietary drinking water assessment utilizes water concentration values generated by models and associated modeling parameters which are designed to provide conservative, health protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations, and are not likely to be exceeded. In addition, the residential post-application assessment is based upon the residential SOPs employing surrogate study data. The Residential SOPs are based upon reasonable “worst-case” assumptions and are not expected to underestimate risk. These data are reliable and are not expected to underestimate risk to adults or children.

    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 trifloxystrobin will occupy 5% of the aPAD for 13-49 year old females, 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 trifloxystrobin from food and water will utilize 71% of the cPAD for infants (<1 year 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 trifloxystrobin 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).

    Trifloxystrobin 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 trifloxystrobin.

    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 aggregate MOEs of 290 for adults and 130 for children 1-<2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for trifloxystrobin 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 residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment (1 to 6 months of exposure to trifloxystrobin residues from food, drinking water, and residential pesticide uses) is not expected to occur based on the intermittent nature of homeowner applications, and the short soil half-life of trifloxystrobin (about 2 days). Therefore, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment was not performed.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, trifloxystrobin 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 trifloxystrobin residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD), Method AG-659A) is available to enforce the tolerance expression for the combined residues of trifloxystrobin and CGA-321113 in plant and livestock commodities. The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) is equivalent to the limit of quantitation (LOQ) which was 0.010 ppm for each analyte in/on all matrices.

    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 a MRL for trifloxystrobin on cotton, gin byproducts; cottonseed subgroup 20C; or corn, field, forage.

    C. Response to Comments

    The Agency received one anonymous public comment suggesting that we deny this tolerance because there are “too many toxic chemicals applied to food with no accurate long term tests that show any safety at all.” No supporting data was included to support this comment.

    The Agency considered a complete set of scientific data to assess the risk of this chemical and these new uses. These data, along with conservative models/assumptions, were used to assess the safety of these tolerances. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. The citizen's comments appear to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizens have made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    The Agency is revising the commodity definitions for the requested tolerances to reflect the common commodity vocabulary currently used by the Agency. Specifically, the requested “Cotton, undelinted seed (Crop subgroup 20C)” was changed to “Cottonseed subgroup 20C”; the requested “Cotton, Gin By-products” was changed to “Cotton, gin byproducts”.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of trifloxystrobin, benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-α-(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene] amino]oxy]methyl]-, methyl ester, and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113, (E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl]acetic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of trifloxystrobin, in or on cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.50 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 3.0 ppm. The existing corn, field, forage tolerance of 6.0 parts per million (ppm) is increased to 8.0 ppm.

    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: October 21, 2016. Michael 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. In § 180.555, in the table in paragraph (a): a. Revise the entry for “Corn, field, forage”; b. Add alphabetically entries for “Cotton, gin byproducts” and “Cottonseed subgroup 20C”.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 180.555 Trifloxystrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Corn, field, forage 8.0 *    *    *    *    * Cotton, gin byproducts 3.0 Cottonseed subgroup 20C 0.50 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2016-27204 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0631; FRL-9954-58] Di-n-butyl Adipate; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of di-n-butyl adipate (CAS Reg. No. 105-99-7) when used as an inert ingredient (plasticizer) at a concentration of not more than 25% by weight in pesticide formulations intended for varroa mite control around bee hives. Bayer Healthcare, LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of di-n-butyl adipate.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 10, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 9, 2017, 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-2015-0631, 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 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0631 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 January 9, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0631, 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. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63731) (FRL-9935-29), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10838) by Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Animal Health Division, P.O. Box 390 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of di-n-butyl adipate, (CAS Reg. No. 105-99-7) when used as an inert ingredient (plasticizer) intended for varroa mite control around bee hives. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer Healthcare, LLC, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

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

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(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 and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    Di-n-butyl adipate is of low acute oral toxicity, with an oral lethal dose (LD)50 in rats of 1.52 gram/kilogram (g/kg) body weight. An 8-hour inhalation exposure to air saturated with di-n-butyl adipate caused no deaths in a group of 6 albino rats. Di-n-butyl adipate as not acutely toxic to rabbits by the dermal route, with a dermal LD50 of 19.24 g/kg. Non-standard dermal irritation studies suggest that di-n-butyl adipate is a dermal irritant. Eye irritation studies in rabbits indicated minor eye irritation with recovery in a few days. Di-n-butyl adipate is not a dermal sensitizer in guinea pigs.

    In two separate Ames Assays, no mutations were induced in any bacterial strain at any concentration of di-n-butyl adipate with or without metabolic activation. A chromosomal aberration assay was conducted on di-n-butyl adipate using cultured Chinese Hamster lung (CHL/IU) cells. Details of the study were not reported, but structural chromosome aberrations were reported in this study with metabolic activation. In an in vivo micronucleus assay, no cytotoxic effects were identified in the bone marrow cells, and there was no significant increase in the number of cells with micronuclei at any dose or time after dosing.

    In a reproduction and developmental toxicity study, male and female rats received di-n-butyl adipate at oral doses of 0, 100, 300 and 1,000 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). There was no effect of di-n-butyl adipate exposure on any of the reproductive parameters measured. Pup body weight in the 1,000 mg/kg/day group was slightly reduced compared to controls at birth and on postnatal day 4. The study no-observable-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for general toxicity in the parental generation of 300 mg/kg/day is based on the increase in kidney weights in males and females at 1,000 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL for reproduction in male and female rats was 1,000 mg/kg. The NOAEL for the F1 generation (offspring toxicity) was 300 mg/kg/day.

    The potential effects of repeated oral exposure to di-n-butyl adipate were evaluated in Sprague-Dawley rats in a 28-day toxicity test. Male and female rats received gavage doses of di-n-butyl adipate of 0, 20, 140, or 1000 mg/kg/day. No test substance-related changes were seen in any of the monitored endpoints. The NOAEL in both males and females was 1,000 mg/kg/day.

    The results of the OncoLogic Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) model has not identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to di-n-butyl adipate.

    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://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    No acute toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified for di-n-butyl adipate. On the basis of the reproduction study (OECD Preliminary Reproduction Test), the NOAEL for di-n-butyl adipate was 300 mg/kg/day for offspring toxicity based on decreased in pup body weights seen at the LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day was selected for risk assessment. The available toxicology data support that an Food Quality Protection Act safety factor (FQPA SF) of 3X for di-n-butyl adipate should be retained to account for uncertainties associated with subchronic to chronic extrapolation. Therefore, the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is 1 mg/kg/day based upon a NOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day and the use of 10X factors for intra- and inter-species variability and an FQPA SF of 3X.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to di-n-butyl adipate, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from di-n-butyl adipate in food as follows:

    Acute and chronic dietary assessments take into account exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. The Agency assessed the dietary exposures to di-n-butyl adipate as an inert ingredient at no more than 25% in the plastic of strips containing pesticides that are placed at the entrance to bee hives.

    No adverse effects attributable to a single exposure to di-n-butyl adipate were seen in the toxicity databases; therefore, an acute dietary risk assessment is not appropriate.

    In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment to di-n-butyl adipate the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model/Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID)TM, Version 3.16 was used. EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, no residue data were submitted for di-n-butyl adipate. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach that uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high-use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738. Adjustments were made to the DEEM model estimates for oral exposure from the use of di-n-butyl adipate to account for the use of not more than 25% di-n-butyl adipate in strips containing pesticides that are placed at the entrance to bee hives (for honey and including exposure through drinking water).

    The Agency has not identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to di-n-butyl adipate; therefore, a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for di-n-butyl adipate, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

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

    Di-n-butyl adipate may be used in inert ingredients in products that are registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and around the home. Based on the available data for products registered for residential use, the Agency SOPs concluded that products containing inert chemicals similar to di-n-butyl adipate usually comprise no more than 2-5% of the inert ingredient in the final product. Therefore, the Agency conducted an assessment to represent conservative residential exposure by assessing di-n-butyl adipate in pesticide formulations (outdoor scenarios) and in disinfectant-type uses (indoor scenarios) at no more than 5% in the final formulation.

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

    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 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. Considering the overall toxicity profile and the endpoints and doses selected for di-n-butyl adipate, the degree of concern for the effects observed in the di-n-butyl adipate reproductive and developmental toxicity screening study is low, with a clear NOAEL for the offspring effects and regulatory doses selected to be protective of any observed effects. No other residual uncertainties were identified with respect to susceptibility.

    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 3X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for di-n-butyl adipate is adequate to assess the safety of this chemical. However, to account for potential adverse effects from chronic exposures, an FQPA SF of 3X is retained to account for the extrapolation of adverse effects seen in subchronic toxicity studies to chronic exposure scenarios.

    ii. There is no indication that di-n-butyl adipate is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is some indication that potential effects of di-n-butyl adipate results in increased susceptibility in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study but the concern is low due to the selected endpoints.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to di-n-butyl adipate 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 di-n-butyl adipate.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Determination of safety section. 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, di-n-butyl adipate 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 di-n-butyl adipate from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for all population subgroups.

    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    A short- and intermediate-term adverse effect was identified from the chronic oral end-point. Although di-n-butyl adipate is not currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for any use patterns that would result in short- or intermediate-term residential exposure, there is a possibility that di-n-butyl adipate could be used in residential pesticide products that would result in short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. As a result, the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short- and intermediate-term residential exposures to di-n-butyl adipate.

    Using the exposure assumptions described above, EPA has concluded that the combined chronic food and water, and short- and intermediate-term residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1700 for adult males and females. Adult residential exposure combines liquids/trigger sprayer/home garden use with a high end post application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not of concern. EPA has concluded the combined short- and intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 3200 for children. Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated with contact with treated surfaces (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not of concern.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Results of a predictive Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) model using the OncoLogicTM Model (EPA, 2013b, version 8.0) indicate no evidence for carcinogenicity of di-n-butyl adipate. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in the toxicity database and the model results, di-n-butyl adipate 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 di-n-butyl adipate residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Although EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of di-n-butyl adipate that may be used in pesticide formulations, an analytical enforcement methodology is not necessary for this exemption from the requirement of tolerance. The limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide for sale or distribution for use on growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest with concentrations of di-n-butyl adipate exceeding 25% by weight of the formulation.

    B. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Although not indicated the petitioner's notice of filing (NOF), the proposed concentration of di-n-butyl adipate indicated is not to exceed a maximum of 25%.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 for di-n-butyl adipate (CAS Reg. No. 105-99-7) when used at no more than 25% by weight in pesticide formulation for varroa mite control around bee hives.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption 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: October 28, 2016. Rachel C. Holloman, 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. In § 180.910, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * di-n-Butyl adipate (CAS Reg. No. 105-99-7) Not to exceed 25% by weight of pesticide formulation Plasticizer in pesticide formulations for varroa mite control around bee hives *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-27209 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 101206604-1758-02] RIN 0648-XF017 Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2016-2017 Commercial Accountability Measures and Closure for King Mackerel in the Florida West Coast Northern Subzone AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercially harvested king mackerel in the Florida west coast northern subzone of the eastern zone of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) through this temporary rule. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for king mackerel in the eastern zone, Florida west coast northern subzone of the Gulf EEZ will be reached by November 10, 2016. Therefore, NMFS closes the Florida west coast northern subzone to commercial fishing for king mackerel on November 10, 2016, to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource.

    DATES:

    The closure is effective at noon, local time, November 10, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on October 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Gerhart, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The Gulf migratory group of king mackerel is divided into western and eastern zones. The Gulf's eastern zone for king mackerel is further divided into the Florida west coast northern and southern subzones that have separate commercial quotas. The Florida west coast northern subzone is that part of the Gulf EEZ between 26°19.8′ N. lat., a line extending directly west from the boundary between Lee and Collier Counties, Florida, and 87°31.1′ W. long., a line extending directly south from the state boundary of Alabama and Florida. The commercial quota for the Florida west coast northern subzone is 178,848 lb (81,124 kg), round or gutted weight, as specified in 50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(B)(2).

    Regulations at 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(i) require NMFS to close the commercial sector for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida west coast northern subzone when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. Based on the best scientific information available, NMFS has determined the commercial quota of 178,848 lb (81,124 kg) for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida west coast northern subzone will be reached by November 10, 2016. Accordingly, the Florida west coast northern subzone is closed to commercial fishing for Gulf migratory group king mackerel effective from noon, local time, November 10, 2016, through September 30, 2017, the end of the current fishing year. The next fishing year for the Florida west coast northern subzone is October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018.

    Except for a person aboard a charter vessel or headboat, during the closure, no person aboard a vessel for which a commercial permit for king mackerel has been issued may fish for or retain Gulf group king mackerel in the EEZ in the closed subzone, as specified in 50 CFR 622.384(e)(1) and (2). A person aboard a vessel that has a valid charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in or from the closed subzone under the bag and possession limits set forth in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2), provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. A charter vessel or headboat that also has a commercial king mackerel permit is considered to be operating as a charter vessel or headboat when it carries a passenger who pays a fee or when there are more than three persons aboard, including operator and crew.

    During the closure, king mackerel harvested from the closed subzone, including those harvested under the bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to king mackerel from the closed zones or subzones that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor, as specified in 50 CFR 622.384(e)(3).

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf migratory group king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(i) and 50 CFR 622.384(e) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the Florida west coast northern subzone of the Gulf eastern zone to commercial king mackerel fishing constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule implementing the commercial quota and the associated AMs has already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota, and there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel resource. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 7, 2016. Jenni Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27200 Filed 11-7-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 151211999-6343-02] RIN 0648-XF030 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Witch Flounder Trimester Total Allowable Catch Area Closure for the Common Pool Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; area closure.

    SUMMARY:

    This action closes the Witch Flounder Trimester Total Allowable Catch Area to Northeast multispecies common pool vessels fishing with trawl gear for the remainder of Trimester 2, through December 31, 2016. The common pool fishery is projected to have caught 90 percent of its Trimester 2 quota for witch flounder. The closure is intended to prevent an overage of the common pool's quota for this stock.

    DATES:

    This action is effective November 9, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Liz Sullivan, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Federal regulations at 50 CFR 648.82(n)(2)(ii) require the Regional Administrator to close a common pool Trimester Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Area for a stock when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC is projected to be caught. The closure applies to all common pool vessels fishing with gear capable of catching that stock for the remainder of the trimester.

    As of November 1, 2016, the common pool fishery caught approximately 80 percent of the Trimester 2 TAC (2.4 mt) for witch flounder. We project that 90 percent of the Trimester 2 TAC was caught by November 6.

    Effective November 9, 2016, the Witch Flounder Trimester TAC Area is closed for the remainder of Trimester 2, through December 31, 2016, to all common pool vessels fishing with trawl gear. The Witch Flounder Trimester TAC Area consists of statistical areas 512, 513, 514, 515, 521, 522, and 525. The area reopens at the beginning of Trimester 3 on January 1, 2017.

    If a vessel declared its trip through the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) or the interactive voice response system, and crossed the VMS demarcation line prior to November 9, 2016, it may complete its trip within the Trimester TAC Area.

    Any overage of the Trimester 1 or 2 TACs must be deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC. Any uncaught portion of the Trimester 1 and Trimester 2 TACs is carried over into the next trimester. If the common pool fishery exceeds its sub-ACL for the 2016 fishing year, the overage must be deducted from the common pool's sub-ACL for fishing year 2017. However, any uncaught portion of the common pool's sub-ACL may not be carried over into the following fishing year.

    Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery are on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/MultiMonReports.htm. We will continue to monitor common pool catch through vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, VMS catch reports, and other available information, and, if necessary, we will make additional adjustments to common pool management measures.

    Classification

    This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

    Regulations require the Regional Administrator to close a trimester TAC area to the common pool fishery when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC for a stock has been caught. Updated catch information only recently became available indicating that common pool catch would reach 90 percent of the Trimester 2 TAC for witch flounder by November 6, 2016. The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent the immediate closure of the Witch Flounder Trimester 2 TAC Area. Delaying the effective date of the closure increases the likelihood that the common pool fishery will exceed its quota of witch flounder to the detriment of this stock, which could undermine management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP.

    Additionally, an overage of the common pool quota could cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery as a result of overage paybacks in a future trimester or fishing year.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 8, 2016. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27319 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 218 Thursday, November 10, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0084; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-181-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by adding additional inspections for cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary, and adding airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this SNPRM to detect and correct cracking on the frame (FR) 40 forward fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2015 (80 FR 7992) is reopened.

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by December 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0084; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0084; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-181-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2015 (80 FR 7992) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that, on airplanes that received a certain repair following crack findings, cracks can re-initiate. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the FR 40 forward fittings for airplanes previously repaired.

    Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that additional inspections for cracking are necessary and that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0232R1, dated December 16, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

    Cracks were found on the lower outboard radius of the centre wing frame 40 forward fitting on in-service aeroplanes.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued several inspection Service Bulletins (SB) and repair instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2009-0094, which was later superseded by EASA AD 2011-0163 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2012-25-06, Amendment 39-17287 (77 FR 75833, December 26, 2012) (“AD 2012-25-06”)] and [EASA] AD 2014-0199 [which corresponds to the FAA NPRM], to require repetitive inspections and corrective actions on the affected areas.

    Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, additional in-service findings induced Airbus to do a new fatigue analysis, using a detailed Finite Element Model study, which resulted in defining new inspection methods. Prompted by these results, Airbus issued SB A300-57-0261, SB A300-57-6117 and SB A300-57-9034 to introduce these inspections. These new inspection SBs supersede and render obsolete inspection SB A300-53-0268 and SB A300-57-6052 and the All Operators Transmissions (AOT) A300-53A0391, AOT A300-57A6111, AOT A300-53W002-14 and AOT A300-57W003-14.

    For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2015-0232, superseding [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] DGAC France AD 1998-038-010(B) R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 98-25-07, Amendment 39-10933 (63 FR 68167, December 10, 1998) (“AD 98-25-07”)] and [DGAC France] AD 2003-189(B), and EASA AD 2011-0163 and [EASA] AD 2014-0199, to require the new inspections of the affected areas within new thresholds and intervals.

    This [EASA] AD is revised to clarify the compliance time(s), introducing a Note after paragraph (1), and to alleviate the reporting requirements of paragraph (3).

    Required actions include repetitive rototest, ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, special detailed, and liquid penetrant inspections, as applicable, of the center wing FR 40 lower outboard radius for cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Related investigative actions include rototest, ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, and liquid penetrant inspections following repairs of cracking.

    Corrective actions include oversizing fastener holes and installing new fasteners, doing spotfacing, doing crack-stop holes, and repairing cracking.

    The compliance times vary depending on airplane configuration. The initial compliance times range from 3 months to 56,300 flight cycles or 76,000 flight hours (whichever occurs first) after accomplishing certain actions. Repetitive intervals range from 1,400 flight cycles or 3,000 flight hours (whichever occurs first) to 37,500 flight cycles or 50,600 flight hours (whichever occurs first).

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0084.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015; and Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive ultrasonic inspections, rototest inspections, high frequency eddy current inspections, special detailed inspections, and liquid penetrant inspections, and related investigative and corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comment received.

    Request To Suspend Activities on the NPRM Pending New Service Information

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we suspend activities on the NPRM pending the issuance of new service information. UPS stated that the new service information will address airplanes that were not identified in the NPRM and will include new inspections.

    We acknowledge the commenter's request. We have reviewed the new service information (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015) and have revised this SNPRM accordingly. We have updated paragraph (c) of this proposed AD to include all affected airplanes, and we have revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this proposed AD to refer to the new service information.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this SNPRM.

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection Up to 91 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,735 per inspection cycle Up to $7,735 per inspection cycle Up to $201,110 per inspection cycle. Reporting 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $85 $2,210 Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0084; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-181-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 27, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 98-25-07, Amendment 39-10933 (63 FR 68167, December 10, 1998) (“AD 98-25-07”); and AD 2012-25-06, Amendment 39-17287 (77 FR 75833, December 26, 2012) (“AD 2012-25-06”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10221 has been embodied in production.

    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.

    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

    (3) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (4) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

    (5) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the lower outboard radius of the center wing frame (FR) 40 forward fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the FR 40 forward fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph E.(2), “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015; accomplish rototest, ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, special detailed, and liquid penetrant inspections, as applicable, of the center wing FR 40 lower outboard radius for cracking, and do all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015; as applicable. Do all applicable related investigative actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph E.(2), “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015.

    (h) Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any crack is found, before next flight, accomplish the applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015; as applicable; except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Service Information Exception

    (1) Where the service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies a compliance time “from this service bulletin issuance date,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where the service information specified in paragraph (h) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for certain conditions, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (j) No Terminating Action for This AD

    Accomplishing a corrective action required by paragraph (h) of this AD, or accomplishing a preventative action specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0260 or A300-57-6116, as applicable, does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (k) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of Other ADs

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 98-25-07.

    (2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of AD 2012-25-06.

    (l) Reporting Requirements

    Within 60 days after any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, report any findings, positive or negative, to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com/).

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0232R1, dated December 16, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0084.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 31, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26813 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9382; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-032-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Gliders AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Model ASK 21 gliders. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cable slack in gliders equipped with a rudder hand control system leading to a short-term blockage of the rudder control system and reduced control. We are issuing this proposed AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co., Segelflugzeugbau, Germany, Alexander Schleicher Str. 1, D-36163 Poppenhausen (Wasserkuppe), telephone: +49 6658 89-0; fax: +49 6658 89-40; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/en/flugzeuge/ask-21/. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9382; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9382; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-032-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2016-0192, dated September 28, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    A temporary rudder control blockage was reported, involving an ASK 21 sailplane equipped with a rudder hand control system. The subsequent investigation revealed significant cable slack in the rudder control system.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced rudder control, possibly resulting in reduced controllability of the sailplane.

    To address this potentially unsafe condition, Schleicher issued ASK 21 Technical Note (TN) 38 to provide instructions to amend the ASK 21 Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), incorporating updated pre-flight inspection instructions to check the rudder control system of sailplanes modified in accordance with the instructions of Schleicher ASK 21 TN 25 (rudder actuated by hand lever for the front pilot seat) or TN 30 (rudder control by hand for the rear pilot seat).

    For reasons described above, this AD requires amendment of the applicable Schleicher ASK 21 AFM, revising pre-flight checks of the rudder hand control system.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9357.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. has issued ASK 21 Technical Note No. 38, dated May 31, 2016, The service information describes procedures for inspecting gliders equipped with a rudder hand control system for proper tension and adjustment if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 64 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $10,880, or $170 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour for cost of $85 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9382; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-032-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 27, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. ASK 21 gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category, that are modified with a rudder hand control system using either ASK 21 Technical Note No. 25, dated February 16, 1993, or ASK 21 Technical Note No. 30, dated January 22, 2007.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cable slack in gliders equipped with a rudder hand control system. We are issuing this proposed AD to correct any excess slack in the rudder hand control system, which could result in a short-term blockage of the rudder control system causing reduced control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD:

    (1) If the glider is equipped with a rudder actuated by means of a hand lever at the left cockpit wall in the front pilot seat by ASK 21 Technical Note (TN) No. 25, dated February 16, 1993, within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD, replace the flight manual (FM) and maintenance manual (MM) pages with the following pages in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016:

    (i) FM: Check List/1, 16a, 19.1a., and 21.

    (ii) MM: 13, 15.

    (2) If the glider is equipped with a rudder actuated by means of a hand lever at the left cockpit wall in the rear pilot seat by ASK 21 TN No. 30, dated January 22, 2007, within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD, replace the FM and MM pages with the following pages in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016:

    (i) FM: Check List/1, 16a, 18a, 19b, 19c, 19.1a, and 21.

    (ii) MM: 13, 15.

    (3) For all affected gliders, within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed every 12 months, inspect the rudder cable tension and make any necessary corrections following the instructions from FM page 19.1a, Checking and Adjusting of the Cable Tension, as specified in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016.

    (4) For all affected gliders, after the effective date of this AD, any glider modified with a rudder hand control system in accordance with ASK 21 TN No. 25 or TN No. 30 must also amend the FM and MM following the instructions in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016.

    (g) Pilot Authorization

    In addition to the provisions of 14 CFR 43.3 and 43.7, the actions required by paragraph (f)(1) through (2) of this AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the glider records showing compliance with this AD following 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

    (i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016-0192, dated September 28, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9382. For service information related to this AD, contact Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co., Segelflugzeugbau, Germany, Alexander Schleicher Str. 1, D-36163 Poppenhausen (Wasserkuppe), telephone: +49 6658 89-0; fax: +49 6658 89-40; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/en/flugzeuge/ask-21/. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 2, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27041 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9295; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-16] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Establishment of Class E En Route Airspace; Paso Robles, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and establish Class E en route airspace at Paso Robles, CA. After a review of the airspace, the FAA found redesign necessary to support new Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) standard instrument approach procedures, and en route operations where the Federal airway structure is inadequate, for the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also would be adjusted.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 27, 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-2016-9295; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-16, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, 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 Paso Robles Municipal Airport, Paso Robles, CA.

    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-2016-9295/Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-6.” 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 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 (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, 2015, 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 modifying Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and establishing Class E en route airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Paso Robles Municipal Airport, Paso Robles, CA. The FAA is transitioning from a system of ground based navigational aids, which are being decommissioned, to Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) for navigation and found airspace redesign necessary to support new GNSS standard instrument approach procedures and en route, point-to-point clearances for which the Federal airway structure is inadequate. The Class E surface area airspace would be slightly increased to contain arrival aircraft using IFR standard instrument approach procedures as they descend below 1,000 feet above the surface, and the language in the regulatory text excluding the Hunter Low A, Hunter Low B, and Roberts Military Operations Areas would be removed since exclusion is not necessary nor currently shown on published aeronautical charts. Also, the Class E airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface would be slightly enlarged north and southeast, and reduced southwest, to only that area necessary to contain IFR arrival aircraft as they descend below 1,500 feet above the surface, and IFR departure aircraft as they climb to 1,200 feet above the surface. Additionally, Class E en route airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface would be established to adjoin the Monterey, Lemoore, Bakersfield, and Santa Barbara Class E airspace areas upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, to provide en route controlled airspace where the Federal airway structure is inadequate. Also, this action would remove the existing Class E transitional airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface since this would no longer be necessary and would be redundant with the establishment of the larger en route airspace, described above. The geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, 6005, and 6006, respectively, 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 D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. AWP CA E2 Paso Robles, CA [Modified] Paso Robles Municipal Airport, CA (Lat. 35°40′22″ N., long. 120°37′38″ W.)

    That airspace within a 5.7-mile radius of Paso Robles Municipal Airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWP CA E5 Paso Robles, CA [Modified] Paso Robles Municipal Airport, CA (Lat. 35°40′22″ N., long. 120°37′38″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10.5-mile radius of Paso Robles Municipal Airport from the 351° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 040° bearing, and within a 5.7-mile radius from the 040° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 128° bearing, and within a 9-mile radius from the 128° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 168° bearing, and within a 7-mile radius from the 168° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 209° bearing, and within a 5.7-mile radius from the 209° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 323° bearing, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 341° bearing from the airport extending to 9.6 miles northwest of the airport.

    Paragraph 6006 Class E En Route Airspace. AWP CA E6 Paso Robles, CA [New] Paso Robles Municipal Airport, CA (Lat. 35°40′22″ N., long. 120°37′38″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within the area bounded by lat. 35°34′54″ N., long. 120°4′52″ W.; to lat. 35°43′55″ N., long. 120°4′52″ W.; to lat. 35°43′58″ N., long. 120°20′49″ W.; to lat. 36°8′51″ N., long. 120°39′41″ W.; to lat. 36°23′8″ N., long. 120°42′26″ W.; to lat. 36°23′13″ N., long. 121°3′25″ W.; to lat. 36°0′42″ N., long. 121°33′30″ W.; to lat. 35°37′48″ N., long. 121°21′48″ W.; to lat. 35°25′55″ N., long. 121°2′47″ W.; to lat. 35°32′43″ N., long. 121°2′47″ W.; to lat. 35°32′52″ N., long. 120°40′42″ W.; to lat. 35°22′10″ N., long. 120°32′00″ W; to lat. 35°31′44″ N., long. 120°14′50″ W.; to lat. 35°35″25″ N., long. 120°17′41″ W.; to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 1, 2016. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27109 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army 32 CFR Part 637 RIN 0702-AA72 [Docket No. USA-2016-HQ-0017] Law Enforcement Operations and Investigations AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army proposes to revise its regulation concerning policies and procedures for the conduct of Army law enforcement operations and investigations. This regulation was last published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2005 (70 FR 36029). At that time, the entire regulation was codified. The proposed revisions remove a large portion of the currently codified part that does not apply to the public and is now included in DoD internal guidance. The proposed revision also adds guidance on the requirements for the detention of civilians by Army law enforcement to fill a void in published guidance.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by: January 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by 32 CFR part 637, Docket No. USA-2016-HQ-0017 and or RIN 0702-AA72, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jeff Pearce, (703) 695-8499.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This regulation applies to the active component Army and U.S. Army Reserve, Department of the Army Civilian Police, Department of the Army Civilian Detectives, Department of the Army Security Guards, contracted or contractor security force operations (such as detector dog support), Family members, Department of the Army Civilians, and other personnel on Army installations. It also applies to the Army National Guard of the United States when Federalized under Title 10, United States Code. This regulation is required for unit personnel preparing for mobilization and deployment.

    The internal guidance is available in AR 190-30, Military Police Investigations, and can be found at http://www.apd.army.mil/Search/ePubsSearch/ePubsSearchForm.aspx?x=AR. This regulation discusses policies for conducting law enforcement and specified security operations on Army installations, facilities and activities. Compliance with this regulation assures consistent delivery of protection, law enforcement, and safety assistance to Soldiers, Family members, Department of the Army Civilians, and other personnel on Army installations.

    The Army recognized there is a void in internal guidance concerning the conduct of law enforcement operations on installations. As a result, the Army revised AR 190-30, which includes guidance on the operation of detention cells and detention of civilians. Due to the subject matter's impact on the public, the Army is proposing to add provisions in the CFR concerning Detention Cell Operations which provide guidance on the detention of military and civilian personnel by Army law enforcement.

    This rule will be included in DoD's retrospective plan, completed in August 2011, and will be reported in future status updates of DoD's retrospective review in accordance with the requirements in Executive Order 13563. DoD's full plan can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.

    Authority for This Regulation

    The legal authority for this action is 10 U.S.C. 807—Article 7, Apprehension. This article specifically covers the authority for apprehension or taking of a person into custody.

    Costs and Benefits

    This rule will have no monetary effect upon the public as it only directs Army law enforcement and installation leadership's efforts in the conduct of their operations. Their efforts under this guidance ensure the effective employment of police and security forces to assist, protect, and defend the communities they serve on Army installations.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Army certifies that the proposed rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department of the Army determined that this rule does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department of the Army has determined that this rule is not covered under the National Environmental Policy Act because the rule does not have a significant impact on the environment.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Department of the Army has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not involve collection of information from the public.

    Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)

    The Department of the Army has determined that Executive Order 12630 does not apply because the rule does not impair private property rights.

    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    Although this rule is not “economically significant” because it does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, it has been deemed “other significant” for raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive Orders. For that reason, it has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risk and Safety Risks)

    The Department of the Army has determined that Executive Order 13045 does not apply because this substantive action in rulemaking is neither economically significant nor does the action concern the environmental health or safety risks to children.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The Department of the Army has determined that according to the criteria defined in Executive Order 13132 this rule does not apply because it will not have a substantial 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.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 637

    Law enforcement, Law enforcement officers, Law enforcement operations, Detention operations.

    Thomas S. Blair, Chief, Law Enforcement Branch. For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of the Army proposes to revise 32 CFR part 637 as follows: PART 637—LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS Subpart A—Detention Cell Operations Sec. 637.1 Objective and policy. Subpart B—[Reserved] Authority:

    10 U.S.C. 807.

    Subpart A—Detention Cell Operations
    § 637.1 Objective and policy.

    (a) Objective. Every effort will be taken to ensure that detained personnel remain in custody only when necessary. Persons will remain in custody for minimum periods, under proper supervision. All persons in custody are treated in a humane manner and in an environment which will not impair their health or subject the detainee to unreasonable discomfort.

    (b) Policy. Military and civilian personnel apprehended by military police may be detained in a military police detention cell (D-cell) only when necessary to prevent escape or to ensure safety of the detainee or others.

    (1) Detention of civilian personnel not subject to the UCMJ is authorized only while the civilian personnel are pending release to civilian authorities. Detention of civilian personnel will be done only in the case of a serious felony and when the individual is a flight risk, or is a risk to self or others, and must be approved by a commissioned officer designated by the senior commander. In no case will detention exceed 12 hours.

    (2) Male and female personnel will not be detained in the same cell simultaneously.

    (3) The use of other military service or civilian detention facilities to detain personnel in police custody is authorized. When other military service facilities are used, the time limitations and other procedures described above apply. Only those civilian facilities that have been evaluated by the U.S. Marshal Service and deemed appropriate for use will be utilized.

    (4) Juveniles will not be detained in Army LE D-cells.

    Subpart B—[Reserved]
    [FR Doc. 2016-27163 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 500-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0523] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rice Creek, Putnam County, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the CSX Railroad Bridge across the Rice Creek, mile 0.8, in Palatka, Putnam County, FL.

    This proposed rule would change the existing open on demand during the day and 24 hour advance notice for a bridge opening during the night, to 24 hour advance notice for an opening at all times. This proposal is being made due to the minimal drawbridge openings requested over the past several years. This modification would allow the bridge owner to leave the bridge unmanned other than when an opening is requested and it would have little to no effect on navigation.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0523 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Rod Elkins with the Coast Guard; telephone 305-415-6989, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    On May 18th, 2015, CSX Transportation requested the Coast Guard consider allowing the CSX Railroad Bridge across Rice Creek to be converted from a movable bridge to a fixed bridge. Their request was made due to the minimal drawbridge openings requested over the past several years. The Coast Guard determined that converting the bridge to a fixed structure was not reasonable to navigation, because it would restrict vessels from using the waterway. CSX then requested modifying the bridge operations to 24 hour advance notice at all times. CSX provided the Coast Guard a summary of bridge opening logs that show eight openings in 2015, three openings in 2014, and three openings in 2013. The data supporting the request will be included in the electronic docket for this proposed rulemaking.

    The CSX Railroad Bridge across the Rice Creek, mile 0.8, in Palatka, Putnam County, FL is a swing bridge. It has a vertical clearance of 2 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 30 feet.

    Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.324, the Rice Creek CSX Railroad Swing Bridge is required to open on signal for the passage of vessels from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., daily. From 4:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., daily, the bridge shall open with a 24-hour advance notice to CSX.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the CSX Railroad Bridge across Rice Creek, mile 0.8, in Palatka, Putnam County, FL.

    This proposed regulation would implement a 24 hour advance notice to CSX for an opening at all times. This proposed change will still allow vessels to pass through the bridge while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of transportation.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we also 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 limited impact that it is anticipated to have on vessel traffic on Rice Creek as there are infrequent requests to open the bridge while taking into account the needs of rail traffic. The bridge will be able to open with the requisite amount of advanced notice. Vessels that can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend § 117.324 to read as follows:
    § 117.324 Rice Creek.

    The CSX Railroad Swing Bridge, mile 0.8, in Putnam County, shall open with a 24-hour advance notice to CSX at 1-800-232-0142.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. S.A. Buschman, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27176 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0598; FRL-9955-00-OAR] RIN 2060-AT16 Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of Federal Implementation Plan Requirements for Texas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to withdraw the federal implementation plan (FIP) provisions that require affected electricity generating units (EGUs) in Texas to participate in Phase 2 of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs for annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). Withdrawal of the FIP requirements is intended to address a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanding the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas to the EPA for reconsideration. The EPA is also proposing to determine that, following withdrawal of the FIP requirements, sources in Texas will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 1997 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and that the EPA therefore will have no obligation to issue new FIP requirements for Texas sources to address transported PM2.5 pollution under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to that NAAQS. Finally, the proposal includes a sensitivity analysis showing that the set of actions the EPA has taken or expects to take in response to the D.C. Circuit's decision, including the removal of Texas EGUs from the two CSAPR trading programs as well as the recent removal of Florida EGUs from Phase 2 of the CSAPR trading programs for ozone-season NOX emissions, would not adversely impact the analytic demonstration for the Agency's 2012 determination that CSAPR participation meets the Regional Haze Rule's criteria to qualify as an alternative to the application of best available retrofit technology (BART). No changes to the Regional Haze Rule are proposed as part of this rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2016. To request a public hearing, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below by November 17, 2016. The EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing unless requested.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0598, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert L. Miller, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MC 6204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9077; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulated Entities. Entities regulated under CSAPR are fossil fuel-fired boilers and stationary combustion turbines that serve generators producing electricity for sale, including combined cycle units and units operating as part of systems that cogenerate electricity and other useful energy output. Regulated categories and entities include:

    Category NAICS * Code Examples of potentially regulated industries Industry 221112 Fossil fuel-fired electric power generation. * North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated. To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 97.404 and 97.704. If you have questions regarding the applicability of CSAPR to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

    I. Overview II. Background A. History and Summary of CSAPR B. CSAPR Participation as a BART Alternative III. Withdrawal of Certain CSAPR FIP Requirements for Texas EGUs IV. Texas' Good Neighbor Obligation With Regard to the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS V. Sensitivity Analysis Regarding CSAPR Participation as a BART Alternative A. Summary of 2012 CSAPR-Better-Than-BART Analytic Demonstration B. Impact on 2012 Analytic Demonstration of Actions Responding to the Remand of CSAPR Phase 2 Budgets VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. Overview

    The EPA promulgated CSAPR in 2011 in order to address the obligations of states—and of the EPA when states have not met their obligations—under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air pollution contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with maintenance by, any other state with regard to several NAAQS, including the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.1 To address Texas' transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to this NAAQS, CSAPR established FIP requirements for affected EGUs in Texas, including emissions budgets that apply to the EGUs' collective annual emissions of SO2 and NOX. In July 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision on a range of challenges to CSAPR in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (EME Homer City II) denying most claims but remanding several CSAPR emissions budgets to the EPA for reconsideration, including the Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas.2

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

    2EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (EME Homer City II), 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The court also remanded the Phase 2 SO2 budgets for three other states and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for eleven states, including Texas. Id.

    In this action, the EPA proposes to address the remand of the Texas Phase 2 SO2 budget by withdrawing the FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program and the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program in Phase 2, which begins with 2017 emissions.3 Although the court's decision specifically remanded only Texas' Phase 2 SO2 budget, the court's rationale for remanding that budget also implicates Texas' Phase 2 annual NOX budget because the SO2 and annual NOX budgets were developed through an integrated analysis and were promulgated to meet a common PM2.5 transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Withdrawal of the FIP provisions is intended to address the remand by eliminating the requirement for Texas EGUs to comply with the EPA-established Phase 2 budgets.4

    3 With regard to each of the other remanded budgets, the EPA either has already withdrawn or expects to withdraw the FIP provisions requiring the EGUs in the affected state to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading programs in Phase 2 through other actions, as discussed in section III.

    4 The D.C. Circuit also remanded the CSAPR Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budget established for Texas EGUs with regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 138. As discussed in section III, in another action the EPA has withdrawn the FIP requirements for Texas EGUs regarding the 1997 ozone NAAQS and has promulgated new FIP requirements for those EGUs regarding the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This proposal has no effect on any CSAPR FIP requirements for Texas EGUs concerning ozone-season NOX emissions.

    Removal of Texas EGUs from the CSAPR trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX as proposed would make it necessary to use other means to address any remaining transport obligation for Texas under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In this action, based on a reevaluation of PM2.5 data in the CSAPR final rule record in light of the D.C. Circuit's reasoning in another portion of the EME Homer City II decision, the EPA is proposing to determine that Texas would not have any such remaining PM2.5 transport obligation in Phase 2 of CSAPR. Accordingly, in the absence of a Texas transport obligation with regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA is also proposing to determine that the Agency will have no obligation to issue new FIP requirements for Texas sources to address transported PM2.5 pollution under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to this NAAQS.5

    5 Reevaluation of PM2.5 data in the CSAPR final rule record in light of the D.C. Circuit's reasoning would similarly support a determination that Texas would have no PM2.5 transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the EPA is not proposing to make a determination in this action as to any obligation of Texas with regard to that NAAQS because Texas EGUs are not subject to CSAPR requirements with regard to that NAAQS.

    Participation in CSAPR is relied on by numerous states as an alternative to meeting source-specific BART requirements under the Regional Haze Rule.6 In accordance with the provisions of the Regional Haze Rule, the EPA's 2012 determination that implementation of CSAPR meets the criteria for a BART alternative was based on an analytic demonstration that implementation of CSAPR would result in greater reasonable progress than BART toward restoring natural visibility conditions in relevant locations. This proposal includes a sensitivity analysis showing that if the set of actions the EPA has taken or expects to take in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of various CSAPR Phase 2 budgets had been reflected in that analytic demonstration, the revised analysis still would have demonstrated that implementation of CSAPR in the remaining covered states meets the criteria for a BART alternative for those states. Accordingly, based on consideration of this analysis, the EPA sees no reason to propose any revision to the current Regional Haze Rule provision allowing states whose EGUs continue to participate in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant to rely on CSAPR participation as a BART alternative for its BART-eligible EGUs for that pollutant.

    6See Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans, 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012) (CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule).

    At the same time, however, if and when this proposal is finalized, Texas will no longer be eligible to rely on CSAPR participation as an alternative to certain regional haze obligations including the determination and application of source-specific SO2 BART. Any such remaining obligations are not addressed in this proposed action and would be addressed through other state implementation plan (SIP) or FIP actions as appropriate.7

    7 The EPA notes that under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), CSAPR implementation is available as a NOX BART alternative for a state whose EGUs are subject to CSAPR requirements for either annual NOX emissions or ozone-season NOX emissions. See 77 FR at 33652; see also supra note 4.

    Sections II.A and II.B provide background on CSAPR and on CSAPR participation as a BART alternative, respectively. The proposed withdrawal of the FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX is addressed in section III. Section IV discusses the proposal to determine that, following finalization of the proposed withdrawal of the CSAPR FIP requirements related to PM2.5, Texas would have no remaining transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the EPA accordingly would have no obligation to issue new FIP requirements for Texas sources to address such a transport obligation. The sensitivity analysis of the 2012 analytic demonstration supporting CSAPR participation as a BART alternative is described in section V.

    II. Background A. History and Summary of CSAPR

    The EPA initially promulgated CSAPR in 2011 to address the obligations of states—and of the EPA when states have not met their obligations—under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often referred to as the “good neighbor” provision, to prohibit transported air pollution contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.8 To reduce transported PM2.5 pollution, CSAPR sets limits on annual emissions of NOX and SO2 as precursors to PM2.5. To reduce transported ozone pollution, CSAPR sets limits on ozone-season emissions of NOX as a precursor to ozone.

    8See generally 76 FR 48208.

    CSAPR's emissions limitations are defined in terms of emissions “budgets” for the collective emissions from affected EGUs in each covered state. The emissions limitations are phased in, with the Phase 1 and Phase 2 budgets originally scheduled to apply starting in January 2012 and January 2014, respectively. Affected EGUs are subject to FIP provisions requiring them to participate in one or more of several CSAPR federal allowance trading programs established as flexible mechanisms to achieve compliance with the emissions budgets. CSAPR also contains provisions under which the EPA will approve optional SIP revisions that modify or replace the CSAPR FIP requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport obligations using either the CSAPR federal trading programs or integrated CSAPR state trading programs that apply emissions budgets of the same or greater stringency.9

    9See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the ability to submit SIP revisions to meet their transport-related obligations using mechanisms other than the CSAPR federal trading programs or integrated state trading programs.

    A number of state, industry, and other petitioners challenged CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, which stayed and then vacated the rule, ruling on only a subset of petitioners' claims. However, in April 2014 the Supreme Court reversed the vacatur and remanded to the D.C. Circuit for resolution of petitioners' remaining claims.10 The D.C. Circuit then granted the EPA's motion to lift the stay and to toll the rule's deadlines by three years.11 Consequently, implementation of CSAPR Phase 1 began in January 2015 and implementation of Phase 2 is scheduled to begin in January 2017.

    10EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014), reversing 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

    11 Order, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. issued October 23, 2014).

    Following the Supreme Court remand, the D.C. Circuit conducted further proceedings to address petitioners' remaining claims. In July 2015, the court issued a decision denying most of the claims but remanding the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for eleven states to the EPA for reconsideration.12 Petitions challenging CSAPR amendments promulgated in 2011 and 2012 are currently being held in abeyance pending completion of the EPA's proceedings in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand.13

    12EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 138.

    13Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 12-1023 (D.C. Cir.) (challenging amendments published at 76 FR 80760 (December 27, 2011)); Wisconsin Public Service Corp. v. EPA, No. 12-1163 (D.C. Cir.) (challenging amendments published at 77 FR 10324 (February 21, 2012)); Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1346 (D.C. Cir.) (challenging amendments published at 77 FR 34830 (June 12, 2012)).

    Since receipt of the D.C. Circuit's 2015 decision, the EPA has engaged the affected states to determine appropriate next steps to address the decision with regard to each state. The EPA expects that potentially material changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage resulting from the D.C. Circuit's remand will be limited to Texas, based on the withdrawal of FIP requirements proposed here, and, as discussed below, to Florida, based on the withdrawal of FIP requirements recently finalized in another action. With regard to the remanded Phase 2 SO2 budgets, as discussed in section III, the EPA expects that EGUs in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina will continue to participate in CSAPR trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX pursuant to approved SIP revisions (with equally or more stringent emissions budgets), making Texas the only state whose EGUs would no longer participate in these programs because of the remand.

    With regard to the remanded ozone-season NOX budgets, in September 2016 the EPA promulgated a final rule updating CSAPR to address states' good neighbor obligations with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.14 The rule also responded to the remand of the original Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets established to address transport obligations with regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS by withdrawing the FIP provisions requiring EGUs in the eleven states with remanded budgets to comply with those budgets for emissions after 2016. The EPA determined that none of those eleven states will have a remaining transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but for eight of those states, including Texas, the rule established new budgets to address transport obligations with regard to the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. EGUs in the three states with remanded Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for which the EPA did not establish new budgets—Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina—are no longer required to participate in a CSAPR trading program for ozone-season NOX emissions to address ozone transport obligations after 2016. However, because EGUs in North Carolina and South Carolina 15 are expected to continue to participate in a CSAPR trading program for annual NOX emissions in order to address PM2.5 transport obligations, Florida is expected to be the only state originally covered by CSAPR for NOX emissions for which all such coverage is ending as a result of the EPA's set of actions to address the remand.

    14 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) (CSAPR Update rule).

    15 North Carolina EGUs remain subject to FIP provisions requiring participation in a CSAPR trading program for annual NOX emissions. The EPA's expectation that South Carolina EGUs will continue to participate in a CSAPR program for annual NOX emissions is based on South Carolina's commitment to submit a SIP revision that will include such requirements, as noted above and discussed in section III.

    Texas EGUs are currently subject to CSAPR FIP provisions requiring participation in the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program and the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program. Texas EGUs are also subject to FIP provisions requiring participation in other CSAPR federal trading programs for ozone-season NOX emissions. This proposal would withdraw the FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX emissions after 2016, but would have no effect on any CSAPR FIP requirements applicable to Texas EGUs relating to ozone-season NOX emissions after 2016, which, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, were promulgated in the recently finalized CSAPR Update rule and were not subject to the D.C. Circuit's remand.

    B. CSAPR Participation as a BART Alternative

    The Regional Haze Rule implements CAA requirements for the protection of visibility, focusing on visibility impairment that is caused by the emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area.16 CAA section 169A(a)(1) sets a national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in certain Class I areas.17 CAA section 169A(b)(2) requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward this national goal, including requirements for the application of best available retrofit technology (BART) by any BART-eligible sources 18 that emit any air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. The air pollutants that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment include both SO2 and NOX. Under CAA section 110(c), where the EPA disapproves or finds that a state has failed to make such a SIP submittal, the EPA must promulgate a FIP addressing these requirements.

    16 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309. Earlier this year, the EPA proposed amendments to other portions of the Regional Haze Rule but did not propose any substantive amendments to the provisions related to BART. Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans, 81 FR 26942 (May 4, 2016).

    17 The 156 mandatory Class I federal areas in which visibility has been determined to be an important value are listed at subpart D of 40 CFR part 81. For brevity, these areas are referred to here simply as “Class I areas.”

    18 A BART-eligible source is generally a source in any one of 26 specified categories, including fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants, that was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962; was in existence on August 7, 1977; and has the potential to emit 250 tons per year of any air pollutant. See 40 CFR 51.301.

    The Regional Haze Rule's BART provisions generally direct states to identify all BART-eligible sources; determine which of those BART-eligible sources are subject to BART requirements because the sources emit air pollutants that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area; determine source-specific BART for each source that is subject to BART requirements, based on an analysis taking specified factors into consideration; and include emission limitations reflecting those BART determinations in their SIPs.19 However, the rule also provides each state with the flexibility to adopt an allowance trading program or other alternative measure instead of requiring source-specific BART controls, so long as the alternative measure is demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress than BART toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas.20

    19 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1).

    20 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).

    The Regional Haze Rule also sets out criteria for demonstrating that an alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART. The regulations include a specific so-called “better-than-BART” test that may be satisfied in one of two ways: (1) If the distribution of emissions under the alternative measure is not substantially different than under BART and the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions; or (2) if the distribution of emissions is significantly different and an air quality modeling study for the best and worst 20 percent of days shows an improvement in visibility from the alternative measure relative to BART.21 In order for the alternative measure to pass this “better-than-BART” test based on such an air quality modeling study, the modeling must demonstrate that two criteria (referred to below as “prongs”) are met: first, visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and second, there is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average differences in visibility conditions under BART and the alternative measure across all affected Class I areas. In addition to the specific test, the regulations also include a more general test that allows states (or the EPA) to demonstrate that an alternative measure provides for greater reasonable progress than BART based on the clear weight of evidence.22

    21 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).

    22 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).

    In 2012, the EPA amended the Regional Haze Rule to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant—either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision—qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.23 In promulgating the amendment, the EPA relied on an analytic demonstration of an improvement in visibility from CSAPR implementation relative to BART based on an air quality modeling study, in accordance with the second approach to the specific better-than-BART test summarized above. Since the EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.24

    23 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4); see also generally 77 FR 33642. Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012).

    24 The EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 (July 6, 2012). The EPA has approved Minnesota's SIP relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. 77 FR 34801, 34806 (June 12, 2012).

    For purposes of the 2012 analytic demonstration that CSAPR provides for greater reasonable progress than BART, the EPA treated Texas EGUs as subject to CSAPR for SO2 and annual NOX (as well as ozone-season NOX) and treated Florida EGUs as subject to CSAPR for ozone-season NOX. The EPA recognizes that the treatment of these EGUs in the analysis would have been different if the Florida FIP withdrawal recently finalized and the Texas FIP withdrawal proposed in this action had been known before the demonstration was prepared. In order to address any potential concern about continuing to rely on CSAPR participation as a BART alternative for EGUs in the remaining CSAPR states, the EPA is providing a sensitivity analysis explicitly addressing the potential effect on the 2012 analytic demonstration if the treatment of Texas and Florida EGUs had been consistent with the EPA's expectations for the updated scope of CSAPR coverage following the D.C. Circuit's remand. As discussed in section V below, the analysis supports the continued conclusion that CSAPR participation would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART despite such a change in the treatment of Texas and Florida EGUs. Consequently, the proposed FIP withdrawal does not suggest any reason to consider amending the current Regional Haze Rule provision authorizing the use of CSAPR participation as a BART alternative for BART-eligible EGUs for a given pollutant in states whose EGUs continue to participate in a CSAPR trading program for that pollutant.

    III. Withdrawal of Certain CSAPR FIP Requirements for Texas EGUs

    As summarized in section I above, the EPA proposes to respond to the D.C. Circuit's remand of the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas by withdrawing the FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX emissions with regard to emissions occurring after 2016. This section discusses the rationale for this proposed action.

    In the CSAPR final rule, the EPA determined that 23 states, including Texas, had transport obligations with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, or both, and established SO2 and annual NOX emissions budgets for each of the states.25 The first step in the EPA's analysis was to identify PM2.5 receptors that were projected to have difficulty attaining or maintaining either the 1997 NAAQS or the 2006 NAAQS in 2012 without emission reductions from CSAPR. In the second step, the EPA identified states that contribute more than a threshold amount of PM2.5 pollution (i.e., one percent of the NAAQS) for at least one of those NAAQS to at least one of the identified nonattainment or maintenance receptors in a different state—in other words, a “linkage” was determined. In the third step, the EPA projected the SO2 and annual NOX emission reductions and the remaining emissions that would be achieved by EGUs in all modeled states at a range of control cost levels as well as the resulting improvements in air quality at each of the identified PM2.5 receptors. For annual NOX, the EPA evaluated a range of control cost levels up to $2,500 per ton, and for SO2, the EPA evaluated a range of control cost levels up to $10,000 per ton in combination with a NOX control cost level of $500 per ton. The EPA then set SO2 and annual NOX emissions budgets for EGUs in each of the 23 covered states at the remaining emissions corresponding to a combination of SO2 and annual NOX control cost levels at which the air quality problems at all, or most, of the receptors linked to that state were projected to be resolved. The budgets were implemented through FIP provisions requiring the affected EGUs in each covered state to participate in allowance trading programs.

    25 The EPA also determined in CSAPR and a related supplemental rule that 25 states, including Texas, had transport obligations with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In all, 28 states were determined to have transport obligations related to either PM2.5, ozone, or both. The EPA's process for determining states' emissions limitations under CSAPR and the associated CSAPR FIP requirements is described at length in the preamble to the CSAPR final rule. See generally 77 FR at 48222-71.

    In the case of seven states, including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, the PM2.5 air quality problems at all linked receptors were projected to be resolved at an SO2 control cost level of $500 per ton. The CSAPR SO2 budgets for these states were therefore set based on the projected SO2 emissions remaining after the reductions achievable at that control cost level. For the other 16 states covered by CSAPR for PM2.5, the air quality problems at all linked receptors were not projected to be resolved until (or after) an SO2 control cost level of $2,300 per ton, and the CSAPR SO2 budgets were set based on the projected SO2 emissions remaining after the reductions achievable at that higher cost level. For all 23 states linked to a PM2.5 receptor, the CSAPR annual NOX budgets were set based on the projected NOX emissions remaining after the reductions achievable at a control cost level of $500 per ton. The EPA promulgated FIP provisions requiring EGUs in the 16 states whose SO2 budgets were set based on a $2,300-per-ton SO2 control cost level to participate in the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program, requiring EGUs in the seven states whose SO2 budgets were set based on a $500-per-ton SO2 control cost level to participate in the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, and requiring EGUs in all 23 states to participate in the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program.

    Petitioners challenged the EPA's use of a $500-per-ton control cost level to set the SO2 budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, citing an analysis the EPA had prepared for the CSAPR proposal projecting that the air quality problems at certain PM2.5 receptors would be resolved at SO2 control cost levels below $500 per ton. In its July 2015 decision, the D.C. Circuit agreed that because modeling in the rulemaking record from the CSAPR proposal indicated that air quality problems at all PM2.5 receptors linked to these four states could have been resolved at SO2 control costs below $500 per ton, the Phase 2 SO2 budgets set in the CSAPR final rule based on control costs of $500 per ton may be more stringent than necessary to address the four states' PM2.5 transport obligations. The court therefore found the Phase 2 SO2 budgets for these four states invalid and remanded them to the EPA for reconsideration.26

    26EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 128-29.

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to respond to the remand of the Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas by withdrawing the FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program and the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program with regard to emissions during Phase 2 of those programs, which is now scheduled to begin in 2017. Withdrawal of the FIP provisions related to the SO2 trading program encompasses withdrawal of the requirement for Texas EGUs to comply with the remanded Phase 2 SO2 budget, thereby addressing the specific rule provision remanded by the court. The EPA is proposing to withdraw the FIP provisions related to annual NOX in addition to the FIP provisions related to SO2 because, as just discussed, the CSAPR FIP requirements for SO2 and annual NOX applicable to the EGUs in each covered state were determined through an integrated analysis and were promulgated in combination to remedy that state's PM2.5 transport obligation. The court's finding that CSAPR's Phase 2 requirements may be more stringent than necessary to address Texas' PM2.5 transport obligation therefore implicates the state's Phase 2 budgets for both SO2 and annual NOX.

    The proposed withdrawal of the FIP requirements would be consistent with the approach the EPA has taken in response to previous judicial remands regarding obligations of individual states under other EPA rules addressing multiple states' transport obligations. For example, in Michigan v. EPA, the court found that the EPA had failed to adequately support the inclusion of Wisconsin in the NOX SIP Call.27 The EPA responded to that remand by amending the rule to exclude Wisconsin.28 Similarly, in North Carolina v. EPA, the court found that the EPA had failed to adequately support the inclusion of Minnesota in the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as well as the corresponding CAIR FIP provisions applicable to Minnesota units.29 The EPA responded to that remand by indefinitely staying CAIR's PM2.5 transport obligation for Minnesota as well as the CAIR FIP provisions requiring Minnesota units to participate in CAIR's federal trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX.30

    27 213 F.3d 663, 681 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Both the court's decision and the EPA's response were limited to the NOX SIP Call's requirements related to the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, because the rule's parallel requirements related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS had already been indefinitely stayed as to all states.

    28 Interstate Ozone Transport: Response to Court Decisions on the NOX SIP Call, NOX SIP Call Technical Amendments, and Section 126 Rules, 69 FR 21604, 21636-37 (April 21, 2004).

    29 531 F.3d 896, 926-28 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

    30 Administrative Stay of Clean Air Interstate Rule for Minnesota; Administrative Stay of Federal Implementation Plan to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone for Minnesota, 74 FR 56721, 56722 (November 3, 2009).

    The proposed withdrawal of FIP requirements is also consistent with the actions the EPA either has already taken or expects to take to address the D.C. Circuit's remand of other CSAPR Phase 2 budgets. With regard to the remanded Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for eleven states, the EPA withdrew the FIP provisions requiring compliance with those budgets in a rule promulgated earlier this year updating CSAPR to address states' transport obligations with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA amended the FIP provisions applicable to EGUs in the eleven states with remanded budgets to eliminate the CSAPR FIP requirements related to the 1997 ozone NAAQS with regard to emissions occurring after 2016, coincident with the transition from CSAPR Phase 1 to CSAPR Phase 2.31 The EPA determined that none of the eleven states would have remaining transport obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS following the FIP withdrawal.32 However, the EPA also determined that eight of the states have transport obligations under that section with regard to the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS, and established new CSAPR ozone-season NOX budgets for those states related to that NAAQS starting with emissions occurring in 2017.33

    31See 81 FR at 74576.

    32See 81 FR at 74524.

    33Id.

    With regard to the remanded Phase 2 SO2 budgets for Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, the EPA either has addressed or expects to address the remand through withdrawal of the relevant FIP requirements in the context of SIP approval actions for these states. As discussed in section II.A above, the CSAPR regulations provide each covered state with the option to meet its transport obligations through SIP revisions replacing the federal trading programs and requiring the state's EGUs to participate in integrated CSAPR state trading programs that apply emissions budgets of the same or greater stringency.34 Under the CSAPR regulations, when such a SIP revision is approved, the corresponding FIP provisions are automatically withdrawn. As discussed in section II.B above, the Regional Haze Rule allows states to rely on CSAPR participation for a given pollutant—through either a CSAPR federal trading program or an integrated CSAPR state trading program—as a BART alternative for that pollutant.

    34See 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39.

    Before proposing this action, the EPA communicated with officials in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas regarding the EPA's intent to respond to the remand of the Phase 2 SO2 budgets by withdrawing the FIP provisions requiring the states' EGUs to participate in the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX.35 The EPA explained that the state would lose its ability to rely on CSAPR participation as a BART alternative for SO2 and/or NOX if its EGUs no longer participated in the CSAPR trading programs, but that the state could preserve that ability, if desired, by submitting a CSAPR SIP revision replacing the CSAPR federal trading programs with integrated CSAPR state trading programs applying state-established budgets no less stringent than the remanded federally-established budgets.36 Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina have indicated their preference to pursue the SIP revision option. The EPA has already approved Alabama's CSAPR SIP revision, and the FIP provisions requiring its EGUs to participate in the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX, including the requirements to comply with the federally-established SO2 and annual NOX budgets, have therefore been automatically withdrawn.37 Georgia and South Carolina have committed to submit CSAPR SIP revisions,38 and the EPA is not proposing withdrawal of the CSAPR FIP provisions for their EGUs based on the expectation that such withdrawal will be automatically accomplished as a result of SIP approval actions.39 Because Texas has not indicated an intent to submit a CSAPR SIP revision, the EPA is proceeding with this proposed action to withdraw the FIP requirements for Texas EGUs, consistent with the intended approach previously communicated to officials for all four states.

    35See memo entitled “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Plan for Responding to the Remand of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Phase 2 SO2 Budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas” from Janet G. McCabe, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Air Division Directors (June 27, 2016), available at https://www3.epa.gov/airtransport/CSAPR/pdfs/CSAPR_SO2_Remand_Memo.pdf and in the docket for this proposed action. The memo directs the Regional Air Division Directors to share the memo with state officials. The EPA also communicated orally with officials in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas in advance of the memo.

    36 Although the D.C. Circuit remanded the states' Phase 2 SO2 budgets because it determined that the budgets may be more stringent than necessary to address the states' identified PM2.5 transport obligations, nothing in the court's decision affects the states' authority to seek incorporation into their SIPs of state-established budgets as stringent as the remanded federally-established budgets or limits the EPA's authority to approve such SIP revisions. See CAA sections 116, 110(k)(3).

    37 Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016).

    38See letters to Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4, from Judson H. Turner, Director of the Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources (May 26, 2016) and from Myra C. Reece, Director of Environmental Affairs, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (April 19, 2016), available in the docket for this proposed action. The EPA has conditionally approved the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 visibility element for multiple NAAQS in the Georgia and South Carolina SIPs based on each state's commitment to submit a CSAPR SIP revision. 81 FR 65899, 65900 (September 26, 2016) (Georgia); 81 FR 56512, 56513 (August 22, 2016) (South Carolina).

    39 If the EPA does not receive the expected SIP submittal from either of these states by the deadline provided in its respective commitment letter or disapproves such a SIP submittal, the EPA will propose to withdraw the FIP provisions requiring that state's EGUs to participate in the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX, consistent with the action proposed here for Texas EGUs.

    The EPA requests comment on the proposed withdrawal of the FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the CSAPR trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX with regard to emissions occurring after 2016.

    IV. Texas' Good Neighbor Obligation With Regard to the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS

    Withdrawal of the CSAPR FIP requirements as proposed in section III above would revive the need to consider Texas' transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and to address any remaining obligation through other means. As summarized in section I above, the EPA proposes to determine that Texas would have no remaining transport obligation under this section with regard to this NAAQS following withdrawal of the FIP requirements, and consequently also proposes to determine that the EPA will have no obligation to issue new FIP requirements as to Texas's transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS after withdrawal of the current FIP requirements. This section discusses the rationale for these proposed determinations.

    In the CSAPR rulemaking, one of the receptors that the EPA projected would have difficulty attaining and maintaining both the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was a receptor located in Madison County, Illinois (monitor ID 171191007).40 The modeling for the CSAPR final rule showed that Texas was projected to contribute more than the threshold amount of PM2.5 pollution necessary in order to be considered “linked” to the Madison County receptor for annual PM2.5.41 Based on the linkage for the 1997 annual NAAQS, the EPA consequently determined emissions limitations for SO2 and annual NOX from Texas EGUs and promulgated FIP requirements reflecting these emission limitations.42 These are the FIP requirements that the EPA is now proposing to withdraw in order to address the D.C. Circuit's remand of the Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas.

    40 76 FR at 48233, 48235.

    41 76 FR at 48241.

    42 The modeling for the CSAPR final rule also linked Texas to the Madison County receptor with regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, but the EPA did not rely on the linkage with regard to that NAAQS as a basis for establishing CSAPR FIP requirements for Texas EGUs. See 76 FR at 48243, 48214.

    In evaluating what, if any, remaining transport obligation Texas would have under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS following withdrawal of the current FIP requirements as proposed, the EPA has reexamined data in the CSAPR final rule record in light of the D.C. Circuit's other holdings in EME Homer City II, specifically the court's rationale for remanding several Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets. In the CSAPR rulemaking, for purposes of identifying receptors projected to have air quality problems and determining states that were linked to those receptors and which therefore may have transport obligations, the EPA used air quality projections for the year 2012, which was also the intended start year for implementation of the Phase 1 budgets. The CSAPR final rule record also contained air quality projections for 2014, which was the intended start year for implementation of the Phase 2 budgets. The 2014 modeling results showed that some ozone receptors projected to have air quality problems in 2012 would no longer be projected to have air quality problems in 2014 before considering the emission reductions from CSAPR, and petitioners argued that the EPA therefore lacked authority to establish Phase 2 ozone-season NOX emissions limitations for EGUs in states linked solely to those ozone receptors. The D.C. Circuit agreed and held the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for ten states invalid on that basis.43

    43EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 129-30. The court also remanded the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budget for an eleventh state (Texas), but on different grounds.

    Although not discussed in the court's decision, the CSAPR final rule record contains projections of 2014 air quality for the Madison County PM2.5 receptor that are analogous to the projections of 2014 air quality for the ozone receptors described above. Specifically, the 2014 modeling results projected that the Madison County receptor would have a maximum design value for annual PM2.5 of 15.02 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) before considering the emissions reductions from CSAPR.44 This projected value is below the value of 15.05 μg/m3 that the EPA used to determine whether a particular PM2.5 receptor should be identified as having air quality problems that may trigger transport obligations in upwind states with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.45 The Madison County receptor was the only PM2.5 receptor with projected air quality problems to which Texas was found to be linked based on the EPA's air quality modeling for the CSAPR final rule. Therefore, given that the Madison County receptor was projected to no longer have air quality problems sufficient to trigger transport obligations with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the EPA's 2014 base case modeling for the CSAPR final rule, and given the D.C. Circuit's holding discussed above with regard to the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets, the EPA proposes to find that, as of Phase 2 of CSAPR, Texas would not significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS following withdrawal of the current CSAPR FIP requirements applicable to Texas EGUs with regard to that NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA also proposes to determine that the Agency has no obligation to issue new FIP requirements as to Texas under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS after withdrawal of the current FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in Phase 2 of the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX.

    44See projected 2014 base case maximum design value for Madison County, Illinois receptor 171191007 at B-41 of the Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140 (June 2011) (CSAPR Final Rule Technical Support Document), available in the docket for this proposed action.

    45 76 FR at 48233.

    The EPA requests comment on the proposed determinations that Texas will no longer have any remaining transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS following finalization of the proposed withdrawal of the FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the SO2 and annual NOX trading programs during Phase 2 of CSAPR, and that the EPA accordingly will have no obligation to issue new FIP requirements for Texas sources to address such a transport obligation.

    V. Sensitivity Analysis Regarding CSAPR Participation as a BART Alternative

    As summarized in section II.B above, in 2012 the EPA amended the Regional Haze Rule to authorize states whose EGUs participate in CSAPR trading programs for a given pollutant to rely on CSAPR participation as a BART alternative for that pollutant, basing that determination on an analytic demonstration that implementation of CSAPR as expected to take effect at the time of the 2012 revision would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART toward the national goal of natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. This section discusses a sensitivity analysis to the 2012 analytic demonstration showing that the analysis would have supported the same conclusion if the actions the EPA has proposed to take or has already taken in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of various CSAPR Phase 2 budgets—specifically, the withdrawal of PM2.5-related CSAPR Phase 2 FIP requirements for Texas EGUs proposed in this action and the recently finalized withdrawal of ozone-related CSAPR Phase 2 FIP requirements for Florida EGUs—were reflected in that analysis.

    A. Summary of 2012 CSAPR-Better-Than-BART Analytic Demonstration

    When promulgating the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule, the EPA relied on an analysis showing that CSAPR implementation meets the Regional Haze Rule's criteria for a demonstration of greater reasonable progress than BART toward natural visibility conditions as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).46 The analytic demonstration included an air quality modeling study whose results passed the two-pronged test described in section II.B above. The first prong ensures that the alternative program will not cause a decline in visibility at any affected Class I area. The second prong ensures that the alternative program results in improvements in average visibility across all affected Class I areas as compared to adopting source-specific BART. Together, these tests ensure that the alternative program provides for greater visibility improvement than would source-specific BART.

    46See Technical Support Document for Demonstration of the Transport Rule as a BART Alternative, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729-0014 (December 2011) (2011 CSAPR/BART Technical Support Document), available in the docket for this proposed action.

    In the air quality modeling study conducted for the 2012 analytic demonstration, the EPA projected visibility conditions in affected Class I areas 47 based on 2014 emissions projections for two control scenarios and used this modeling in conjunction with the 2014 base case emissions projections and air quality modeling from the CSAPR final rule record.48 One control scenario represents “Nationwide BART” and the other control scenario represents “CSAPR + BART-elsewhere.” The Nationwide BART scenario reflects projected SO2 and NOX emissions from all EGUs nationwide (except Alaska and Hawaii) after the application of source-specific BART controls to all BART-eligible EGUs. In the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario, EGU SO2 and NOX emissions reductions attributable to CSAPR were applied throughout the 28-state CSAPR region wherever EGUs are subject to CSAPR requirements for the respective pollutants, and BART controls for SO2 and NOX were applied to all BART-eligible EGUs outside the CSAPR region as well as to BART-eligible EGUs in the CSAPR region that are not subject to CSAPR requirements for the respective pollutants.49 The latter scenario reflects the fact that source-specific BART would remain a regional haze SIP element in states and for pollutants not covered by CSAPR requirements. In the base case, neither BART controls nor the EGU SO2 and NOX emissions reductions attributable to CSAPR were reflected.

    47 The EPA identified two possible sets of “affected Class I areas” to consider for purposes of the study and found that implementation of CSAPR met the criteria for a BART alternative whichever set was considered. See 77 FR at 33650.

    48 For additional detail on the 2014 base case, see the CSAPR Final Rule Technical Support Document, supra note 44.

    49 Specifically, because Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma were covered by CSAPR only to address ozone transport obligations, for the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case, EGUs in these states were assumed to be subject to CSAPR requirements for ozone-season NOX emissions and source-specific BART for SO2 (for BART-eligible EGUs). EGUs in the remaining CSAPR states, all of which were covered by CSAPR to address PM2.5 transport obligations, were assumed to be subject to CSAPR requirements for both annual NOX and SO2, and were also assumed to be subject to CSAPR ozone-season NOX requirements where applicable.

    For all BART-eligible EGUs in the Nationwide BART scenario and for BART-eligible EGUs not subject to CSAPR for a particular pollutant in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario, the modeled emission rates were the presumptive EGU BART limits for SO2 and NOX as specified in the BART Guidelines,50 unless an actual emission rate at a given unit with existing controls was lower, in which case the lower emission rate was modeled.51 The estimates of CSAPR annual NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs for the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere control scenario were based on the CSAPR Phase 2 budgets promulgated in the CSAPR final rule, except that proposed rather than final ozone-season NOX budgets were used for several states because their budgets were not final at the time the modeling for the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario was performed.52

    50 Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51—Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule.

    51 For more details on the emissions and modeling of the scenarios, see the 2011 CSAPR/BART Technical Support Document, supra note 46.

    52 The use of proposed rather than final budgets for ozone-season NOX emissions for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin had no material effect on the overall emissions projections, because for each of the states except Oklahoma, the analysis also reflected a final, comparably stringent budget for annual NOX emissions, and while Oklahoma has no CSAPR budget for annual NOX emissions, its final Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budget was unchanged from the proposal.

    For the CSAPR-Better-than-BART final rule, the EPA also conducted an additional sensitivity analysis to address instances where certain CSAPR budgets were increased after promulgation of the original CSAPR final rule.53 The overall magnitude of the SO2 budget increases (for nine states) was 129,295 tons per year, with budget increases for Texas and Georgia accounting for approximately 70 percent of that total. In addition, there was an overall increase in annual NOX budgets (for thirteen states) of 49,818 tons per year. In the sensitivity analysis, the EPA noted the dominance of sulfate impacts on visibility for each control scenario and relatedly noted that the vast majority of the projected visibility improvements in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario were attributable to the SO2 reductions in that scenario, which were much larger than the SO2 reductions in the Nationwide BART scenario.54 This was especially true in the sixteen Class I areas that were identified as being most impacted by Texas and Georgia (all in the South). The EPA also concluded that the impact on the modeled visibility impacts at Class I areas from the overall NOX budget increases would be negligible. The EPA therefore focused the sensitivity analysis on the increases in the SO2 budgets for Texas and Georgia and considered highly conservative assumptions for the air quality impacts that would result from those budget increases in order to ensure that the conclusions from the modeling analysis remained robust in light of all the budget increases.

    53See memo entitled “Sensitivity Analysis Accounting for Increases in Texas and Georgia Transport Rule State Emissions Budgets,” Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729-0323 (May 29, 2012) (2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis memo), available in the docket for this proposed action.

    54Id. at 1-2.

    The CSAPR-Better-than-BART modeling analysis showed that the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere alternative passed both prongs of the two-pronged test described in section II.B above and that CSAPR implementation therefore met the Regional Haze Rule's criteria for a BART alternative. The first prong of the test—i.e., whether the proposed BART alternative would result in a decline in visibility in any Class I area—was evaluated by comparing projected visibility conditions under the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case and the base case. The CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario did not show visibility degradation relative to the base case at any of the affected Class I areas on either the 20 percent best or the 20 percent worst visibility days. The second prong of the test—i.e., whether the proposed BART alternative would result in an overall improvement in visibility across all affected Class I areas relative to BART—was evaluated by comparing projected visibility conditions under the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case and the Nationwide BART case. The CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario passed this prong of the test based on the fact that, on average, modeled visibility improvement at the affected Class I areas was greater under the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario than under the Nationwide BART scenario on both the 20 percent best and the 20 percent worst visibility days.

    B. Impact on 2012 Analytic Demonstration of Actions Responding to the Remand of CSAPR Phase 2 Budgets

    As discussed in section II.A above, although in EME Homer City II the D.C. Circuit remanded the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 budgets for four states and the CSAPR Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for eleven states, the EPA expects that with regard to most of these states the remand will result in no material change to the scope of CSAPR coverage. In the case of the remanded Phase 2 SO2 budgets for Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, the states are expected to continue to ensure that their EGUs comply with comparably stringent CSAPR SO2 and annual NOX requirements through SIP revisions. In the case of the remanded Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets, eight of the states with remanded budgets (including Texas) will continue to be subject to CSAPR to address ozone transport obligations with regard to the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS, and North Carolina and South Carolina, although no longer covered by CSAPR to address ozone transport obligations, will continue to be subject to CSAPR annual NOX requirements in order to address their PM2.5 transport obligations. In considering the potential impact of the remand of Phase 2 budgets on the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART analytic demonstration, the EPA therefore believes that only two changes have potential relevance: The withdrawal of the FIP provisions subjecting Florida EGUs to CSAPR ozone-season NOX requirements that has already been finalized, and the withdrawal of FIP provisions subjecting Texas EGUs to CSAPR SO2 and annual NOX requirements that is proposed in this action.

    With regard to the change in CSAPR requirements for Florida EGUs, the EPA believes that the change would have no material impact on the 2012 analytic demonstration. Because Florida EGUs are no longer subject to any CSAPR requirements for NOX emissions during Phase 2, Florida is no longer eligible to rely on CSAPR participation as a NOX BART alternative.55 If this information had been available at the time of the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART analytic demonstration, the treatment of Florida EGUs in the base case and in the Nationwide BART scenario would not have changed, but in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario Florida EGUs would have been treated as subject to NOX BART instead of being treated as subject to CSAPR ozone-season NOX requirements. The Nationwide BART scenario already includes projections of the annual NOX emissions from Florida EGUs under NOX BART. The difference between the projected annual NOX emissions of Florida EGUs in these two scenarios is only 5,300 tons, which represents an increase of approximately seven percent of the total annual NOX emissions from Florida EGUs and approximately three tenths of one percent of the total annual NOX emissions from EGUs in all modeled states in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario.56 Consistent with the sensitivity analysis supporting the 2012 analytic demonstration that showed the dominance of sulfate impacts on visibility (especially in the South), small increases in Florida NOX emissions are expected to have a negligible impact on visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas. The EPA believes that this relatively small increase in NOX emissions in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case would have been too small to cause any change in the results of either prong of the two-pronged CSAPR-Better-than-BART test.

    55 The EPA has already approved the incorporation into Florida's SIP of determinations regarding source-specific NOX BART. 77 FR 71111, 71113-14 (November 29, 2012); 78 FR 53250, 53267 (August 29, 2013).

    56See the 2011 CSAPR/BART Technical Support Document, supra note 46, at table 2-5. The projected amounts of annual NOX emissions from Florida EGUs are 81,000 tons in the Nationwide BART scenario and 75,700 tons in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario. The difference between these amounts is 5,300 tons. The quotient of 5,300 divided by 81,000 is 6.5%. The total projected amount of annual NOX emissions from all states in the table in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario is 1,755,900 tons (1,217,500 + 538,400). The quotient of 5,300 divided by 1,755,900 is 0.3%.

    With regard to the changes in CSAPR requirements for Texas EGUs, the EPA believes that the changes would have no adverse impact on the 2012 analytic demonstration. Following withdrawal of the FIP provisions as proposed, Texas EGUs would no longer be subject to CSAPR requirements for SO2 emissions and Texas would therefore be ineligible to rely on CSAPR as an SO2 BART alternative. Texas EGUs would also no longer be subject to CSAPR requirements for annual NOX emissions, but because the EGUs would continue to be subject to CSAPR requirements for ozone-season NOX emissions, Texas would remain eligible to rely on CSAPR as a NOX BART alternative.57 If this information had been available at the time of the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART demonstration, the treatment of Texas EGUs in the base case and in the Nationwide BART case would not have changed, but in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case Texas EGUs would have been treated as subject to SO2 BART instead of being treated as subject to CSAPR SO2 requirements. For NOX, Texas EGUs would have been treated as being subject to CSAPR requirements for ozone-season NOX emissions only instead of being treated as subject to CSAPR requirements for both ozone-season and annual NOX emissions.

    57See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4); see also supra note 7.

    The Nationwide BART scenario already includes projections of the SO2 emissions from Texas EGUs under BART. Some of the CSAPR states are projected to have lower emissions for a given pollutant in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario compared to the Nationwide BART scenario. This occurs in CSAPR states where the majority of the EGUs are not BART-eligible and/or where there were many EGUs with available cost-effective controls (at the time of the analysis for the CSAPR rulemaking). However, in other CSAPR states, the presumptive BART limits lead to estimated emissions for a given pollutant that are lower than what was projected in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario. This can occur in CSAPR states that have numerous BART-eligible EGUs. In the case of Texas, the projected SO2 emissions from affected EGUs in the modeled Nationwide BART scenario (139,300 tons per year) are considerably lower than the projected SO2 emissions from the affected EGUs in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario (266,600 tons per year as modeled, and up to approximately 317,100 tons, as addressed in the 2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis memo).58 Treating Texas EGUs in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario as subject to SO2 BART instead of CSAPR SO2 requirements would therefore have reduced projected SO2 emissions by between 127,300 tons and approximately 177,800 tons in this scenario, thereby improving projected air quality in this scenario relative to projected air quality in both the Nationwide BART scenario and the base case scenario (in which the projected SO2 emissions from Texas EGUs would not change).59 At the lower end of this range, a reduction in SO2 emissions of 127,300 tons would represent a reduction of over four percent of the total SO2 emissions from EGUs in all modeled states in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario.60 The EPA has previously observed that the visibility improvements from CSAPR relative to BART are primarily attributable to the greater reductions in SO2 emissions from CSAPR across the overall modeled region in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario relative to the Nationwide BART scenario.61 In the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART analytic demonstration as relied on for purposes of the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule, in which Texas SO2 emissions for the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario were represented at their higher projected CSAPR levels instead of at their lower projected BART levels, the difference in SO2 emission reductions for the overall modeled region between the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario and the Nationwide BART scenario was approximately 773,000 tons after accounting for the increases in CSAPR SO2 budgets promulgated after the CSAPR final rule.62 An additional SO2 reduction of 127,300 tons or more in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario—the result of revising this scenario to represent Texas EGUs as subject to SO2 BART requirements instead of CSAPR SO2 requirements—would increase this 773,000 ton differential, which already favors implementation of CSAPR relative to BART, by more than fifteen percent.

    58 For the projected annual SO2 emissions from Texas EGUs for all scenarios, see the 2011 CSAPR/BART Technical Support Document, supra note 46, at table 2-4. As discussed in section V.A above, certain CSAPR budgets were increased after promulgation of the CSAPR final rule (and the increases were addressed in the 2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis memo, supra note 53). The increase in the Texas SO2 budget was 50,517 tons which, when added to the Texas SO2 emissions projected in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario of 266,600 tons, yields total potential SO2 emissions from Texas EGUs of approximately 317,100 tons.

    59 The difference between 266,600 and 139,300 is 127,300. The difference between 317,100 and 139,300 is 177,800.

    60 The total projected amount of annual SO2 emissions from all states in the table in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario is 2,918,500 tons (2,416,900 + 501,600). See the 2011 CSAPR/BART Technical Support Document, supra note 46, at table 2-4. The quotient of 127,300 divided by 2,918,500 is 4.3%.

    61See the 2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis memo, supra note 53, at 1-2.

    62Id.

    The modeling performed for the 2012 analytic demonstration does not include projections of NOX emissions from Texas EGUs in a scenario where the EGUs are assumed to be subject to CSAPR requirements for ozone-season NOX but not annual NOX emissions. However, in the base case used for the analytic demonstration—i.e., without any NOx requirements from either CSAPR or BART—the projected annual NOX emissions from Texas EGUs were only 2,600 tons higher than the annual NOX emissions projected for the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case in which it was assumed that the EGUs were subject to CSAPR requirements for both ozone-season and annual NOX emissions.63 The EPA believes this information indicates that if Texas EGUs had been modeled as subject to CSAPR requirements for ozone-season NOX but not annual NOX emissions, the projected NOX emissions would likely have been at most a few thousand tons higher than the emissions already modeled in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario. An increase of 2,600 tons—that is, the full difference between the projected annual NOX emissions from Texas EGUs under the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario and a case with no CSAPR (or BART) NOX requirements at all—would represent approximately two percent of the total annual NOX emissions from Texas EGUs and less than two tenths of one percent of the total annual NOX emissions from EGUs in all modeled states in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario.64 Consistent with the sensitivity analysis supporting the 2012 analytic demonstration that showed the dominance of sulfate impacts on visibility (especially in the South), small increases in Texas NOX emissions are expected to have a negligible impact on visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas. The EPA believes that this relatively small increase in NOX emissions in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case would have been too small to cause any change in the results of either prong of the two-pronged CSAPR-Better-than-BART test.

    63See the 2011 CSAPR/BART Technical Support Document, supra note 46, at table 2-5. The projected amounts of annual NOX emissions from Texas EGUs are 142,100 tons in the base case scenario and 139,500 tons in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario. The difference between these amounts is 2,600 tons.

    64 The quotient of 2,600 divided by 139,500 is 1.9%. The total projected amount of annual NOX emissions from all states in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario is 1,755,900 tons. See supra note 56. The quotient of 2,600 divided by 1,755,900 is 0.15%.

    In summary, if the information regarding the remanded CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas and the consequent proposed withdrawal of FIP requirements for Texas EGUs had been available at the time of the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART analytic demonstration, the EPA believes that the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario likely would have reflected SO2 emissions from Texas EGUs that would have been 127,300 or more tons per year lower than the emissions that were used instead, and likely would have reflected annual NOX emissions from Texas EGUs that would have been at most a few thousand tons per year higher than the emissions that were used instead. Given the greater importance of SO2 emissions relative to NOX emissions in the 2012 analytic comparison, as noted above, and given that emissions would not have changed in the Nationwide BART or base case scenarios, it is a logical conclusion that the modeled visibility improvement in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario would have been even larger relative to the other scenarios than what was modeled in the 2012 analytic demonstration as reflected in the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule. There is therefore no need to do any new modeling or more complicated sensitivity analysis. The lower SO2 emissions in Texas would clearly have led to more visibility improvement on the best and worst visibility days in the nearby Class I areas.65 Since the “original” CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario passed both prongs of the better-than-BART test (compared to the Nationwide BART scenario and the base case scenario), a modified CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario without Texas in the CSAPR region would without question also have passed both prongs of the better-than-BART test. In fact, if the modeling analysis had reflected the withdrawal of FIP provisions for Texas EGUs proposed in this action, the EPA expects that CSAPR implementation would have passed the better-than-BART test even more easily, again supporting the use of CSAPR implementation as a BART alternative for all states whose EGUs participate in the CSAPR trading programs.

    65 As documented in the 2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis memo, supra note 53, sulfate is the main constituent contributing to visibility impairment at the Class I areas affected by Texas' emissions, making Texas' SO2 emissions the dominant contributor to visibility impairment in these areas.

    The EPA requests comment on this discussion and the sensitivity analysis showing that the 2012 analytic demonstration supporting the conclusion that CSAPR participation qualifies as a BART alternative would not be adversely affected by modifying the assumptions to reflect the actions that have been or are expected to be taken in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of CSAPR Phase 2 budgets, including the proposed withdrawal of FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the CSAPR SO2 and annual NOX trading programs.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0667. The withdrawal of the FIP provisions proposed in this action will eliminate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for Texas sources under the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program and the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program. However, this action will cause no material change in information collection burden related to NOX because all of the sources will continue to be subject to very similar NOx monitoring and reporting requirements under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program and/or the Acid Rain Program. Further, for most of the sources, this action will also cause no change in information collection burden related to SO2 because the same SO2 monitoring and reporting requirements will continue to apply to the sources under the Acid Rain Program. Approximately eight Texas sources currently reporting under CSAPR include units that are not subject to the Acid Rain Program and therefore will no longer be required to continuously monitor and report SO2 emissions to the EPA, but these units combust only gaseous or liquid fuels and currently use default values or periodic sampling instead of continuous emission monitoring systems to measure SO2 concentrations. Consequently, the EPA expects this action to cause little change in information collection burden related to SO2.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action withdraws existing regulatory requirements for some entities and does not impose new requirements on any entity. We have therefore concluded that this action will either relieve or have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action simply eliminates certain federal regulatory requirements that the D.C. Circuit has held invalid.

    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. This action simply eliminates certain federal regulatory requirements that the D.C. Circuit has held invalid.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. This action simply eliminates certain federal regulatory requirements that the D.C. Circuit has held invalid. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials while developing CSAPR. A summary of that consultation is provided in the preamble for CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48346 (August 8, 2011).

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 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 simply eliminates certain federal regulatory requirements that the D.C. Circuit has held invalid.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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 13211.

    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action simply eliminates certain federal regulatory requirements that the D.C. Circuit has held invalid. Consistent with Executive Order 12898 and the EPA's environmental justice policies, the EPA considered effects on low-income populations, minority populations, and indigenous peoples while developing CSAPR. The process and results of that consideration are described in the preamble for CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48347-52 (August 8, 2011).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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 A—General Provisions 2. Section 52.38 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2), paragraph (a)(4) introductory text, paragraph (a)(5) introductory text, and paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:
    § 52.38 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) relating to emissions of nitrogen oxides?

    (a) * * *

    (2)(i) The provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions occurring in 2015 and each subsequent year: Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

    (ii) The provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions occurring in 2015 and 2016 only: Texas.

    (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, regulations revising subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter as follows and not making any other substantive revisions of that subpart:

    (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as correcting the deficiency in the SIP that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(3) and (4) of this section with regard to sources in the State (but not sources in any Indian country within the borders of the State), regulations that are substantively identical to the provisions of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program set forth in §§ 97.402 through 97.435 of this chapter, except that the SIP revision:

    (6) Following promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a State's SIP revision as correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(3) and (4) of this section, the provisions of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section will no longer apply to sources in the State, unless the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision is partial or conditional, and will continue to apply to sources in any Indian country within the borders of the State, provided that if the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan was promulgated as a partial rather than full remedy for an obligation of the State to address interstate air pollution, the SIP revision likewise will constitute a partial rather than full remedy for the State's obligation unless provided otherwise in the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision.

    3. Section 52.39 is amended by revising paragraph (c), paragraph (h) introductory text, paragraph (i) introductory text, and paragraph (j) to read as follows:
    § 52.39 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) relating to emissions of sulfur dioxide?

    (c)(1) The provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions occurring in 2015 and each subsequent year: Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Carolina.

    (2) The provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions occurring in 2015 and 2016 only: Texas.

    (h) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, regulations revising subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter as follows and not making any other substantive revisions of that subpart:

    (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a State listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as correcting the deficiency in the SIP that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (a), (c)(1), (g), and (h) of this section with regard to sources in the State (but not sources in any Indian country within the borders of the State), regulations that are substantively identical to the provisions of the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program set forth in §§ 97.702 through 97.735 of this chapter, except that the SIP revision:

    (j) Following promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a State's SIP revision as correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this section or paragraphs (a), (c)(1), (g), and (h) of this section, the provisions of paragraph (b) or (c)(1) of this section, as applicable, will no longer apply to sources in the State, unless the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision is partial or conditional, and will continue to apply to sources in any Indian country within the borders of the State, provided that if the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan was promulgated as a partial rather than full remedy for an obligation of the State to address interstate air pollution, the SIP revision likewise will constitute a partial rather than full remedy for the State's obligation unless provided otherwise in the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision.

    Subpart SS—Texas 4. Section 52.2283 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) and removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
    § 52.2283 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?

    (c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Texas and Indian country within the borders of the State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard to emissions occurring in 2015 and 2016.

    (2) [Reserved]

    5. Section 52.2284 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) and removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
    § 52.2284 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide?

    (c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Texas and Indian country within the borders of the State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program in subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard to emissions occurring in 2015 and 2016.

    (2) [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2016-27197 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 79 and 80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041; FRL-9955-04-OAR] RIN 2060-AS66 Public Hearing for the Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public hearing to be held in Chicago, Illinois on December 6, 2016, on its proposal for the “Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support (REGS) Rule.” The public can view the proposal at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/proposed-renewables-enhancement-and-growth-support-regs-rule. Comments submitted at the public hearing will contribute to the REGS Rule proposal that the EPA will publish at a later date in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    The public hearing will be held on December 6, 2016, at the location noted below under ADDRESSES. The hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. Central Standard Time and end when all parties present who wish to speak have had an opportunity to do so. Parties wishing to testify at the hearing should notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by November 22, 2016. Additional information regarding the hearing appears below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The hearing will be held at the following location: Palmer House Hilton Hotel, 17 East Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60603; telephone number: (312) 726-7500. A complete set of documents related to the proposal will be available for public inspection through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041. Documents can also be viewed at the EPA Docket Center, located at William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia MacAllister, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4131; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EPA has proposed amendments to update both its Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and other fuels regulations in the Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support (REGS) Rule to reflect changes in the marketplace and to promote the growing use of both ethanol fuels (conventional and advanced) and non-ethanol advanced and cellulosic biofuels. In addition, the REGS rule includes a number of other regulatory changes, clarifications, and technical corrections to the RFS program and other fuels regulations. The proposal for the REGS rule will be published separately in the Federal Register. The pre-publication version can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/proposed-renewables-enhancement-and-growth-support-regs-rule.

    Public Hearing: The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposal (which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/proposed-renewables-enhancement-and-growth-support-regs-rule). The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Written comments must be received by the last day of the comment period, as specified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

    How can I get copies of this document, the proposed rule, and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041. The EPA has also developed a Web site for the Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support (REGS) rule, including the proposal, at the address given above. Please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking for detailed information on accessing information related to the proposal.

    Dated: October 27, 2016. Christopher Grundler, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26965 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 218 Thursday, November 10, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Notice of Appointment of Members to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Appointment of members.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the United States Department of Agriculture announces the appointment of members made by the Secretary of Agriculture to fill 7 vacancies on the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board.

    DATES:

    Appointments by the Secretary of Agriculture are for 2, or 3 year terms effective October 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; Research Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office, Room 332A, The Whitten Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 0301; 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2255.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michele Esch, Executive Director, Research, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 332A, The Whitten Building, Washington, DC 20250-2255 Telephone: 202-720-3684. Fax: 202-720-6199, email: [email protected]. Committee Web site: www.nareeeab.ree.usda.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 802 of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 authorized the creation of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. The Board is composed of 25 members, each representing a specific category related to agriculture. The Board was first appointed in September 1996 and at the time one-third of the original members were appointed for one, two, and three-year term, respectively. Due to the staggered appointments, the terms for 7 of the 25 members expired September 30, 2016.

    Each member is appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to a specific category on the Board, including farming or ranching, food production and processing, forestry research, crop and animal science, land-grant institutions, non-land grant college or university with a historic commitment to research in the food and agricultural sciences, food retailing and marketing, rural economic development, and natural resource and consumer interest groups, among many others. Appointees by vacancy category of the 7 appointments are as follows:

    Category F. National Food Animal Science Society: Govind Kannan (Re-appointment), Dean and Director, College of Agriculture, Family Sciences and Technology, Fort Valley State University, Fort Valley, GA;

    Category G. National Crop, Soil, Agronomy, Horticulture, or Weed Science Society: Roch Gaussoin, Professor and Department Head, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE;

    Category L. 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Universities: Kenrett Jefferson-Moore, Professor, North Carolina A&T, Greensboro, NC;

    Category M. 1994 Equity in Education Land-Grant Institutions: Michael Oltrogge, President, Nebraska Indian Community College, Macy, NE;

    Category P. American Colleges of Veterinary Medicine: Mark Lawrence, Professor and Associate Dean, Research and Graduate Studies, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, MS;

    Category T. Rural Economic Development: Robin Beck, Owner, Rockin' Sheep Products LLC, Livermore Falls, ME;

    Category U. National Consumer Interest Group: Richard De Los Santos, Coordinator for Horticulture, Produce, and Forestry Marketing, Austin, TX.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Ann Bartuska, Deputy Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27161 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-010, C-570-011, A-583-853] Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China and From Taiwan: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    Based on a request from PulseTech Products Corporation (“PulseTech”) the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is initiating changed circumstances reviews to consider the possible revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and the AD and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) (together, the “Orders”) with respect to solar panels incorporated in certain battery charging and maintaining units, as described below.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Magd Zalok, Robert Bolling, or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4162, (202) 482-3434, or (202) 482-5193, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 18, 2015, the Department published an AD order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan,1 and AD and CVD orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC.2

    1See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 8596 (February 18, 2015).

    2See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order; and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 8592 (February 18, 2015).

    On April 20, 2016, PulseTech Products Corporation (“PulseTech”), an importer of the subject merchandise, requested revocation, in part, of the Orders pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.216(b),3 with respect to certain solar panels. In subsequent submissions filed between May 12, 2016, and September 2, 2016, PulseTech modified the description of one of the products covered by its request, ultimately describing the product as solar panels that are:

    3See April 20, 2016 letter from PulseTech Products Corporation Re: Resubmission of Requests for Changed Circumstances Review—Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China and from Taiwan (“PulseTech Request for CCRs”).

    (1) less than 300,000 mm2 in surface area; (2) less than 27.1 watts in power; (3) coated across their entire surface with a polyurethane doming resin; and (4) joined to a battery charging and maintaining unit (which is an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (“ABS”) box that incorporates a light emitting diode (“LED”)) by coated wires that include a connector to permit the incorporation of an extension cable. The battery charging and maintaining unit utilizes high-frequency triangular pulse waveforms designed to maintain and extend the life of batteries through the reduction of lead sulfate crystals. The above-described battery charging and maintaining unit is currently available under the registered trademark “SolarPulse.”

    On September 6, 2016, SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (“Petitioner”) stated that it agrees with the scope exclusion language proposed by PulseTech for the above-referenced solar panels incorporated into certain battery charging and maintaining units.4

    4See September 6, 2016 letter from Petitioner Re: Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Changed Circumstances Review Request—Letter of No Opposition.

    PulseTech also requested revocation, in part, of the Orders with respect to other stand-alone solar panels. However, PulseTech withdrew its request for CCRs with respect to the stand-alone panels.5

    5See PulseTech's October 28, 2016, submission.

    Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China

    The merchandise covered by these orders are modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials. For purposes of these orders, subject merchandise includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells produced in a customs territory other than the PRC.

    Subject merchandise includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.

    Excluded from the scope of these orders are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). Also excluded from the scope of these orders are modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000mm2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. Where more than one module, laminate and/or panel is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all modules, laminates and/or panels that are integrated into the consumer good. Further, also excluded from the scope of these orders are any products covered by the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, laminates and/or panels, from the PRC.6

    6See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 73017 (December 7, 2012).

    Merchandise covered by these orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030 and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.

    Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From Taiwan

    The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials.

    Subject merchandise includes crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.

    Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in Taiwan are covered by this order. However, modules, laminates, and panels produced in Taiwan from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by this order.

    Excluded from the scope of this order are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). Also excluded from the scope of this order are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000mm2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.

    Further, also excluded from the scope of this order are any products covered by the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the PRC.7 Also excluded from the scope of this order are modules, laminates, and panels produced in the PRC from crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells produced in Taiwan that are covered by an existing proceeding on such modules, laminates, and panels from the PRC.

    7See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 73017 (December 7, 2012).

    Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 8501 .61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030 and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    Initiation of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Consideration of Revocation of the Orders in Part

    Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from an interested party8 which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of an order.9 Based on the information provided by PulseTech, the Department has determined that there exist changed circumstances sufficient to warrant changed circumstances reviews of the AD order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan, and the AD and CVD orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC. Also, because this changed circumstances request was filed less than 24 months after the date of publication of notice of the final determinations in the investigations covering certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC and Taiwan, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.216(c), the Department must determine whether good cause for the conduct of these reviews exists. We find that Petitioner's affirmative statement of no interest in the Orders with respect to solar panels incorporated into certain battery-charging and maintaining units, as described above, constitutes good cause for the conduct of these reviews.

    8 PulseTech stated in its Request for CCRs and its May 2, 2016 entry of appearance that it is an importer of subject merchandise and as such is an interested party pursuant to 19 CFR 351.102(b)(29).

    9See 19 CFR 351.216.

    Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order, in whole or in part. In addition, in the event the Department determines that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results. In its administrative practice, the Department has interpreted “substantially all” to mean producers accounting for at least 85 percent of the total U.S. production of the domestic like product covered by the order.10

    10See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent To Revoke Order in Part, 77 FR 42276 (July 18, 2012), unchanged in Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Determination To Revoke Order, in Part, 77 FR 53176 (August 31, 2012).

    Petitioner states that it agrees with the exclusion request; however, because Petitioner did not indicate whether it accounts for substantially all of the domestic production of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products, we are providing interested parties with the opportunity to address the issue of domestic industry support with respect to this requested partial revocation of the Orders, and we are not combining this notice of initiation with a preliminary determination pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). As explained below, interested parties will have an opportunity to address the requested partial revocation for solar panels incorporated into certain battery-charging and maintaining units, described above.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to provide comments and/or factual information regarding these changed circumstances reviews, including comments concerning industry support. Comments and factual information may be submitted to the Department no later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments and rebuttal factual information may be filed with the Department no later than 10 days after the comments and/or factual information are filed.11 All submissions must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”).12 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due dates set forth in this notice.

    11 Submission of rebuttal factual information must comply with 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    12See, generally, 19 CFR 351.303.

    The Department will issue the preliminary results of these changed circumstances reviews, which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which the preliminary results are based, and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), will include a description of any action proposed because of those results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of these reviews. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department intends to issue the final results of these AD and CVD changed circumstance reviews within 270 days after the date on which the reviews are initiated, or within 45 days if all parties to the proceeding agree to the outcome of the review.

    This initiation is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26985 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE988 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Dock Replacement Project in Unalaska, Alaska AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has received a request from the City of Unalaska (COU), for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities as part of a dock expansion project at the existing Unalaska Marine Center (UMC) Dock in Unalaska, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the COU to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B Harassment only, during the specified activity.

    DATES:

    Comments and information must be received no later than December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the COU's IHA application (application) should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to [email protected]

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. Comments received electronically, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fiorentino, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Availability

    An electronic copy of the COA's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed issuance of an IHA, pursuant to NEPA, to determine whether or not this proposed activity may have significant direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the human environment. This analysis will be completed prior to the issuance or denial of this proposed IHA. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice as we complete the NEPA process, prior to a final decision on the incidental take authorization request. The EA will be posted at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm when it is finalized.

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified area, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, providing that certain findings are made and the necessary prescriptions are established.

    The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking must be set forth.

    The allowance of such incidental taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), by harassment, serious injury, death, or a combination thereof, requires that regulations be established. Subsequently, a Letter of Authorization may be issued pursuant to the prescriptions established in such regulations, providing that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may authorize such incidental taking by harassment only, for periods of not more than one year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained within an IHA. The establishment of these prescriptions requires notice and opportunity for public comment.

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).”

    Summary of Request

    On March 22, 2016, we received a request from the COU for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and pile removal associated with construction activities that would expand the existing UMC Dock in Dutch Harbor in the City of Unalaska, on Amaknak Island, Alaska. The COU submitted a revised version of the request on July 30, 2016, which was deemed adequate and complete. In August 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (the Guidance, available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm) which provides technical guidance for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on the hearing of marine mammal species under the jurisdiction of NMFS. The Guidance establishes new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. The COA was able to update relevant portions of their application to incorporate re-calculated Level A harassment zones for vibratory and impact pile driving activities based on the updated acoustic thresholds described in the Guidance. The results of those calculations (i.e., revised distances to Level A harassment thresholds) were provided to NMFS by the COU in September 2016 and have been included in this proposed IHA.

    The COU proposes to demolish portions of the existing UMC dock and install a new dock between March 1, 2017 and November 1, 2017. The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving during pile removal and installation is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Species with the expected potential to be present during all or a portion of the in-water work window include Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and killer whale (Orcinus orca).

    Description of the Specified Activity Overview

    In order to meet the increasing needs of the international shipping industry and increase vessel berthing capacity, a substantial upgrade of aging UMC facilities is necessary. The proposed project will replace the existing pile supported docks located at UMC Dock Positions III and IV with a modern high-capacity sheet pile bulkhead dock that extends from the existing bulkhead dock at Position V to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Dock.

    COU port operations saw numerous factory trawler offloads occurring at Dock Positions III and IV in 2013. These operations require more length at the face of the dock and greater uplands area than is available with the current infrastructure. The existing pile-supported docks are aging structures in shallower water that no longer meet the needs of the Port and require increasing levels of maintenance and monitoring costs. Both docks are also severely constrained by the limited uplands area available for offloading and loading operations.

    Dock Position III is a timber pile-supported dock with approximately 160 feet of dock face that was constructed in the 1960's by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This dock has been used for the Alaska Marine Highway System, vessel moorage, and factory trawler offloads. However, use of this structure is severely limited due to the low load-carrying capacity of the dock. The bullrails, deck surface, and bollards have deteriorated with age and the entire structure is in need of replacement or extensive renovations.

    Dock Position IV is a steel-pile-supported, concrete deck structure with an approximate length of 200 feet that was constructed in the 1980s by the State of Alaska. Similar to Dock Position III, use of this dock is limited due to the low load capacity of the structure. Erosion has damaged an abutment underneath the dock, which is very difficult to repair and has the potential for further damage to adjacent portions of the dock.

    The dock face of Dock Positions III and IV does not align with the larger sections of the UMC facility, significantly limiting overall usable moorage space. The proposed project aligns the new dock structures with the adjacent facilities, eliminates two angle breaks, provides substantially more usable moorage, and provides much deeper water at the dock face. The sheet pile dock will encompass the area between Dock Position V and the adjacent USCG Dock, providing maximum use of the available berthing area and upland storage space. The new dock alignment will allow larger, deeper vessels as well as simultaneous use of the other UMC facilities.

    Dates and Duration

    In-water and over-water construction of Phase 1 (all sheet pile installation, all in-water pipe pile installation, most upland pipe pile installation, and fill placement) is planned to occur between approximately March 1, 2017 and November 1, 2017. Phase 2 is planned to occur between approximately May 1, 2018 and October 1, 2018. Some of the upland pipe pile for utilities may be driven in upland fill away from the dock face during Phase 2. The COU proposes to use the following general construction sequence, subject to adjustment by the construction contractor's means and methods:

    Construction Phase 1 (2017):

    • Mobilization of equipment and demolition of the existing dock Positions III and IV and removal of any existing riprap/obstructions (March-May 2017).

    • Development of the quarry for materials.

    • Installation (and later removal) of temporary support piles for contractor's template structures and barge support.

    • Installation of the new sheet pile bulkhead dock. This includes driving sheet piles, placing fill within the cell to grade, and compaction of fill

    • Installation of fender and platform support piles in the water adjacent to the dock and miscellaneous support piles within the completed sheet pile cells.

    • Installation of pre-assembled fender systems (energy absorbers, sleeve piles, steel framing, and fender panels).

    • Installation of the crane support piles

    • Installation of temporary utilities and gravel surface to provide functional dock capability for the 2017/2018 season.

    Construction Phase 2 (2018):

    • Installation of concrete grade beam for crane rails, utility vaults, and dock surfacing.

    • Installation of electrical, sewer, fuel, water, and storm drainage utilities.

    Pile removal and pile driving is expected to occur between March 1 and November 1, 2017. In the summer months (April-September), 12-hour workdays in extended daylight will likely be used. In winter months (October-March), shorter 8-hour to 10-hour workdays in available daylight will likely be achievable. Work windows may be extended or shortened if or when electrical lighting is used. The daily construction window for pile driving or removal will begin no sooner than 30 minutes after sunrise to allow for initial marine mammal monitoring to take place, and will end 30 minutes before sunset to allow for pre-activity monitoring. It is assumed that sound associated with the pile driving and removal activities will be put into the water approximately 50 percent of the total estimated project duration of 245 days (2,940 hours for 12-hour workdays). The remaining 50 percent of the project duration will be spent on activities that provide distinct periods without noise from pile driving or drilling such as installing templates and braces, moving equipment, threading sheet piles, pulling piles (without vibration), etc. During this time, a much smaller area will be monitored to ensure that animals are not injured by equipment or materials.

    Specific Geographic Region

    The UMC Dock is located in Dutch Harbor in the City of Unalaska, on Amaknak Island, Alaska (see Figure 5 of the application). Dutch Harbor is separated from the adjacent Iliuliuk Bay by a spit. The dock is located in Section 35, Township 72 South, Range 118 West, of the Seward Meridian. Tidelands in this vicinity are owned by the COU. Some of the adjacent uplands are owned by the COU and some are leased by the COU from Ounalashka Corporation. Adjacent infrastructure includes Ballyhoo Road and the Latitude 54 Building in which the COU Department of Ports and Harbors offices and facilities are currently housed. Neighboring docks include the USCG Dock and the existing UMC OCSP dock positions. Other marine facilities within Dutch Harbor include Delta Western Fuel, the Resolve-Magone Dock, North Pacific Fuel, the Kloosterboer Dock, and the COU's Light Cargo Dock and Spit Dock facilities, as shown in Figure 5 of the application. APL Limited is located within Iliuliuk Bay, and the entrance channel to Iliuliuk Harbor is south of Dutch Harbor.

    Detailed Description of Activities

    The COU proposes to install an OPEN CELL SHEET PILETM (OCSP) dock at UMC Dock Position III and IV, replacing the existing pile-supported structure and providing a smooth transition between the UMC facility and the USCG dock. The OCSP dock will be constructed of PS31 flat sheet piles (web thickness of 0.5 inches and width between interlocks of 19.69 inches). In order to replace the existing timber pile-supported dock, the dock construction would include installation of the following:

    • Approximately forty (40) 30-inch diameter steel fender and transition platform support piles;

    • Approximately thirty (30) 30-inch diameter miscellaneous steel support piles

    • Approximately one hundred fifty (150) 30-inch diameter steel crane rail support piles (approximately 25 of which are above the high tide line (HTL));

    • Approximately two hundred (150) 18-inch steel piles (H or round) used for temporary support of the sheet pile during construction (to be removed prior to completion);

    • Approximately 1,800 PS31 flat sheet piles (approximately 100 of which are above the high tide line (HTL)); and

    • Placement of approximately 110,000 cubic yards of clean fill.

    The anticipated project quantities are shown in Table 1.

    Concurrent with the dock construction, a material source will be developed in the hillside adjacent to Dock Position VII. The quarry will provide material for dock fill and other future projects, and the cleared area will be used for COU port offices and associated parking after the quarry is completed. The quarry will be developed through blasting benches in the rock face, with each bench being approximately 25 feet high, with the total height being approximately 125 feet. Quarry materials will be transported the short distance to the adjacent project site using heavy equipment.

    Table 1—Total Project Quantities Item Size and type, location Below mean high water
  • (MHW)
  • (El. = 3.4)
  • Below high tide line
  • (HTL)
  • (El. = 4.7)
  • Total
    Surface Area of Dock (Acres) 2.1 2.3 3.1 Surface Area of Water Filled (Acres) 2.1 2.8 2.8 Gravel Fill (Cubic Yards) Clean Fill; Within dock 74,000 80,000 110,000 Piles to be Removed (Each) Steel 195 195 195 Timber 55 55 55 Estimated Temporary Piles (Each) 18″ Steel Pile; Within dock 150 150 150 Steel Piles—Fender and Platform Support (Each) 30″ Steel; In front of bulkhead 40 40 40 Miscellaneous Support Piles (Each) 30″ Steel; Within dock 30 30 30 Crane Rail Support Piles (Each) 30″ Steel; Within dock 125 125 150 Proposed Sheet Piles (Each) PS31 Sheet Pile; Dock face 1,400 1,700 1,800

    The existing structure will be demolished by removing the concrete deck, steel superstructure, and attached appurtenances and structures and then extracting the existing steel support piles with a vibratory hammer. Sheet pile will also be installed with a vibratory hammer. Pile driving may occur from shore or from a stationary barge platform, depending on the Contractor's selected methods. After cells are completely enclosed, they will be incrementally filled with clean material using bulldozers and wheel loaders. Fill will be placed primarily from shore, but some may be placed from the barge if needed. Fill will be compacted using vibratory compaction methods, described below. After all the sheet piles are installed and the cells are filled and compacted, fender piles, crane rail piles, mooring cleats, concrete surfacing, and other appurtenances will be installed.

    As described, the project requires the removal and installation of various types and sizes of piles with the use of a vibratory hammer and impact hammer. These activities have the potential to result in Level B harassment (behavioral disruption) only, as a monitoring plan will be implemented to reduce the potential for exposure to Level A harassment (harassment resulting in injury). The rest of the in-water components of the project are provided here for completeness. Note that many of the support piles will be installed to an elevation below MHW or HTL; however, they will be installed within the enclosed fill of the sheet pile dock rather than in the water.

    Utilities will be installed during Phase II, and include addition/extension of water, sewer, fuel, electrical, and storm drain. Authorization to construct the sewer and storm drain extension, as well as a letter of non-objection for the storm drain, will be obtained from the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).

    Each element is further described below.

    Demolition of Existing Infrastructure

    Demolition of the existing dock and removal of any existing riprap or obstructions will be performed with track excavators, loaders, cranes, barges, cutting equipment, a vibratory hammer (for pile extraction), and labor forces. The existing dock (consisting of steel support piles, steel superstructure, and concrete deck) will be completely removed for construction of the new dock. Vibratory pile removal will generally consist of clamping the vibratory hammer to the pile and vibrating the hammer while extracting to a point where the pile is temporarily secured and removal can be completed with crane line rigging under tension. The pile is then completely removed from the water by hoisting with crane line rigging and placing on the ground or deck of the barge.

    The contractor will be required to dispose of (or salvage) demolished items in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations. Dewatering will not be required, as all extraction will take place from the existing dock, from shore, and/or from a work barge.

    Quarry Development

    Concurrent with dock construction, a material source will be developed in the hillside adjacent to the UMC facility. The quarry will provide fill material for the dock and future projects. Material will be extracted from the quarry in a configuration that provides additional upland space for port operations. Flat uplands area will be used for COU port offices after the quarry is completed. The quarry will be developed through blasting benches in the rock face, with each bench approximately 25 feet high and the total height approximately 125 feet.

    Temporary Support Piles

    Temporary support piles for pile driving template structures will be installed to aid with construction and will be removed after the permanent sheet piles or support piles have been installed. Figure 3 shows temporary support piles and templates being used during pile installation. Temporary support piles will likely be steel H-piles (18-inch or smaller) or steel round piles (18-inch diameter or smaller). It is estimated that up to ten (10) temporary support piles will be used per cell during construction of the sheet pile structure. Installation methods for the temporary support piles will be similar to the fender support piles (described below).

    Sheet Pile Installation

    The new sheet pile bulkhead dock consists of twenty-two (22) OCSP cells. The sheet pile structures will be installed utilizing a crane and vibratory hammer. It is anticipated that the largest size vibratory hammer used for the project will be an APE 200-6 (eccentric moment of 6,600 inch-pounds) or comparable vibratory hammer from another manufacturer such as ICE or HPSI. After all the piles for a sheet pile cell have been installed, clean rock fill will be placed within the cell. This process will continue sequentially until all of the sheet pile cells are installed and backfilled.

    Dock Fill Placement

    Fill will be transported from the adjacent quarry to the project site using loaders, dump trucks, and dozers and may be temporarily stockpiled within the project footprint as needed. It will be placed within the cells from the shore (or occasionally a barge) using the same equipment and will be finished using roller compactors, graders, or vibracompaction. Vibracompaction would be achieved through the repeated insertion and removal through vibratory hammering of an H-pile probe, causing fill materials to settle into place.

    Fender and Platform Support Piles

    Fender support piles will be installed adjacent to (and offshore of) the sheet pile cells and cut to elevation. The fender piles will first be driven with a vibratory hammer and, if capacity/embedment is not achieved, finally driven with an impact hammer until proper embedment and capacity is reached (likely 20-foot embedment). Pre-assembled fender systems (energy absorbers, sleeve piles, steel framing, and fender panels) will be lifted and installed onto fender support piles via crane.

    In addition to the fender supports, miscellaneous support piles needed to support the suspended concrete platform at the transitions between Position II/III and IV/V will be installed and cut to elevation. Installation methods for the miscellaneous support piles will be similar to the fender support piles. Approximately forty (40) 30-inch steel piles will be driven for the fenders and transition platform.

    Miscellaneous Support Piles

    Support piles for upland utilities and other structures will be driven after sheet pile cells are completed. Though the piles will be driven beyond the current MHW line, the cells will be filled and compacted at the time of placement, making this upland pile driving. Approximately thirty (30) steel support piles are needed for dock infrastructure.

    Crane Rail Support Piles

    Approximately one hundred fifty (150) steel support piles will be driven to support the weight of a new crane rail and dock crane. Pile driving will be performed primarily within the completely filled and compacted sheet pile cells. A few of the support piles may be driven in the water at the transition areas.

    Dock Surfacing and Other Concrete Elements

    The new dock uplands area will be surfaced with concrete pavement. The crane rail beam and utility vaults will be constructed from cast-in-place concrete. The surfacing and structures will be installed using forms and reinforcement steel. This work will take place at or near the surface of the dock and will be above water.

    Utilities

    Temporary utilities will be installed to provide functional dock capability for the 2017/2018 season. Typical utility installation equipment such as track excavators, wheel loaders, and compaction equipment will be used. Permanent electrical, water, and storm drainage utilities will be installed during Phase 2 to provide full dock capability. Installation methods will require equipment similar to that used to install the temporary utilities. All storm water (and any other wastewater) from the dock will be processed through the COU stormwater system and necessary separator devices.

    Details of all planned construction work, and photos of many of the construction techniques described above, can be found in Section 1 of the application.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Marine waters near Unalaska Island support many species of marine mammals, including pinnipeds and cetaceans; however, the number of species regularly occurring within Dutch Harbor, including near the project location is limited due to the high volume of vessel traffic in and around the harbor. Due to this, Steller sea lion, harbor seal, humpback whale, and killer whale are the only species within NMFS jurisdiction that are being included in the COA's IHA request. Sightings of other marine mammals within Dutch Harbor are extremely rare, and therefore, no further descriptions of the other marine mammals are included in the COA's application or in this notice of proposed authorization.

    We have reviewed COA's species descriptions—which summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, behavior and life history, and auditory capabilities of the potentially affected species—for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the application. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species accounts.

    Table 2 lists the marine mammal species with the potential for occurrence in the vicinity of the project during the project timeframe and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. Please see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; Muto et al., 2016), available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance.

    Table 2—Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of the Project Location Species Stock MMPA status ESA Status Occurrence in/near project Seasonality Abundance Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) Aleutian Islands Protected Common Year-round 5,772 Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Depleted, Strategic Endangered Common Year-round 49,497 Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Eastern North Pacific, Alaska Resident Protected Unknown Summer, Fall 2,347 Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient Protected Unknown Year- round 587 Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Central North Pacific Depleted, Strategic n/a* Seasonal Summer 10,103 Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Western North Pacific Depleted, Strategic n/a* Seasonal Summer 1,107 * The newly defined DPSs (81 FR 62259) do not currently align with the stocks under the MMPA. Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, the “Proposed Mitigation” section, and the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks. In the following discussion, we provide general background information on sound and marine mammal hearing before considering potential effects to marine mammals from sound produced by the construction techniques proposed for use.

    Description of Sound Sources

    Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate (decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal (μPa). One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 µPa and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 µPa.

    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse, and is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.

    When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.

    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction). A number of sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following (Richardson et al., 1995):

    Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band during heavy surf conditions.

    Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the water surface can become an important component of total noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times.

    Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz.

    Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate rapidly (Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from identifiable anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is sometimes termed background sound, as opposed to ambient sound.

    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.

    In-water construction activities associated with the project would include impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive (defined in the following). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.

    Impulsive sound sources (e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003; ANSI, 2005) and occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Impulsive sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.

    Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-impulsive sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-impulsive sounds include those produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, down-the-hole drilling, and active sonar systems. The duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant environment.

    Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).

    Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals, and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. The lower and/or upper frequencies for some of these functional hearing groups have been modified from those designated by Southall et al. (2007), and the revised generalized hearing ranges are presented in the new Guidance. The functional hearing groups and the associated frequencies are indicated in Table 3 below.

    Table 3—Marine Mammal Hearing Groups and Their Generalized Hearing Range Hearing group Generalized hearing range* Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) 7 Hz to 35 kHz. Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) 150 Hz to 160 kHz. High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger and L. australis) 275 Hz to 160 kHz. Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) 50 Hz to 86 kHz. Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) 60 Hz to 39 kHz. * Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). Acoustic Effects, Underwater

    Potential Effects of Pile Driving Sound—The effects of sounds from pile driving might result in one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). The effects of pile driving on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including the size, type, and depth of the animal; the depth, intensity, and duration of the pile driving sound; the depth of the water column; the substrate of the habitat; the standoff distance between the pile and the animal; and the sound propagation properties of the environment. Impacts to marine mammals from pile driving activities are expected to result primarily from acoustic pathways. As such, the degree of effect is intrinsically related to the received level and duration of the sound exposure, which are in turn influenced by the distance between the animal and the source. The further away from the source, the less intense the exposure should be. The substrate and depth of the habitat affect the sound propagation properties of the environment. Shallow environments are typically more structurally complex, which leads to rapid sound attenuation. In addition, substrates that are soft (e.g., sand) would absorb or attenuate the sound more readily than hard substrates (e.g., rock) which may reflect the acoustic wave. Soft porous substrates would also likely require less time to drive the pile, and possibly less forceful equipment, which would ultimately decrease the intensity of the acoustic source.

    In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species would be expected to result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada et al., 2008). The type and severity of behavioral impacts are more difficult to define due to limited studies addressing the behavioral effects of impulsive sounds on marine mammals. Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973).

    Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects—Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005). TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). Marine mammals depend on acoustic cues for vital biological functions (e.g., orientation, communication, finding prey, avoiding predators); thus, TTS may result in reduced fitness in survival and reproduction. However, this depends on the frequency and duration of TTS, as well as the biological context in which it occurs. TTS of limited duration, occurring in a frequency range that does not coincide with that used for recognition of important acoustic cues, would have little to no effect on an animal's fitness. Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. PTS constitutes injury, but TTS does not (Southall et al., 2007). The following subsections discuss in somewhat more detail the possibilities of TTS, PTS, and non-auditory physical effects.

    Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. In terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound. Available data on TTS in marine mammals are summarized in Southall et al. (2007) and more recently in Finneran (2016).

    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts.

    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant seal, harbor seal, and California sea lion) exposed to a limited number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (e.g., Finneran, 2016; Finneran et al., 2002; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010, 2013; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Kastaket et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2016). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species. There are no data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), and Finneran (2016).

    Permanent Threshold Shift—When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be total or partial deafness, while in other cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter 1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal. However, given the possibility that mammals close to a sound source might incur TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals might incur PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit PTS.

    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958; Ward et al., 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008). Southall et al., (2007) also recommended this definition of PTS onset.

    PTS onset acoustic thresholds for marine mammals have not been directly measured and must be extrapolated from available TTS onset measurements. Thus, based on cetacean measurements from TTS studies (see Southall et al., 2007; Finneran, 2015; Finneran, 2016 (found in Appendix A of the Guidance)) a threshold shift of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability and is typically the minimum amount of threshold shift that can be differentiated in most experimental conditions (Finneran et al., 2000; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002).

    Measured source levels from impact pile driving can be as high as 214 dB rms. Although no marine mammals have been shown to experience TTS or PTS as a result of being exposed to pile driving activities, captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002, 2005). The animals tolerated high received levels of sound before exhibiting aversive behaviors. Experiments on a beluga whale showed that exposure to a single watergun impulse at a received level of 207 kilopascal (kPa) (30 psi) peak-to-peak (p-p), which is equivalent to 228 dB p-p, resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within four minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al., 2002). Although the source level of pile driving from one hammer strike is expected to be much lower than the single watergun impulse cited here, animals being exposed for a prolonged period to repeated hammer strikes could receive more sound exposure in terms of sound exposure level (SEL) than from the single watergun impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1 μPa2-s) in the aforementioned experiment (Finneran et al., 2002). However, in order for marine mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the animals have to be close enough to be exposed to high intensity sound levels for a prolonged period of time. Based on the best scientific information available, these SPLs are below the thresholds that could cause TTS or the onset of PTS.

    Non-auditory Physiological Effects—Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). Studies examining such effects are limited. In general, little is known about the potential for pile driving to cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances from the sound source and to activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be affected in those ways. Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of pile driving, including some odontocetes and some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment or non-auditory physical effects.

    Disturbance Reactions

    Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g., Richardson et al.,1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al.,2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that habituation is appropriately considered as a “progressive reduction in response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor beneficial,” rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. Behavioral state may affect the type of response as well. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources (typically seismic guns or acoustic harassment devices, but also including pile driving) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; Thorson and Reyff, 2006; see also Gordon et al., 2004; Wartzok et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007). Responses to continuous sound, such as vibratory pile installation, have not been documented as well as responses to pulsed sounds.

    With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson et al., 1995): changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing (cetaceans only), or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas where sound sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haul-outs or rookeries). Pinnipeds may increase the amount of time spent hauled out, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Since pile driving would likely only occur for a few hours a day, over a short period of time, it is unlikely to result in permanent displacement. Any potential impacts from pile driving activities could be experienced by individual marine mammals, but would not be likely to cause population level impacts, or affect the long-term fitness of the species.

    The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction include:

    • Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);

    • Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and

    • Cessation of feeding or social interaction.

    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007).

    Auditory Masking

    Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking, or interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to hear other sounds. Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher levels. Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, sound could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions. Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. If the coincident (masking) sound were man-made, it could be potentially harassing if it disrupted hearing-related behavior. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.

    The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated from in-water pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey sound. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the sound band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009).

    Masking has the potential to impact species at the population or community levels as well as at individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent research suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and that most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, such as those from vessel traffic, pile driving, and dredging activities, contribute to the elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.

    The most intense underwater sounds in the proposed action are those produced by impact pile driving. Given that the energy distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, sound from these sources would likely be within the audible range of marine mammals present in the project area. Impact pile driving activity is relatively short-term, with rapid pulses occurring for approximately fifteen minutes per pile. The probability for impact pile driving resulting from the proposed action to mask acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species is likely to be negligible. Vibratory pile driving is also relatively short-term, with rapid oscillations occurring for approximately one and a half hours per pile. It is possible that vibratory pile driving resulting from the proposed action may mask acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species, but the short-term duration and limited affected area would result in insignificant impacts from masking. Any masking event that could possibly rise to Level B harassment under the MMPA would occur concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment already estimated for vibratory and impact pile driving, and which have already been taken into account in the exposure analysis.

    Acoustic Effects, Airborne

    Marine mammals that occur in the project area could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving and blasting activities at the quarry that have the potential to cause harassment, depending on their distance from these activities. Airborne sound could potentially affect pinnipeds that are either hauled out or are in the water but have their heads above water in the project area. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon their habitat and move further from the source. Studies by Blackwell et al. (2004) and Moulton et al. (2005) indicate a tolerance or lack of response to unweighted airborne sounds as high as 112 dB peak and 96 dB rms.

    Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    The proposed activities at Dutch Harbor would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haul-out sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish and salmonids. There are no rookeries or haulout sites within the modeled zone of influence for impact or vibratory pile driving associated with the project, or ocean bottom structure of significant biological importance to marine mammals that may be present in the waters in the vicinity of the project area. The project location receives heavy use by vessel moorage and factory trawler offloads, and experiences frequent vessel traffic because of these activities, thus the area is already relatively industrialized and not a pristine habitat for marine mammals. As such, the main impact associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed previously in this document. The most likely impact to marine mammal habitat occurs from pile driving effects on likely marine mammal prey (i.e., fish) near the project location, and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during installation and removal of piles during the dock construction project.

    Effects on Potential Prey

    Construction activities would produce both impulsive (i.e., impact pile driving and quarry blasting) and non-impulsive continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving) sounds. Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009) and are therefore not directly comparable with the proposed project. Sound pulses at received levels of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species from the proposed project are expected to be minor and temporary due to the relatively short timeframe of the proposed project, and the fact that Dutch Harbor is not considered an important habitat for salmonids. The nearby Iliuliuk River supports salmon runs for at least four species of salmonids, however the harbor itself does not provide significant habitat for salmonids, and the proposed project is located far enough away from the lower Iliuliuk River that the potential that fish entering or leaving the river will be impacted is considered discountable. The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated.

    Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat

    The area likely impacted by the project is very small relative to the available habitat in Unalaska Bay. Avoidance by potential prey (i.e., fish) of the immediate area due to the temporary loss of this foraging habitat is possible. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in Unalaska Bay and the nearby vicinity.

    In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with individual pile driving events and the relatively small area that would be affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

    Proposed Mitigations

    In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.

    The COU's calculation of the Level A harassment zones utilized the methods presented in Appendix D of NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (the Guidance, available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm), and the accompanying User Spreadsheet.1 The Guidance provides updated PTS onset thresholds using the cumulative SEL (SELcum) metric, which incorporates marine mammal auditory weighting functions, to identify the received levels, or acoustic thresholds, at which individual marine mammals are predicted to experience changes in their hearing sensitivity for acute, incidental exposure to all underwater anthropogenic sound sources. The Guidance (Appendix D) and its companion User Spreadsheet provide alternative methodology for incorporating these more complex thresholds and associated weighting functions.

    1 For most recent version of the NMFS User Spreadsheet, see: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm

    The User Spreadsheet accounts for effective hearing ranges using Weighting Factor Adjustments (WFAs), and the COU's application uses the recommended values for vibratory and impact driving therein. Pile driving durations were estimated based on similar project experience. NMFS' new acoustic thresholds use dual metrics of SELcum and peak sound level (PK) for impulsive sounds (e.g., impact pile driving) and SELcum for non-impulsive sounds (e.g., vibratory pile driving) (Table 4). The COU used source level measurements from similar pile driving events (as described in “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment”), and using the User Spreadsheet, applied the updated PTS onset thresholds for impulsive PK and SELcum in the new acoustic guidance to determine distance to the isopleths for PTS onset for impact pile driving. For vibratory pile driving, the COU used the User Spreadsheet to determine isopleth estimates for PTS onset using the cumulative sound exposure level metric (LE) (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm). In determining the cumulative sound exposure levels, the Guidance considers the duration of the activity, the sound exposure level produced by the source during one working day, and the effective hearing range of the receiving species. In the case of the duel metric acoustic thresholds (Lpk and LE) for impulsive sound, the larger of the two isopleths for calculating PTS onset is used. These values were then used to develop mitigation measures for proposed pile driving activities. The exclusion zone effectively represents the mitigation zone that would be established around each pile to prevent Level A harassment (PTS onset) to marine mammals (Table 5), while the zones of influence (ZOI) provide estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur for impact/vibratory pile driving and quarry blasting (Table 6).

    Table 4—Summary of PTS Onset Acoustic Thresholds Hearing group PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
  • (Received Level)
  • Impulsive Non-impulsive
    Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans Cell 1
  • Lpk,flat: 219 dB
  • LE,LF,24h: 183 dB
  • Cell 2.
  • LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
  • Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans Cell 3
  • Lpk,flat: 230 dB
  • LE,MF,24h: 185 dB
  • Cell 4.
  • LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
  • High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans Cell 5
  • Lpk,flat: 202 dB
  • LE,HF,24h: 155 dB
  • Cell 6.
  • LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
  • Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) Cell 7
  • Lpk,flat: 218 dB
  • LE,PW,24h: 185 dB
  • Cell 8.
  • LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
  • Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) Cell 9
  • Lpk,flat: 232 dB
  • LE,OW,24h: 203 dB
  • Cell 10.
  • LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
  • * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered. Note: Peak sound pressure (L pk) has a reference value of 1 µPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (L E) has a reference value of 1µPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript “flat” is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
    Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile Driving

    The following measures would apply to the COU's mitigation through the exclusion zone and zone of influence:

    Exclusion Zone—For all pile driving activities, the COU will establish an exclusion zone intended to contain the area in which Level A harassment thresholds are exceeded. The purpose of the exclusion zone is to define an area within which shutdown of construction activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal within that area (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus preventing potential injury of marine mammals. Calculated distances to the updated PTS onset acoustic thresholds are shown in Table 5. The greatest calculated distance to the Level A harassment threshold during impact pile driving, assuming a maximum of 5 piles driven per day, is 184.5 m for low-frequency cetaceans (humpback whale). For mid-frequency cetaceans (killer whale), phocid pinnipeds (harbor seal), and otariid pinnipeds (Steller sea lion), the distances are 6.6 m, 98.6 m, and 7.2 m, respectively (Table 5). Calculated distances to the PTS onset threshold during vibratory pile driving range from a maximum of 9.2 m for low-frequency cetaceans to 0.20 m for otariids—depending on the specific type of piles/sheets that are installed or removed (Table 5).

    Table 5—Pile Driving Activities and Calculated Distances to Level A Harassment Isopleths [Onset PTS threshold using NMFS' new acoustic guidance] Source Estimated duration Number of piles Piles driven per day Hours
  • per day
  • Days of
  • effort
  • Level A harassment zone (m)
  • (new guidance)
  • LF cetaceans MF cetaceans PW pinnipeds OW pinnipeds
    Vibratory Installation Sheet 1,400 15 0.5 95 4.1 0.4 2.5 0.2 Vibratory Installation 18″ 150 10 1.25 15 5.0 0.4 3.0 0.2 Vibratory Installation 30″ 40 5 1 8 5.0 0.4 3.1 0.2 Vibratory Installation 30″ 30 5 1 6 5.0 0.4 3.1 0.2 Vibratory Installation 30″ 125 5 2 25 8.0 0.7 4.8 0.3 Vibratory Removal Steel 18″ 195 10 1.25 35 5.0 0.4 3.0 0.2 Vibratory Removal Steel 18″ 150 10 1.25 35 5.0 0.4 3.0 0.2 Vibratory Removal Timber 55 10 1.25 5.5 9.2 0.8 5.6 0.4
    Number of piles Piles driven per day Strikes per pile Days of
  • effort
  • LF cetaceans MF cetaceans PW pinnipeds OW pinnipeds
    Impact Installation 30” (SEL Calc)* 195 5 200 39 184.5 6.6 98.8 7.2 4 159.0 5.7 85.1 6.2 3 131.3 4.7 70.3 5.1 2 100.2 3.6 53.6 3.9 1 63.1 2.2 33.8 2.5 * Distances to the Level A harassment (PTS onset) isopleth are based on the cumulative sound exposure level (LE) acoustic threshold; the modeled distances to the PTS onset isopleth were smaller using the Lpk metric (see Table 8 in the application), and therefore, not used to establish shutdown zones.

    The established shutdown zones corresponding to the Level A harassment zones for each activity are as follows:

    • For all vibratory pile driving activities, a 10-m radius shutdown zone will be employed for all species observed

    • During impact pile driving, a shutdown zone will be determined by the number of piles to be driven that day as follows: If the maximum of five piles are to be driven that day, shutdown during the first driven pile will occur if a marine mammal enters the `5-pile' radius. After the first pile is driven, if no marine mammals have been observed within the `5-pile'radius, the `4-pile' radius will become the shutdown radius. This pattern will continue unless an animal is observed within the most recent shutdown radius, at which time that shutdown radius will remain in effect for the rest of the workday. Shutdown radii for each species, depending on number of piles driven, are as follows:

    ○ 5-pile radius: humpback whale, 185 m; killer whale, 10 m; harbor seal, 100 m; Steller sea lion, 10 m ○ 4-pile radius: humpback whale, 160 m; killer whale, 10 m; harbor seal, 85 m; Steller sea lion, 10 m ○ 3-pile radius: humpback whale, 135 m; killer whale, 10 m; harbor seal, 70 m; Steller sea lion, 10 m ○ 2-pile radius: humpback whale, 100 m; killer whale, 10 m; harbor seal, 55 m; Steller sea lion, 10 m ○ 1-pile radius: humpback whale, 65 m; killer whale, 10 m; harbor seal, 35 m; Steller sea lion, 10 m

    A shutdown will occur prior to a marine mammal entering a shutdown zone appropriate for that species and the concurrent work activity. Activity will cease until the observer is confident that the animal is clear of the shutdown zone: The animal will be considered clear if:

    • It has been observed leaving the shutdown zone; or

    • It has not been seen in the shutdown zone for 30 minutes for cetaceans and 15 minutes for pinnipeds.

    If shutdown lasts for more than 30 minutes, pre-activity monitoring (see below) must recommence.

    If the exclusion zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving will not be initiated until the exclusion zone is clearly visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity would be halted.

    Level B Harassment Zone (Zone of Influence)—The zone of influence (ZOI) refers to the area(s) in which SPLs equal or exceed NMFS' current Level B harassment thresholds (160 and 120 dB rms for pulsed and non-pulsed continuous sound, respectively). ZOIs provide utility for monitoring that is conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., exclusion zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the exclusion zone. Monitoring of the ZOI enables observers to be aware of, and communicate about, the presence of marine mammals within the project area but outside the exclusion zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity should those marine mammals approach the exclusion zone. However, the primary purpose of ZOI monitoring is to allow documentation of incidents of Level B harassment; ZOI monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”). The modeled radial distances for ZOIs for impact and vibratory pile driving and removal (not taking into account landmasses which are expected to limit the actual ZOI radii) are shown in Table 7.

    In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors will record all marine mammals observed within the ZOI. Modeling was performed to estimate the ZOI for impact pile driving (the areas in which SPLs are expected to equal or exceed 160 dB rms during impact driving) and for vibratory pile driving (the areas in which SPLs are expected to equal or exceed 120 dB rms during vibratory driving and removal). Results of this modeling showed the ZOI for impact driving would extend to a radius of 462 m from the pile being driven and the ZOI for vibratory pile driving would extend to a maximum radius of 5,168 m from the pile being driven (see Section 5 of the application for the radius of each type of vibratory pile installation and removal). However, due to the geography of the project area, landmasses surround Dutch Harbor and Iliuliuk Bay are expected to limit the propagation of sound from construction activities such that the actual distances to the ZOI extent for vibratory pile driving will be substantially smaller than those described above. Modeling results of the ensonified areas, taking into account the attenuation provided by landmasses, suggest the actual ZOI will extend to a maximum distance of 3,300 m for vibratory driving. Due to this adjusted ZOI, and due to the monitoring locations chosen by the COU (see the Monitoring Plan in Appendix E of the application for details), we expect that monitors will be able to observe the entire modeled ZOI for both impact and vibratory pile driving, and thus we expect data collected on incidents of Level B harassment to be relatively accurate. The modeled areas of the ZOIs for impact and vibratory driving, taking into account the attenuation provided by landmasses in attenuating sound from the construction project, are shown in Appendix B of the application. The actual Level B harassment/monitoring zones for impact pile driving (500 m) and vibratory pile driving (3,300 m) are shown in Table 7.

    Marine Mammal Monitoring

    Qualified observers will be on site before, during, and after all pile-driving activities. The proposed Level A and Level B harassment zones for underwater noise will be monitored before, during, and after all in-water construction activity. The observers will be authorized to shut down activity if pinnipeds or cetaceans are observed approaching or within the shutdown zone of any construction activities.

    Observers will follow observer protocols, meet training requirements, fill out data forms and report findings in accordance with protocols reviewed and approved by NMFS. A detailed Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan is found in Appendix E of the application.

    If marine mammals are observed approaching or within the shutdown zone, shutdown procedures will be implemented to prevent unauthorized exposure. If marine mammals are observed within the monitoring zone (ZOI), the sighting will be documented as a potential Level B take and the animal behaviors shall be documented. If the number of marine mammals exposed to Level B harassment approaches the number of takes allowed by the IHA, the COU will notify NMFS and seek further consultation. If any marine mammal species are encountered that are not authorized by the IHA and are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels greater than or equal to the Level B harassment thresholds, then the COU will shut down in-water activity to avoid take of those species.

    Pre-Activity Monitoring

    Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, the observer will observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start (described below) cannot proceed until the marine mammal has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes (for pinnipeds) and 30 minutes (for cetaceans). If the Level B harassment zone has been observed for 30 minutes and non-permitted species are not present within the zone, soft start procedures can commence and work can continue even if visibility becomes impaired within the Level B zone. If the Level B zone is not visible while work continues, exposures will be recorded at the estimated exposure rate for each permitted species. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both zones must recommence

    Soft Start

    The use of a “soft-start” procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing a warning and an opportunity to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. Soft start procedures will be used prior to pile removal, pile installation, and in-water fill placement to allow marine mammals to leave the area prior to exposure to maximum noise levels. For vibratory hammers, the soft start technique will initiate noise from the hammer for short periods at a reduced energy level, followed by a brief waiting period and repeating the procedure two additional times. For impact hammers, the soft start technique will initiate several strikes at a reduced energy level, followed by a brief waiting period. This procedure would also be repeated two additional times. Equipment used for fill placement will be idled near the waterside edge of the fill area for 15 minutes prior to performing in-water fill placement

    In-Water or Over-Water Construction Activities

    During in-water or over-water construction activities having the potential to affect marine mammals, but not involving a pile driver, a shutdown zone of 10 m will be monitored to ensure that marine mammals are not endangered by physical interaction with construction equipment. These activities could include, but are not limited to, the positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane (“stabbing” the pile) or the removal of the pile from the water column/substrate via a crane (“deadpull”), or the slinging of construction materials via crane.

    Vessel Interactions

    To minimize impacts from vessels interactions with marine mammals, the crews aboard project vessels will follow NMFS's marine mammal viewing guidelines and regulations as practicable. (https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm).

    Mitigation Conclusions

    We have carefully evaluated the COU's proposed mitigation measures and considered their likely effectiveness relative to implementation of similar mitigation measures in previously issued IHAs to preliminarily determine whether they are likely to affect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

    (2) The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

    (3) The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

    Based on our evaluation of the COU's proposed measures, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of affecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat.

    Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.

    Monitoring

    Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

    1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within defined zones of effect (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;

    2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to stimuli that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment or hearing threshold shifts;

    3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in incidental take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals may impact the population, stock, or species (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:

    • Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict pertinent information, e.g., received level, distance from source);

    • Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict pertinent information, e.g., received level, distance from source); and

    • Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli.

    4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; or

    5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

    The COU submitted a Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan as part of their IHA application (Appendix E of the application; also available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/). The COU's proposed Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan was created with input from NMFS and was based on similar plans that have been successfully implemented by other action proponents under previous IHAs for pile driving projects. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.

    Visual Marine Mammal Observations

    The COU will collect sighting data and will record behavioral responses to construction activities for marine mammal species observed in the project location during the period of activity. All marine mammal observers (MMOs) will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The COU will monitor the exclusion zone (shutdown zone) and Level B harassment zone before, during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best practicable vantage points (See Figure 3 in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan for the observer locations planned for use during construction). Based on our requirements, the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan would implement the following procedures for pile driving:

    • During observation periods, observers will continuously scan the area for marine mammals using binoculars and the naked eye. Observers will work shifts of a maximum of four consecutive hours followed by an observer rotation or a 1-hour break and will work no more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period.

    • Observers will collect data including, but not limited to, environmental conditions (e.g., sea state, precipitation, glare, etc.), marine mammal sightings (e.g., species, numbers, location, behavior, responses to construction activity, etc.), construction activity at the time of sighting, and number of marine mammal exposures. Observers will conduct observations, meet training requirements, fill out data forms, and report findings in accordance with this IHA

    • During all observation periods, observers will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.

    • If the exclusion zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving will not be initiated until the exclusion zone is clearly visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity would be halted.

    • Observers will implement mitigation measures including monitoring of the proposed shutdown and monitoring zones, clearing of the zones, and shutdown procedures.

    • Observers will be in continuous contact with the construction personnel via two-way radio. A cellular phone will be use as back-up communications and for safety purposes.

    • Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its effectiveness using an adaptive approach. MMOs will use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the COU.

    Data Collection

    We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the COU will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile being driven, a description of specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the COU will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take, when possible. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on sighting forms:

    • Date and time that permitted construction activity begins or ends;

    • Weather parameters (e.g. percent cloud cover, percent glare, visibility) and Beaufort sea state.

    • Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of observed marine mammals;

    • Construction activities occurring during each sighting;

    • Marine mammal behavior patterns observed, including bearing and direction of travel;

    • Specific focus should be paid to behavioral reactions just prior to, or during, soft-start and shutdown procedures;

    • Location of marine mammal, distance from observer to the marine mammal, and distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals;

    • Record of whether an observation required the implementation of mitigation measures, including shutdown procedures and the duration of each shutdown; and

    • Other human activity in the area. Record the hull numbers of fishing vessels if possible.

    Sound Source and Attenuation Verification

    The companion User Spreadsheet provided with NMFS' new acoustic guidance uses multiple conservative assumption which may result in unrealistically large isopleths associated with PTS onset. The COU may elect to verify the values used for source levels and sound attenuation in the various exclusion radii calculations. This would be achieved using the techniques and equipment for sound source verification discussed in Appendix A of the application. Sound levels would be measured at the earliest possibility during impact pile driving at 10, 100, 300, and 500 m from the sound source. These values would be plotted and a logarithmic line of best fit used to model the attenuation rates experienced at the construction site. If these values are higher than the typically-used value of 15, the exclusion radii will be revised according to the methods used to calculate the current values. The COU must obtain approval from NMFS of any new exclusion zone before it may be implemented.

    The COU may elect not to exercise this option, if the cost of shutdown during impact pile driving is not anticipated to warrant additional research.

    Reporting Annual Report

    A draft report will be submitted within 90 calendar days of the completion of the activity, The report will include information on marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days, and will provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of any mitigation shutdowns and results of those actions, as well as an estimate of total take based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments from NMFS on the draft report. The report shall include at a minimum:

    • General data:

    ○ Date and time of activity.

    ○ Water conditions (e.g., sea-state).

    ○ Weather conditions (e.g., percent cover, percent glare, visibility).

    • Specific pile driving data:

    ○ Description of the pile driving activity being conducted (pile locations, pile size and type), and times (onset and completion) when pile driving occurs.

    ○ The construction contractor and/or marine mammal monitoring staff will coordinate to ensure that pile driving times and strike counts are accurately recorded. The duration of soft start procedures should be noted as separate from the full power driving duration.

    ○ Description of in-water construction activity not involving pile driving (location, type of activity, onset and completion times)

    • Pre-activity observational survey-specific data:

    ○ Date and time survey is initiated and terminated

    ○ Description of any observable marine mammals and their behavior in the immediate area during monitoring

    ○ Times when pile driving or other in-water construction is delayed due to presence of marine mammals within shutdown zones.

    • During-activity observational survey-specific data:

    ○ Description of any observable marine mammal behavior within monitoring zones or in the immediate area surrounding the monitoring zones, including the following:

    Distance from animal to pile driving sound source.

    Reason why/why not shutdown implemented.

    If a shutdown was implemented, behavioral reactions noted and if they occurred before or after implementation of the shutdown.

    If a shutdown was implemented, the distance from animal to sound source at the time of the shutdown.

    Behavioral reactions noted during soft starts and if they occurred before or after implementation of the soft start.

    Distance to the animal from the sound source during soft start.

    • Post-activity observational survey-specific data:

    ○ Results, which include the detections and behavioral reactions of marine mammals, the species and numbers observed, sighting rates and distances,

    ○ Refined exposure estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed. This may be reported as a rate of take (number of marine mammals per hour or per day), or using some other appropriate metric.

    General Notifications

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not authorized by the IHA (if issued), such as a Level A harassment, or a take of a marine mammal species other than those proposed for authorization, the COU would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to Jolie Harrison ([email protected]), Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and Aleria Jensen ([email protected]), Alaska Stranding Coordinator.

    The report would include the following information:

    • Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

    • Description of the incident;

    • Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

    • Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    • Fate of the animal(s); and

    • Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with the COU to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The COU would not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

    In the event that the COU discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), the COU would immediately report the incident to Jolie Harrison ([email protected]), Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and Aleria Jensen ([email protected]), Alaska Stranding Coordinator.

    The report would include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Construction related activities would be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with the COU to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

    In the event that the COU discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), the COU would report the incident to Jolie Harrison ([email protected]), Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and Aleria Jensen ([email protected]), Alaska Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. The COU would provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. The COU can continue its operations under such a case.

    Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).”

    All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, resulting from vibratory and impact pile driving and involving temporary changes in behavior. Based on the best available information, the proposed activities—vibratory and impact pile driving—would not result in serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals even in the absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures. Additionally, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the potential for injury, such that take by Level A harassment is considered discountable.

    If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound.

    This practice potentially overestimates the numbers of marine mammals taken, as it is often difficult to distinguish between the individual animals harassed and incidences of harassment. In particular, for stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., because of foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence presented by the harassing activity.

    The COU has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of Steller sea lions, harbor seals, humpback whales, and killer whales that may result from pile driving activities associated with the UMC dock construction project described previously in this document. In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then incorporate information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidences of take.

    Sound Thresholds

    We use sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a “take” by harassment might occur. As discussed above, NMFS has recently revised PTS (and temporary threshold shift) onset acoustic thresholds for impulsive and non-impulsive sound as part of its new acoustic guidance (refer to Table 4 for those thresholds). The Guidance does not address Level B harassment, nor airborne noise harassment; therefore, COA uses the current NMFS acoustic exposure criteria to determine exposure to airborne and underwater noise sound pressure levels for Level B harassment (Table 6).

    Table 6—Current NMFS Acoustic Exposure Criteria for Level B Harassment Criterion Definition Threshold Level B harassment (underwater) Behavioral disruption 160 dB re: 1 μPa (impulsive source*)/120 dB re: 1 μPa (continuous source*) (rms). Level B harassment (airborne) ** Behavioral disruption 90 dB re: 20 μPa (harbor seals)/100 dB re: 20 μPa (other pinnipeds) (unweighted). * Impact pile driving produces impulsive noise; vibratory pile driving produces non-pulsed (continuous) noise. ** NMFS has not established any formal criteria for harassment resulting from exposure to airborne sound. However, these thresholds represent the best available information regarding the effects of pinniped exposure to such sound and NMFS' practice is to associate exposure at these levels with Level B harassment. Distance to Sound Thresholds

    Underwater Sound Propagation Formula—Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

    TL = B * log10(R1/R2), where: R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement

    This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log(range)). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log(range)). A practical spreading value of fifteen is often used under conditions, such as Dutch Harbor, where water depth increases as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance) is assumed here.

    Underwater Sound—During the installation of piles, the project has the potential to increase underwater noise levels. This could result in disturbance to pinnipeds and cetaceans that occur within the Level B harassment zone. The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical environment in which the activity occurs. A large quantity of literature regarding SPLs recorded from pile driving projects is available for consideration. In order to determine reasonable SPLs and their associated effects on marine mammals that are likely to result from pile driving at the UMC dock, studies with similar properties to the specified activity were evaluated. See Section 5 of the COU's application for a detailed description of the information considered in determining reasonable proxy source level values.

    According to studies by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the installation of steel sheet piles using a vibratory hammer can result in underwater noise levels reaching a source level of 163 dB RMS or 162 dBSEL at 10 m (Caltrans, 2015). PND Engineers, Inc. performed acoustic measurements during vibratory installation of steel sheet pile at a similar construction project in Unalaska, Alaska, and found average SPLs of 160.7 dBRMS (Unisea, 2015). This lower value was used to calculate the harassment radii for vibratory installation sheet pile and is discussed further in Appendix A of the application.

    Underwater noise levels during the vibratory removal and installation of 18-inch steel pile can reach a source level of 158 dB RMS or 158 dBSEL at 10 m (Caltrans, 2015). Because there was little information on the underwater noise levels of the removal of timber piles, the levels used for analysis (162 dB RMS at 10 m) were taken from the installation of timber piles (Caltrans, 2015). Underwater noise levels during the impact pile driving of a 30-inch steel pile can reach a source level of 185 dB RMS (172 dBSEL, 196 dBpk) at 10 m, whereas the underwater noise from the vibratory driving of 30-inch steel pile can result in a source level of 159 dB RMS (159 dBSEL) at 10 m (Caltrans, 2015).

    Dutch Harbor does not represent open water, or free field, conditions. Therefore, sounds would attenuate as they encounter land masses. As a result, and as described above, pile driving noise in the project area is not expected to propagate to the calculated distances for the 120 dB thresholds as shown in Table 7. See Appendix B of the application for figures depicting the actual extents of areas in which each underwater sound threshold is predicted to occur at the project area due to pile driving, taking into account the attenuation provided by landmasses.

    Table 7—Modeled Distances to the NMFS Level B Harassment Thresholds (Isopleths) and Actual Monitoring Zones During Pile Installation and Removal Threshold Distance
  • (meters) *
  • Monitoring zone
    Impact driving, disturbance (160 dB) 464 500 Vibratory removal, disturbance (120 dB) ** 5,168 3,300 * Distances shown are modeled maximum distances and do not account for landmasses which are expected to reduce the actual distances to sound thresholds. ** This is the maximum distance modeled. See Section 5 of the application for the modeled distances for each pile driving activity type.

    Airborne Sound—During the installation of piles and blasting activities at the quarry, the project has the potential to increase airborne noise levels. This could result in disturbance to pinnipeds at the surface of the water or hauled out along the shoreline of Iliuliuk Bay or the Dutch Harbor spit; however, we do not expect animals to haul out frequently within Dutch Harbor or the spit due to the amount of activity within the area. A spherical spreading loss model (i.e., 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source), in which there is a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, is appropriate for use with airborne sound and was used to estimate the distance to the airborne thresholds.

    The formula for calculating spherical spreading loss in airborne noise is:

    TL = GL × log(R1/R2) where: TL = Transmission loss (dB) GL = Geometric Loss Coefficient (20 for spherical spreading in airborne noise) R1 = Range of the sound pressure level (m) R2 = Distance from the source of the initial measurement (m)

    Noise levels used to calculate airborne harassment radii come from Laughlin (2010) and Laughlin (2013) and are summarized in Table 9 of the application. Data for vibratory driving from Laughlin (2010) is presented in dBL5EQ, or the 5-minute average continuous sound level. In this case dBRMS values would be calculated in a similar fashion, so these dBL5EQ were considered equivalent to the standard dBRMS. Impact pile driving noise levels were taken from a recent Washington State Department of Transportation IHA application which used data collected by Laughlin (2013). A report was not available for this data, but it is assumed to be provided in dBRMS. Only A-weighted airborne noise levels were available for quarry plasting (Giroux, 2009), so a conservative maximum level was selected, dBALMAX.

    Based on the spherical spreading loss equation, the calculated airborne Level B harassment zones would extend out to the following distances:

    • For the vibratory installation of 18-inch steel piles, the calculated airborne Level B harassment zone for harbor seals is 11.4 m; for Steller sea lions, the distance is 3.6 m;

    • For the vibratory installation of 30-inch steel piles, the calculated airborne Level B harassment zone for harbor seals is 31.9 meters; for Steller sea lions, the distance is 10.1 m;

    • For the impact installation of 24-inch steel piles, the calculated airborne Level B harassment zone for harbor seals is 152.4 m; for Steller sea lions, the distance is 48.2 m; and

    • For quarry blasting, the calculated Level B harassment zone for harbor seals extends to 38.5 m and 12.2 m for Steller sea lions.

    Vibratory installation of sheet piles is assumed to create lower noise levels than installation of 30-inch round piles, so these values will be used for sheet pile driving. Similarly, vibratory removal of steel or wooden piles will observe the same harassment radii. For the purposes of this analysis, impact installation of 30-inch steel piles is assumed to generate similar sound levels to the installation of 24-inch piles, as no unweighted data was available for the 30-inch piles.

    Since the in-water area encompassed within the above areas is located entirely within the underwater Level B harassment zone, the pinnipeds that come within these areas will already be recorded as a take based on Level B harassment threshold for underwater noise, which are in all cases larger than those associated with airborne sound. Further, it is not anticipated that any pinnipeds will haul out within the airborne harassment zone. Airborne noise thresholds have not been established for cetaceans (NOAA, 2015b), and no adverse impacts are anticipated.

    Distance from the quarry bottom to the shoreline is an average of 70-80 m, so exposure to even Level B harassment from blasting noise is highly unlikely.

    Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.

    Marine Mammal Occurrence

    The most appropriate information available was used to estimate the number of potential incidences of take. Density estimates for Steller sea lions, harbor seals, humpback whales, and killer whales in Dutch Harbor, and more broadly in the waters surrounding Unalaska Island, are not readily available. Likewise, we were not able to find any published literature or reports describing densities or estimating abundance of either species in the project area. As such, data collected from marine mammal surveys represent the best available information on the occurrence of both species in the project area.

    Beginning in April 2015, UMC personnel began conducting surveys within Dutch Harbor under the direction of an ecological consultant. The consultant visited the site every month to ensure that data was gathered consistently and comprehensively. Observers monitored for a variety of marine mammals, including Steller sea lions, whales, and harbor seals. Several observation locations from various vantage points were selected for the surveys. Observations took place for approximately 15 minutes from each point, and included only marine mammals which were inside Dutch Harbor. The survey recorded the type of species observed, the number of species observed, the primary activity of the species, and any applicable notes. Surveys were conducted through July 2016.

    These surveys represent the most recent data on marine mammal occurrence in the harbor, and represent the only targeted marine mammal surveys of the project area that we are aware of.

    Data from bird surveys of Dutch Harbor conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) from 2003-2013, which included observations of Steller sea lions in the harbor, were also available; however, we determined that these data were unreliable as a basis for prediction of marine mammal abundance in the project location as the goal of the USACE surveys was to develop a snapshot of waterfowl and seabird location and abundance in the harbor, thus the surveys would have been designed and carried out differently if the goal had been to document marine mammal use of the harbor. Additionally, USACE surveys occurred only in winter; as Steller sea lion abundance is expected to vary significantly between the breeding and the non-breeding season in the project location, data that were collected only during the non-breeding season have limited utility in predicting year-round abundance. As such, we determined that the data from the surveys commissioned by COA in 2015-2016 represents the best available information on marine mammals in the project location.

    Description of Take Calculation

    The take calculations presented here rely on the best data currently available for marine mammal populations in the project location. Density data for marine mammal species in the project location is not available. Therefore the data collected from marine mammal surveys of Dutch Harbor in 2015-2016 represent the best available information on marine mammal populations in the project location, and this data was used to estimate take. As such, the zones that have been calculated to contain the areas ensonified to the Level A and Level B thresholds for pinnipeds have been calculated for mitigation and monitoring purposes and were not used in the calculation of take. See Table 8 for total estimated incidents of take. Estimates were based on the following assumptions:

    • All marine mammals estimated to be in areas ensonified by noise exceeding the Level B harassment threshold for impact and vibratory driving (as shown in Appendix B of the application) are assumed to be in the water 100 percent of the time. This assumption is based on the fact that there are no haulouts or rookeries within the area predicted to be ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold based on modeling.

    • Predicted exposures were based on total estimated total duration of pile driving/removal hours, which are estimated at 1,470 hours over the entire project. This estimate is based on a 245 day project time frame, an average work day of 12 hours, and a conservative estimate that up to approximately 50 percent of time (likely less on some days, based on the short pile driving durations provided in Table 5) during those work days will include pile driving and removal activities (with the rest of the work day spent on non-pile driving activities which will not result in marine mammal take, such as installing templating and bracing, moving equipment, etc.).

    • Vibratory or impact driving could occur at any time during the “duration” and our approach to take calculation assumes a rate of occurrence that is the same for any of the calculated zones.

    • The hourly marine mammal observation rate recorded during marine mammal surveys of Dutch Harbor in 2015 is reflective of the hourly rate that will be observed during the construction project.

    • Takes were calculated based on estimated rates of occurrence for each species in the project area and this rate was assumed to be the same regardless of the size of the zone (for impact or vibratory driving/removal).

    • Activities that may be accomplished by either impact driving or down-the-hole drilling (i.e., fender support/pin piles, miscellaneous support piles, and temporary support piles) were assumed to be accomplished via impact driving. If any of these activities are ultimately accomplished via down-the-hole drilling instead of impact driving, this would not result in a change in the amount of overall effort (as they will be accomplished via down-the-hole drilling instead of, and not in addition to, impact driving). As take estimates are calculated based on effort and not marine mammal densities, this would not change the take estimate.

    Take estimates for Steller sea lions, harbor seals, humpback whales, and killer whales were calculated using the following series of steps:

    1. The average hourly rate of animals observed during 2015-2016 marine mammal surveys of Dutch Harbor was calculated separately for both species (“Observation Rate”). Thus “Observation Rate” (OR) = Number of individuals observed/hours of observation;

    2. The 95 percent confidence interval was calculated for the data set, and the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval was added to the Observation Rate to account for variability of the small data set (“Exposure Rate”). Thus “Exposure Rate” (XR) = µOR + CI95 (where µOR = average of hourly observation rates and CI95 = 95 percent confidence interval (normal distribution);

    3. The total estimated hours of pile driving work over the entire project was calculated, as described above (“Duration”); Thus “Duration” = total number of work days (245) * average pile driving/removal hours per day (6) = total work hours for the project (1,470); and

    4. The estimated number of exposures was calculated by multiplying the “Duration” by the estimated “Exposure Rate” for each species. Thus, estimated takes = Duration * XR.

    Please refer to Appendix G of the application for a more thorough description of the statistical analysis of the observation data from marine mammal surveys.

    Steller Sea Lion—Steller sea lion density data for the project area is not available. Steller sea lions occur year-round in the Aleutian Islands and within Unalaska Bay and Dutch Harbor. As described above, local abundance in the non-breeding season (winter months) is generally lower overall; data from surveys conducted by the COU in 2015-2016 revealed Steller sea lions were present in Dutch Harbor in most months that surveys occurred. We assume, based on marine mammal surveys of Dutch Harbor, and based on the best available information on seasonal abundance patterns of the species including over 20 years of NOAA National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) survey data collected in Unalaska, that Steller sea lions will be regularly observed in the project area during most or all months of construction. As described above, all Steller sea lions in the project area at a given time are assumed to be in the water, thus any sea lion within the modeled area of ensonification exceeding the Level B harassment threshold would be recorded as taken by Level B harassment.

    Estimated take of Steller sea lions was calculated using the equations described above, as follows:

    μ OR = 0.40 animals/hour CI 95 = 0.23 animals/hour XR = 0.63 animals/hour Estimated exposures (Level B harassment) = 0.63 * 1,470 = 926

    Thus we estimate that a total of 926 Steller sea lion takes will occur as a result of the proposed UMC dock construction project (Table 8).

    Harbor Seal—Harbor seal density data for the project location is not available. We assume, based on the best on the best available information, that harbor seals will be encountered in low numbers throughout the duration of the project. We relied on the best available information to estimate take of harbor seals, which in this case was survey data collected from the 2015-2016 marine mammal surveys of Dutch Harbor as described above. That survey data showed harbor seals are present in the harbor only occasionally (average monthly observation rate = 0.41). NMML surveys have not been performed in Dutch Harbor, but the most recent NMML surveys of Unalaska Bay confirm that harbor seals are present in the area in relatively small numbers, with the most recent haulout counts in Unalaska Bay (2008-2011) recording no more than 19 individuals at the three known haulouts there. NMML surveys have been limited to the months of July and August, so it is not known whether harbor seal abundance in the project area varies seasonally. As described above, all harbor seals in the project area at a given time are assumed to be in the water, thus any harbor seals within the modeled area of ensonification exceeding the Level B harassment threshold would be recorded as taken by Level B harassment.

    Estimated take of harbor seals was calculated using the equations described above, as follows:

    μ OR = 0.16 animals/hour

    CI 95 = 0.16 animals/hour

    XR = 0.32 animals/hour

    Estimated exposures (Level B harassment) = 0.32 * 1,470 hours = 470

    Thus we estimate that a total of 470 harbor seal takes will occur as a result of the proposed UMC dock construction project (Table 8).

    Humpback Whale—Humpback whale density data for the project location is not available. We assume, based on the best on the best available information, that humpback whales will be encountered in low numbers throughout the duration of the project. We relied on the best available information to estimate take of humpback whales, which in this case was survey data collected from the 2015-2016 marine mammal surveys of Dutch Harbor as described above. That survey data showed humpback whales are present in the harbor only occasionally (average monthly observation rate = 0.06). Estimated take of humpback whales was calculated using the equations described above, as follows:

    μ OR = 0.06 animals/hour CI 95 = 0.06 animals/hour XR = 0.12 animals/hour Estimated exposures (Level B harassment) = 0.12 * 1,470 hours = 176

    Thus we estimate that a total of 176 humpback whale takes will occur as a result of the proposed UMC dock construction project (Table 8).

    Killer Whale—Little is known about killer whales that inhabit waters near Unalaska (Parsons et al., 2013). While it is likely that killer whales may appear in Dutch Harbor, given their known range and the availability of food, the 2015-2016 surveys saw only a small number (2) of marine mammals that were suspected to be killer whales (average monthly observation rate for these unidentified whales = 0.02). There are differences in the physical appearance of transient and resident killer whales; however, in the surveys no distinction was notated. Killer whale density data for the project location is not available. We assume, based on the best on the best available information, that killer whales will be encountered in low numbers throughout the duration of the project. We relied on the best available information to estimate take of killer whales, which in this case was survey data collected from the 2015-2016 marine mammal surveys of Dutch Harbor as described above. That survey data showed killer whales are potentially present in the harbor only very rarely. Estimated take of killer whales was calculated using the equations described above, as follows:

    μ OR = 0.02 animals/hour CI 95 = 0.04 animals/hour XR = 0.06 animals/hour Estimated exposures (Level B harassment) = 0.06 * 1,470 hours = 88

    Thus we estimate that a total of 81 killer whale takes will occur as a result of the proposed UMC dock construction project (Table 8).

    We therefore propose to authorize the take, by Level B harassment only, of a total of 926 Steller sea lions (Western DPS), 470 harbor seals (Aleutian Islands Stock), 88 killer whales (Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident and Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient Stocks), and 176 humpback whales (Central North Pacific Stock; Western North Pacific Stock) as a result of the proposed construction project. These take estimates are considered reasonable estimates of the number of marine mammal exposures to sound above the Level B harassment threshold that are likely to occur over the course of the project, and not the number of individual animals exposed. For instance, for pinnipeds that associate fishing boats in Dutch Harbor with reliable sources of food, there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day depending on the number of vessels entering the harbor, however each instance of exposure for these individuals will be recorded as a separate, additional take. Moreover, because we anticipate that marine mammal observers will typically be unable to determine from field observations whether the same or different individuals are being exposed over the course of a workday, each observation of a marine mammal will be recorded as a new take, although an individual theoretically would only be considered as taken once in a given day.

    Table 8—Number of Potential Marine Mammal Incidental Takes Proposed for Authorization, and Percentage of Stock Abundance, as a Result of the Proposed Project Species Underwater1 Level A Level B Percentage of stock abundance
  • (%)
  • Humpback whale 0 176 1.6 Killer whale 0 88 3.0 Steller sea lion 0 926 1.9 Harbor seal 0 470 8.1 1 We assume, for reasons described earlier, that no takes would occur as a result of airborne noise.
    Analyses and Preliminary Determinations Negligible Impact Analysis

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

    To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies generally to all the species listed in Table 8, given that the anticipated effects of this pile driving project on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are species-specific factors that have been considered, they are identified below.

    Pile driving activities associated with the proposed dock construction project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving and removal are under way.

    The takes from Level B harassment will be due to potential behavioral disturbance and TTS. No serious injury or mortality of marine mammals would be anticipated as a result of vibratory and impact pile driving. Except when operated at long continuous duration (not the case here) in the presence of marine mammals that do not move away, vibratory hammers do not have significant potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels than vibratory driving and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. The potential for injury that may otherwise result from exposure to noise associated with impact pile driving will effectively be minimized through the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. These measures include: the implementation of an exclusion (shutdown) zone, which is expected to eliminate the likelihood of marine mammal exposure to noise at received levels that could result in injury; and the use of “soft start” before pile driving, which is expected to provide marine mammals near or within the zone of potential injury with sufficient time to vacate the area. We believe the required mitigation measures, which have been successfully implemented in similar pile driving projects, will minimize the possibility of injury that may otherwise exist as a result of impact pile driving.

    The proposed activities are localized and of relatively short duration. The entire project area is limited to the UMC Dock area and its immediate surroundings. These localized and short-term noise exposures may cause short-term behavioral modifications in harbor seals, Steller sea lions, killer whales, and humpback whales. Moreover, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, including injury shutdowns, soft start techniques, and multiple MMOs monitoring the behavioral and injury zones for marine mammal presence, are expected to reduce the likelihood of injury and behavior exposures. Additionally, no critical habitat for marine mammals are known to be within the ensonification areas of the proposed action area during the construction time frame. No pinniped rookeries or haul-outs are present within the project area

    The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.

    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from similar pile driving projects that have received incidental take authorizations from NMFS, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging. Most likely, individuals will simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the area of pile driving (though even this reaction has been observed primarily in association with impact pile driving). In response to vibratory driving, harbor seals have been observed to orient towards and sometimes move towards the sound. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness to those individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Take of marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat will be reduced to the level of least practicable impact through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the project area while the activity is occurring.

    While we are not aware of comparable construction projects in the project location, the pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to other in-water construction activities that have received incidental harassment authorizations previously, including a Unisea dock construction project in neighboring Iliuliuk Harbor, and at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor in Hood Canal, Washington, and at the Port of Friday Harbor in the San Juan Islands, which have occurred with no reported injuries or mortalities to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences to marine mammals from behavioral harassment.

    In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidences of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior or potential TTS; (3) the absence of any major rookeries and only a few isolated haulout areas near the project site; (4) the absence of any other known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction within the project area; and (5) the presumed efficacy of planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individual animals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from UMC dock construction activities in Dutch Harbor will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Small Numbers Analysis

    The numbers of animals authorized to be taken would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (1.9 percent for Steller sea lions, 8.1 percent for harbor seals, 1.6 percent for humpback whales, and 3.0 percent for killer whales) even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual. However, the likelihood that each take would occur to a new individual is extremely low.

    Further, these takes are likely to occur only within some small portion of the overall regional stock. For example, of the estimated 49,497 western DPS Steller sea lions throughout Alaska, there are probably no more than 300 individuals with site fidelity to the three haulouts located nearest to the project location, based on over twenty years of NMML survey data (see “Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity” above). For harbor seals, NMML survey data suggest there are likely no more than 60 individuals that use the three haulouts nearest to the project location (the only haulouts in Unalaska Bay). Thus the estimate of take is an estimate of the number of anticipated exposures, rather than an estimate of the number of individuals that will be taken, as we expect the majority of exposures would be repeat exposures that would accrue to the same individuals. As such, the authorized takes would represent a much smaller number of individuals in relation to total stock sizes.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, we preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

    Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses

    Subsistence hunting and fishing is an important part of the history and culture of Unalaska Island. However, the number of Steller sea lions and harbor seals harvested in Unalaska decreased from 1994 through 2008; in 2008, the last year for which data is available, there were no harbor seals reported as harvested for subsistence use and only three Steller sea lions reported (Wolfe et al., 2009). Data on pinnipeds hunted for subsistence use in Unalaska has not been collected since 2008. For a summary of data on pinniped harvests in Unalaska from 1994-2008, see Section 8 of the application. Subsistence hunting for humpback whales and killer whales does not occur in Unalaska.

    Aside from the apparently decreasing rate of subsistence hunting in Unalaska, Dutch Harbor is not likely to be used for subsistence hunting or fishing due to its industrial nature, with several dock facilities located along the shoreline of the harbor. In addition, the proposed construction project is likely to result only in short-term, temporary impacts to pinnipeds in the form of possible behavior changes, and is not expected to result in the injury or death of any marine mammal. As such, the proposed project is not likely to adversely impact the availability of any marine mammal species or stocks that may otherwise be used for subsistence purposes.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Threatened or endangered marine mammal species with confirmed occurrence in the project area include the Western North Pacific DPS and Mexico DPS of humpback whale, and the Western DPS Steller sea lion. The project area occurs within critical habitat for three major Steller sea lion haul-outs and one rookery. The three haul-outs (Old Man Rocks, Unalaska/Cape Sedanka, and Akutan/Reef-Lava) are located between approximately 15 and 19 nautical miles from the project area. The closest rookery is Akutan/Cape Morgan, which is about 19 nautical miles from the project area. The NMFS Permits and Conservation Division has initiated consultation with the NMFS Alaska Regional Office Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to the COU under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA.

    Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to issue an IHA to the COU, to conduct the described dock construction activities in Dutch Harbor, from March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.

    This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).

    1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017.

    2. This IHA is valid only for pile driving and removal activities associated with construction of the UMC dock in Dutch Harbor, Unalaska, Alaska.

    3. General Conditions

    (a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the COU, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.

    (b) The species authorized for taking are the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and killer whale (Orcinus orca).

    (c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species listed in condition 3(b). See Table 8 in the proposed IHA authorization for numbers of take authorized.

    (d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.

    (e) The COU shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and the COU personnel prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.

    4. Mitigation Measures

    The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:

    (a) For all pile driving activities, the COU shall establish an exclusion (shutdown) zone intended to contain the area in which Level A harassment thresholds are exceeded.

    (b) The established shutdown zones corresponding to the Level A harassment zones for each activity are as follows:

    i. For all vibratory pile driving activities, a 10-m radius shutdown zone shall be employed

    ii. During impact pile driving, a shutdown zone shall be determined by the number of piles to be driven that day as follows: If the maximum of five piles are to be driven that day, shutdown during the first driven pile shall occur if a marine mammal enters the `5-pile' radius. After the first pile is driven, if no marine mammals have been observed within the `5-pile'radius, the `4-pile' radius shall become the shutdown radius. This pattern shall continue unless an animal is observed within the most recent shutdown radius, at which time that shutdown radius shall remain in effect for the rest of the workday. Shutdown radii for each species, depending on number of piles driven, are as follows:

    • 5-pile radius: humpback whale, 185 m; killer whale, 10 m; harbor seal, 100 m; Steller sea lion, 10 m • 4-pile radius: humpback whale, 160 m; killer whale, 10 m; harbor seal, 85 m; Steller sea lion, 10 m • 3-pile radius: humpback whale, 135 m; killer whale, 10 m; harbor seal, 70 m; Steller sea lion, 10 m • 2-pile radius: humpback whale, 100 m; killer whale, 10 m; harbor seal, 55 m; Steller sea lion, 10 m • 1-pile radius: humpback whale, 65 m; killer whale, 10 m; harbor seal, 35 m; Steller sea lion, 10 m

    (c) A shutdown shall occur prior to a marine mammal entering a shutdown zone appropriate for that species and the concurrent work activity. Activity shall cease until the observer is confident that the animal is clear of the shutdown zone: The animal shall be considered clear if:

    • It has been observed leaving the shutdown zone; or

    • It has not been seen in the shutdown zone for 30 minutes for cetaceans and 15 minutes for pinnipeds.

    (d) If shutdown lasts for more than 30 minutes, pre-activity monitoring (see below) must recommence.

    (e) Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, the observer shall observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone shall be cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start (described below) cannot proceed until the marine mammal has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes (for pinnipeds) and 30 minutes (for cetaceans). If the Level B harassment zone has been observed for 30 minutes and non-permitted species are not present within the zone, soft start procedures can commence and work can continue even if visibility becomes impaired within the Level B zone. If the Level B zone is not visible while work continues, exposures shall be recorded at the estimated exposure rate for each permitted species. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both zones must recommence

    (f) If the exclusion zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving shall not be initiated until the exclusion zone is clearly visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity would be halted.

    (g) Soft start procedures shall be used prior to pile removal, pile installation, and in-water fill placement to allow marine mammals to leave the area prior to exposure to maximum noise levels. For vibratory hammers, the soft start technique shall initiate noise from the hammer for short periods at a reduced energy level, followed by a brief waiting period and repeating the procedure two additional times. For impact hammers, the soft start technique shall initiate several strikes at a reduced energy level, followed by a brief waiting period. This procedure shall also be repeated two additional times. Equipment used for fill placement shall be idled near the waterside edge of the fill area for 15 minutes prior to performing in-water fill placement

    (h) During in-water or over-water construction activities having the potential to affect marine mammals, but not involving a pile driver, a shutdown zone of 10 m shall be monitored to ensure that marine mammals are not endangered by physical interaction with construction equipment. These activities could include, but are not limited to, the positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane (“stabbing” the pile) or the removal of the pile from the water column/substrate via a crane (“deadpull”), or the slinging of construction materials via crane.

    (i) To minimize impacts from vessels interactions with marine mammals, the crews aboard project vessels shall follow NMFS's marine mammal viewing guidelines and regulations as practicable. (https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm).

    5. Monitoring

    The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activity. The COU shall collect sighting data and shall record behavioral responses to construction activities for marine mammal species observed in the project location during the period of activity. All marine mammal observers (MMOs) shall be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. The COU shall monitor the exclusion zones (shutdown zones) and Level B harassment zones before, during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best practicable vantage points. The Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan shall implement the following procedures for pile driving:

    (a) During observation periods, observers shall continuously scan the area for marine mammals using binoculars and the naked eye. Observers shall work shifts of a maximum of four consecutive hours followed by an observer rotation or a 1-hour break and shall work no more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period. Observers shall collect data including, but not limited to, environmental conditions (e.g., sea state, precipitation, glare, etc.), marine mammal sightings (e.g., species, numbers, location, behavior, responses to construction activity, etc.), construction activity at the time of sighting, and number of marine mammal exposures. Observers shall conduct observations, meet training requirements, fill out data forms, and report findings in accordance with this IHA

    (b) During all observation periods, observers shall use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.

    (c) If marine mammals are observed within the monitoring zone (ZOI—500 m during impact pile driving; 3,300 m during vibratory pile driving) the sighting shall be documented as a potential Level B take and the animal behaviors shall be documented. If the number of marine mammals exposed to Level B harassment approaches the number of takes allowed by the IHA, the COU shall notify NMFS and seek further consultation. If any marine mammal species are encountered that are not authorized by the IHA and are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels greater than or equal to the Level B harassment thresholds, then the COU shall shut down in-water activity to avoid take of those species.

    (d) Observers shall implement mitigation measures including monitoring of the proposed shutdown and monitoring zones, clearing of the zones, and shutdown procedures. They shall be in continuous contact with the construction personnel via two-way radio. A cellular phone shall be use as back-up communications and for safety purposes.

    (e) Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol shall assess its effectiveness using an adaptive approach. MMOs shall use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any modifications to protocol shall be coordinated between NMFS and the COU.

    (f) The following information shall be collected on marine mammal sighting forms:

    • Date and time that permitted construction activity begins or ends;

    • Weather parameters (e.g. percent cloud cover, percent glare, visibility) and Beaufort sea state.

    • Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of observed marine mammals;

    • Construction activities occurring during each sighting;

    • Marine mammal behavior patterns observed, including bearing and direction of travel;

    • Specific focus should be paid to behavioral reactions just prior to, or during, soft-start and shutdown procedures;

    • Location of marine mammal, distance from observer to the marine mammal, and distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals;

    • Record of whether an observation required the implementation of mitigation measures, including shutdown procedures and the duration of each shutdown; and

    • Other human activity in the area. Record the hull numbers of fishing vessels if possible.

    6. Reporting

    The holder of this Authorization is required to:

    (a) Submit a draft report within 90 calendar days of the completion of the activity, The report shall include information on marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days, and shall provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of any mitigation shutdowns and results of those actions, as well as an estimate of total take based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report shall be submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments from NMFS on the draft report. The report shall include at a minimum:

    • General data:

    ○ Date and time of activity.

    ○ Water conditions (e.g., sea-state).

    ○ Weather conditions (e.g., percent cover, percent glare, visibility).

    ○ Date and time of activity.

    ○ Water conditions (e.g., sea-state).

    ○ Weather conditions (e.g., percent cover, percent glare, visibility).

    • Specific pile driving data:

    ○ Description of the pile driving activity being conducted (pile locations, pile size and type), and times (onset and completion) when pile driving occurs.

    ○ The construction contractor and/or marine mammal monitoring staff will coordinate to ensure that pile driving times and strike counts are accurately recorded. The duration of soft start procedures should be noted as separate from the full power driving duration.

    ○ Description of in-water construction activity not involving pile driving (location, type of activity, onset and completion times)

    • Pre-activity observational survey-specific data:

    ○ Date and time survey is initiated and terminated.

    ○ Description of any observable marine mammals and their behavior in the immediate area during monitoring.

    ○ Times when pile driving or other in-water construction is delayed due to presence of marine mammals within shutdown zones.

    • During-activity observational survey-specific data:

    ○ Description of any observable marine mammal behavior within monitoring zones or in the immediate area surrounding the monitoring zones, including the following:

    Distance from animal to pile driving sound source.

    Reason why/why not shutdown implemented.

    If a shutdown was implemented, behavioral reactions noted and if they occurred before or after implementation of the shutdown.

    If a shutdown was implemented, the distance from animal to sound source at the time of the shutdown.

    Behavioral reactions noted during soft starts and if they occurred before or after implementation of the soft start.

    Distance to the animal from the sound source during soft start.

    • Post-activity observational survey-specific data:

    ○ Results, which include the detections and behavioral reactions of marine mammals, the species and numbers observed, sighting rates and distances,

    ○ Refined exposure estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed. This may be reported as a rate of take (number of marine mammals per hour or per day), or using some other appropriate metric.

    (b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:

    i. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not authorized by the IHA (if issued), such as a Level A harassment, or a take of a marine mammal species other than those proposed for authorization, the COU would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to Jolie Harrison ([email protected]), Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and Aleria Jensen ([email protected]), Alaska Stranding Coordinator.

    The report would include the following information:

    • Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

    • Description of the incident;

    • Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

    • Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    • Fate of the animal(s); and

    • Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with the COU to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The COU would not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

    ii. In the event that the COU discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), the COU would immediately report the incident to Jolie Harrison ([email protected]), Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and Aleria Jensen ([email protected]), Alaska Stranding Coordinator.

    The report would include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Construction related activities would be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with the COU to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

    iii. In the event that the COU discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), the COU would report the incident to Jolie Harrison ([email protected]), Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and Aleria Jensen ([email protected]), Alaska Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. The COU would provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. The COU can continue its operations under such a case.

    7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines that the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.

    Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the COU's dock construction activities. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the COU's request for an MMPA authorization.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. Donna S. Wieting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27119 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF006 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, California AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application for letter of authorization; request for comments and information.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has received a request from the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS or Sanctuary) for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to professional fireworks displays permitted within the Sanctuary in California waters, over the course of five years, from July 4, 2017 through July 3, 2022. Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing receipt of MBNMS's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on MBNMS's application and request.

    DATES:

    Comments and information must be received no later than December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to [email protected]

    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm without change. All personal identifying 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability

    A copy of MBNMS's application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above (see ADDRESSES), telephoning the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).”

    Summary of Request

    On September 16, 2016, NMFS received an application from the MBNMS requesting authorization to take, by Level B harassment, two species of marine mammals incidental to commercial fireworks displays conducted under sanctuary authorization permits issued by the MBNMS. After addressing NMFS comments on the original application, the MBNMS submitted a revised application on October 18, 2016. NMFS found this application to be adequate and complete.

    Marine mammals would be exposed to elevated levels of sound as a result of permitted fireworks displays, as well as increased human activity associated with those displays. Because the specified activities have the potential to take marine mammals present within the action area, the MBNMS requests authorization to take, by Level B harassment only, California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina).

    Specified Activities

    Since 1993, the MBNMS, a component of NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, has processed requests for the professional display of fireworks that affect resources within the sanctuary. The MBNMS has determined that debris fallout (i.e., spent pyrotechnic materials) from fireworks events may constitute a discharge into the sanctuary and thus violate sanctuary regulations, unless a permit is issued by the superintendent. Therefore, sponsors of fireworks displays conducted in the MBNMS are required to obtain sanctuary authorization prior to conducting such displays (see 15 CFR 922.132).

    Since the MBNMS began issuing permits for fireworks discharge in 1993, it has received a total of 102 requests for professional fireworks displays, the majority of which have been associated with large community events such as Independence Day and municipal festivals. The number of fireworks displays within the Sanctuary remained relatively constant although there has been a slight decrease of the number of displays since the economic downturn of 2008. The MBNMS has permitted, on average, approximately five fireworks displays per year; however, only 2 to 4 displays were hosted annually between 2009 and 2015. Since 2005, the MBNMS has requested, and subsequently been authorized under section 101 (a)(5)(A or D) of the MMPA, to take marine mammals incidental to up to 20 fireworks events per year. However, for this application, the MNBMS, at the request of NMFS, re-evaluated the possibility of 20 events occurring per year based on the trend in fireworks permit applications. As such, the MBNMS has modified the number of anticipated displays that would occur under the requested regulations to no more than ten events per year.

    The location, mitigation, and monitoring measures contained within previous authorizations would remain in effect. Fireworks displays would be limited to the same four specific areas along 276 miles (444 kilometers) of coastline: Half Moon Bay, the Santa Cruz/Soquel area, the northeastern Monterey Peninsula, and Cambria (Santa Rosa Creek). This effectively limits permitted fireworks displays to approximately five percent of the MBNMS coastline. The MBNMS would also retain the March 1 through June 30 moratorium on fireworks which corresponds to the peak spring breeding season for marine wildlife. Each fireworks displays would not exceed 30 minutes in duration (with the exception of up to two displays per year, each not to exceed one hour) and would occur with an average frequency of less than or equal to once every two months within each of the four prescribed display areas.

    A more detailed description of the fireworks displays permitted by MBNMS and anticipated behavioral reactions of marine mammals may be found in MBNMS' application, MBNMS' Assessment of Pyrotechnic Displays and Impacts within the MBNMS 1993-2001 (2001), Marine Mammal Acoustic and Behavioral Monitoring for the MBNMS Fireworks Display, 4 July 2007 (2007), and multiple monitoring reports which are available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

    Information Solicited

    Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning MBNMS's request (see ADDRESSES). All information, suggestions, and comments related to MBNMS's request and NMFS' potential development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the MBNMS will be considered by NMFS in developing, if appropriate, regulations governing the issuance of letters of authorization.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27094 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration New Policy and Procedures Documents Announcing a Change in the Calibration Base Line Program AGENCY:

    National Geodetic Survey (NGS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Change in the Calibration Base Line Program; Notice of Public Comment.

    SUMMARY:

    NOAA's National Geodetic Survey (NGS) conducts a Calibration Base Line (CBL) program for electronic distance measuring instrumentation, hereafter referred to as the CBL Program. The CBL Program provides the surveying and engineering community with a locally accessible standard for measuring length and a means for quantifying and correcting for errors associated with this type of instrumentation. Currently, the CBL Program requires use of NGS equipment and direct participation by NGS personnel when establishing and reestablishing CBLs. NGS is considering changes to the CBL Program which will enable our partners to establish and reestablish their local CBLs using their own instrumentation, with NGS providing a quality review function. NGS invites written comments on the CBL Program draft policy (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CBLINES/For_review_CBL_Program_Policy.pdf) and draft procedures (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CBLINES/For_review_CBL_Program_Procedures.pdf) documents.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or comments should be directed to Mr. Kendall Fancher, Instrumentation and Methodologies Branch Chief, National Geodetic Survey, 15351 Office Drive, Woodford, VA 22580; phone: 540-373-1243, Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    You may submit your comments or concerns to NGS by Tuesday, January 17, 2017.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Since the CBL Program's inception in 1974, NGS has established more than 400 CBLs throughout the United States in cooperation with various government agencies, universities, professional societies, and others. All data and products associated with this nationwide program are available at the CBL Program Web page: http://www.geodesy.noaa.gov/CBLINES/calibration.html.

    Currently the establishment/reestablishment of a local CBL requires on-site supervision by NGS personnel and the use of NGS-owned instrumentation. NGS resource constraints can limit administration of the program and the number of CBLs that can be established and reestablished.

    The Director of NOAA's National Geodetic Survey invites interested parties to submit comments to assist NGS as it decides how to maintain the CBL Program into the future. Comments may address any aspect of the CBL Program. Specifically, the Director seeks comments regarding:

    1. CBLs located within your local area or state that are important to your organizational activities.

    2. Whether proposed changes in the CBL Program policy and procedures impose a hardship on your organization.

    3. Whether proposed changes in the CBL Program policy and procedures will be beneficial to your organization.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Juliana P. Blackwell, Director, Office of National Geodetic Survey, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27164 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective December 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additions

    On 4/15/2016 (81 FR 22239) and 8/19/2016 (81 FR 55447-55448), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and services to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product and services are added to the Procurement List:

    Product: Product Name(s)—NSN(s): 8465-01-608-7507—Sack, Extreme Cold Weather Compression Stuff Sack, (ECW CSS) U.S. Marine Corps, One size fits all Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc., Seattle, WA Mandatory Purchase For: 50% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: C-List Services: Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: DoDEA, DDESS, Fort Bragg Community Schools System: Bowley Elementary School, Fort Bragg, NC; Gary I Gordon Elementary School, Cameron, NC; Randall Shughart Elementary School, Cameron, NC, and; Randall Shughart Middle School, Cameron, NC. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Brevard Achievement Center, Inc., Rockledge, FL Contracting Activity: Dept of Defense Education Activity (DODEA), DDESS Area Service Center Deletions

    On 9/30/2016 (81 FR 67327) and 10/7/2017 (81 FR 69789-69790), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 1670-01-468-9178—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 140′ 1670-01-062-6304—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 9′ 1670-01-062-6305—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 9′ 1670-01-062-6310—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 11′ 1670-01-062-6307—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 12′ 1670-01-062-6311—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 120′ 1670-01-063-7760—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 11′ 1670-01-062-6313—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 60′ 1670-01-107-7652—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 160′ 1670-01-064-4452—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 60′ 1670-01-064-4451—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 36′ 1670-01-062-6312—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 120′ 1670-01-062-6306—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 3′ 1670-01-062-6303—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 12′ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Aviation 1670-01-064-4454—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 60′ 1670-01-062-6309—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 28′ 1670-01-062-6301—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 3′ 1670-01-062-6302—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 20′ 1670-01-107-7651—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 140′ 1670-01-064-4453—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 20′ 1670-01-063-7761—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 16′ 1670-01-062-6308—Line, Multi-Loop, low altitude parachute extraction system, 16′ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: W6QK ACC-APG Natick, Natick, MA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 3990-01-415-6951—Pallet, Runner Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Tarrant County Association for the Blind, Fort Worth, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-00-543-7149—Pen, Ballpoint, with Chain, Blue, Medium Pt Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries of the Blind, Inc., Greensboro, NC Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8520-00-NIB-0110—Purell/Skilcraft Instant Hand Sanitizer Value Pack 8520-00-NIB-0111—Purell/Skilcraft 1200 mL Antibacterial Hand Wash Sa 8520-00-NIB-0120—Purell/Skilcraft, Instant Hand Sanitizer—foam Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Travis Association for the Blind, Austin, TX Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6532-00-122-0468—Cap, Operating, Surgical, Blue or Green Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Strategic Acquisition Center, Fredericksburg, VA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8455-00-985-7336—Scarf, Branch of Service, Aviation Units, USAF and USA, Blue Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Unknown, Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7920-00-297-1511—Brush, Scrub Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27217 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete products and services previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: 12/10/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following product and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Product: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 3990-01-187-3615—Ratchet Strap Assembly Mandatory for: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, MS Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: B-List Services: Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army, U.S. Military Academy, First Class Club and Grant Hall, 681 Hardee Place, West Point, NY Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Access: Supports for Living Inc., Middletown, NY Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM MICC-West Point Service Type: Retail Operation Support Service Mandatory for: GSA FAS, GSA Global Supply Store 5250 Gibson Avenue, Joint Base Elmendorf, Richardson, AK Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: M. C. Resource Management, Anchorage, AK Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Federal Acquisition Service, Washington, DC Service Type: Mailroom Support Service Mandatory for: U.S. Air National Guard, Air National Guard Readiness Center Receiving & Document Control Center, 3500 & 3501 Fetchet Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, MD Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ServiceSource, Inc., Oakton, VA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W39L USA NG Readiness Center Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-00-282-2137—Trimmer, Paper, 7520-00-224-7621—Trimmer, Paper, Drop Knife, Beige, 24″ x 24″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7195-01-484-0017—Bulletin Board, Granite Finish, 36″ x 24″, Aluminum Frame Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA Contracting Activities: Department of Veterans Affairs; General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA Services: Service Type: Document Destruction Service Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: SourceAmerica (Prime Contractor) Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC Mandatory for: Internal Revenue Service Offices at the following locations: Cross Point Tower One: 900 Chelmsford Street, Lowell, MA 53 North Sixth Street, New Bedford, MA AccessPoint RI, Cranston, RI (Subcontractor) 921 N. Nova Boulevard, Holly Hill, FL Challenge Enterprises of North Florida, Inc., Green Cove Springs, FL (Subcontractor) 675 W. Moana Lane, Reno, NV Beacon Group, Inc., Tucson, AZ (Subcontractor) Jackson: 234 Louis Glick Hwy, Jackson, MI, Community Enterprises of St. Clair County, Port Huron, MI (Subcontractor) 2628 S. Cherry Avenue, Fresno, CA 5104 N. Blyth, Fresno, CA 890 West Ashlan, Fresno, CA 1728 Van Ness, Fresno, CA The ARC Fresno/Madera Counties, Fresno, CA (Subcontractor) Mobile: 1110 Montlimar Dr., Mobile, AL One Pensacola Plaza: 125 W Romana Street, Pensacola, FL Wiregrass Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Dothan, AL (Subcontractor) Springfield: 3333 S. National Ave, Springfield, MO El Dorado: 1115 North Madison Ave., El Dorado, AR Pine Bluff: 100 East 8th Ave., Pine Bluff, AR United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arkansas Little Rock, AR (Subcontractor) Effingham: 405 South Banker Street, Effingham, IL United Cerebral Palsy of the Land of Lincoln, Springfield, IL (Subcontractor) Indy Bldg: 7525 East 39th Street, Indianapolis, IN Evansville: 7409 Eagle Crest Blvd., Evansville, IN Shares Inc., Shelbyville, IN (Subcontractor) Creekside IV: 12 Cadillac Dr., Ste 400, Brentwood, TN The Orange Grove Center, Inc., Chattanooga, TN (Subcontractor) Defiance: 208 Perry St., Defiance, OH Lorain: 300 Broadway, Lorain, OH Painesville: 8 North State Street, Painesville, OH Steubenville: 500 Market Street, Steubenville, OH Warrendale: 547 Keystone Drive, Warrendale, PA Weaver Industries, Inc., Akron, OH (Subcontractor) 11620 Caroline Road, Philadelphia, PA 9815 B Roosevelt Blvd., Philadelphia, PA Opportunity Center, Incorporated, Wilmington, DE (Subcontractor) Greensboro: 2303 W. Meadowview Road, Greensboro, NC Winston Salem: 251 N. Main Street, Winston Salem, NC OE Enterprises, Inc., Hillsborough, NC (Subcontractor) 201 Como Park Blvd., Cheektowaga, NY 1314 Griswald Plaza, Erie, PA 7th & State Street, Erie, PA Lifetime Assistance, Inc., Rochester, NY (Subcontractor) 101 Park Deville Drive, Columbia, MO 919 Jackson Street, Chillicothe, MO 3702 W. Truman Blvd., Suite 113, Jefferson City, MO Mission: 5799 Broadmoor St., Mission, KS JobOne, Independence, MO Chillicothe: 1534 North Bridge St., Chillicothe, OH The Plains: 70 N. Plains Road, The Plains, OH Zanesville: 710 Main St., Zanesville, OH Greene, Inc., Xenia, OH (Subcontractor) 11 South 12th Street, Richmond, VA 600 Main Street, Richmond, VA Goodwill Services, Inc., Richmond, VA (Subcontractor) 6021 Durand Avenue, Suite 600, Racine, WI Janesville: 20 E. Milwaukee St., Ste. 204, Janesville, WI Sheboygan: 2108 Kohler Memorial Dr., Sheboygan, WI Goodwill Industries of Southeastern Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI (Subcontractor) 2201 Cantu Court, Sarasota, FL 300 Lock Road, Deerfield Beach, FL Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Miami, FL (Subcontractor) Multiple Locations, Chicago, IL Glenkirk, Northbrook, IL (Subcontractor) Grand Rapids: 678 Front Street NW., Grand Rapids, MI Portage: 8075 Creekside Drive, Portage, MI South Bend: One Michiana Square, South Bend, IN Benton Harbor: 777 Riverview Drive, Benton Harbor, MI Gateway, Berrien Springs, MI (Subcontractor) Corporate Plaza 1: 8100 Corporate Drive, Hyattsville, MD Customer Service Site: 120 Charles Street, Baltimore, MD Athelas Institute, Inc., Hyattsville, MD (Subcontractor) 10 Metrotech Center, New York, NY 10 Richmond Terrace, New York, NY 107 Charles Lindbergh Blvd., Garden City, NY 30 Montgomery Street, Jersey City, NJ 518A East Main Street, Riverhead, NY NYSARC, Inc., NYC Chapter, New York, NY (Subcontractor) Beaufort: 1212 Charles Street, Beaufort, SC Florence County Disabilities and Special Needs Board, Florence, SC (Subcontractor) Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27214 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License to Fox Materials Consulting, LLC; Colorado Springs, CO AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Fox Materials Consulting, LLC; a corporation having its principle place of business at 7145 Baker Rd., Colorado Springs, CO 80908, an exclusive license.

    DATES:

    Written objections must be filed not later than 15 days following publication of this announcement.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written objections to U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technology Transfer and Outreach Office, RDRL-DPT/Thomas Mulkern, Building 321 Room 110, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Mulkern, (410) 278-0889, E-Mail: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army plans to grant an exclusive license to Fox Materials Consulting, LLC, in all fields relative to the following:

    • “Ferroelectric Mechanical Memory and Method”, US Patent No.: 9,385,306, Filing Date March 12, 2015, Issue Date July 5, 2016.

    • “Ferroelectric Mechanical Memory Based on Remanant Displacement and Method”, US Patent Application No.: 15/131,881, Filing Date April 18, 2016.

    • “Ferroelectric Mechanical Memory and Method”, US Patent Application No.: 15/200,816, Filing Date July 1, 2016.

    The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). Competing applications completed and received by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.

    Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27167 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board (Board). This meeting is open to the public. For additional information about the Board, please visit the committee's Web site at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/InlandWaterwaysUsersBoard.aspx.

    DATES:

    The Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on December 13, 2016. Public registration will begin at 8:15 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Board meeting will be conducted at The Conference Center at the Maritime Institute, 692 Maritime Boulevard, Linthicum Heights, Maryland 21090 (near Baltimore), 410-859-5700, or http://www.ccmit.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at [email protected]. Alternatively, contact Mr. Kenneth E. Lichtman, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GW, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-8083; and by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The Board is chartered to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on construction and rehabilitation project investments on the commercial navigation features of the inland waterways system of the United States. At this meeting, the Board will receive briefings and presentations regarding the investments, projects and status of the inland waterways system of the United States and conduct discussions and deliberations on those matters. The Board is interested in written and verbal comments from the public relevant to these purposes.

    Agenda: At this meeting the agenda will include the status of FY 2017 funding for the Navigation Program, and an initial laydown display of the total funding for the Navigation Program; the Benefit-Cost Ratios (BCRs) and Remaining Benefit-Remaining Cost Ratio for projects being funded by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund; status of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and project updates, including Lockport project completion closeout details; additional modifications to the Lock Performance Monitoring System (LPMS); the Corps of Engineers planning process and scheduling for external input; the status of the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project, and the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4 on the Monongahela River Project to include benefits and revised BCR without deferred project features; and updates of Kentucky Lock and Chickamauga Lock.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting. A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the December 13, 2016 meeting. The final version will be provided at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the Web site after the meeting.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.1 65, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to attend the meeting will begin at 8:15 a.m. on the day of the meeting. Seating is limited and is on a first-to-arrive basis. Attendees will be asked to provide their name, title, affiliation, and contact information to include email address and daytime telephone number at registration. Any interested person may attend the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee, as set forth below.

    Special Accommodations: The meeting venue is fully handicap accessible, with wheelchair access. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Lichtman, the ADFO, at the email addresses or telephone numbers listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Board about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Lichtman, the committee ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO or ADFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Board for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Board until its next meeting. Please note that because the Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

    Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Board meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three business (3) days in advance to the committee DFO or ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO and ADFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Board's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO and ADFO.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27162 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Extension of Public Scoping Period for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization, Nevada AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization in the Federal Register (81 FR 58919) on August 26, 2016, which initiated a 90-day public scoping period ending on November 25, 2016. This notice confirms the extension of that public scoping period until December 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest; Attention: Amy P. Kelley, Code EV21.AK; 1220 Pacific Highway; Building 1, 5th Floor; San Diego, California 92132.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The public scoping period for the Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization EIS will be extended until December 12, 2016. Scoping comments may be submitted in writing to the address identified above. In addition, scoping comments may be submitted online at http://www.FRTCModernization.com. All written comments must be postmarked or received online by December 12, 2016 to ensure they become part of the official record. All comments submitted to the DoN during the public scoping period will be taken into consideration during EIS preparation.

    Dated: November 7, 2016. C. Mora, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27205 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration [BPA File No.: BP-18] Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-2019 Proposed Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments Public Hearing and Opportunities for Public Review and Comment AGENCY:

    Bonneville Power Administration (BPA or Bonneville), Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of FY 2018-2019 Proposed Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments.

    SUMMARY:

    BPA is holding a consolidated rate proceeding, Docket No. BP-18, to establish power and transmission rates for FY 2018-2019.

    The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act) provides that BPA must establish and periodically review and revise its rates so that they recover, in accordance with sound business principles, the costs associated with the acquisition, conservation, and transmission of electric power, including amortization of the Federal investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) over a reasonable number of years, and BPA's other costs and expenses. The Northwest Power Act requires that BPA's rates be established based on the record of a formal hearing. For transmission rates only, the Northwest Power Act requires that the costs of the Federal transmission system be equitably allocated between Federal and non-Federal power utilizing the system. By this notice, BPA announces the commencement of a power and transmission rate adjustment proceeding for power, transmission, ancillary, and control area services rates to be effective on October 1, 2017.

    DATES:

    Anyone wishing to become a party to the BP-18 proceeding must provide written notice by U.S. Mail or electronic mail. BPA must receive such notice no later than 3:00 p.m. on November 18, 2016.

    The BP-18 rate adjustment proceeding begins with a prehearing conference at 9:00 a.m. on November 17, 2016, in the BPA Rates Hearing Room, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon 97232.

    Written comments by non-party participants must be received by February 17, 2017, to be considered in the Administrator's Record of Decision (ROD).

    ADDRESSES:

    1. Petitions to intervene should be directed to: Hearing Clerk—L-7, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232 or may be emailed to [email protected] In addition, copies of the petition must be served concurrently on BPA's General Counsel and directed to both Mr. Kurt Casad, LP-7, and Mr. Matthew Perkins, LT-7, Office of General Counsel, 905 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232, or by email to [email protected] and [email protected] (see section III.A. for more information regarding interventions).

    2. Written comments by participants should be submitted to BPA Public Involvement, Bonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 14428, Portland, Oregon 97293. Participants may also submit comments electronically at www.bpa.gov/comment. BPA requests that all comments and documents intended to be part of the Official Record in this rate proceeding contain the designation BP-18 in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Ebony Amato, DKE-7, BPA Communications, Bonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208; by phone toll free at 1-800-622-4520; or by email to [email protected]

    Responsible Officials: Mr. Daniel H. Fisher, Power Rates Manager, is the official responsible for the development of BPA's power rates, and Ms. Rebecca E. Fredrickson, Transmission Rates Manager, is the official responsible for the development of BPA's transmission, ancillary, and control area services rates.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents Part I. Introduction and Procedural Background Part II. Scope of BP-18 Rate Proceeding Part III. Public Participation in BP-18 Part IV. Summary of Rate Proposals Part V. Proposed BP-18 Rate Schedules Part I—Introduction and Procedural Background

    Section 7(i) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e(i), requires that BPA's rates be established according to certain procedures, including publication in the Federal Register of this notice of the proposed rates; one or more hearings conducted as expeditiously as practicable by a Hearing Officer; opportunity for both oral presentation and written submission of views, data, questions, and arguments related to the proposed rates; and a decision by the Administrator based on the record. BPA's rate proceedings are further governed by BPA's Procedures Governing Bonneville Power Administration Rate Hearings, 51 Federal Register 7611 (1986), which implement and expand the statutory requirements.

    This proceeding is being conducted under the rule for general rate proceedings, section 1010.4 of BPA's Procedures. A proposed schedule for the proceeding is provided below. A final schedule will be established by the Hearing Officer at the prehearing conference.

    Prehearing Conference/BPA Initial Proposal November 17, 2016. Parties File Petitions to Intervene November 18, 2016. Clarification December 6-7, 2016. Motions to Strike December 16, 2016. Data Request Deadline December 16, 2016. Answers to Motions to Strike Due January 10, 2017. Data Response Deadline January 10, 2017. Parties File Direct Cases January 31, 2017. Clarification February 7-8, 2017. Motions to Strike Due February 14, 2017. Data Request Deadline February 14, 2017. Close of Participant Comments February 17, 2017. Answers to Motions to Strike Due February 21, 2017. Data Response Deadline February 21, 2017. Litigants File Rebuttal Cases March 14, 2017. Clarification March 20, 2017. Motions to Strike Due March 24, 2017. Data Request Deadline March 24, 2017. Answers to Motions to Strike Due March 31, 2017. Data Response Deadline March 31, 2017. Parties Give Notice of Intent to Cross-Examine March 31, 2017. Cross-Examination April 6-7, 2017. Initial Briefs Filed May 2, 2017. Oral Argument May 9, 2017. Draft ROD issued June 13, 2017. Briefs on Exceptions Filed June 30, 2017. Final ROD and Final Studies issued July 26, 2017.

    Section 1010.7 of BPA's Procedures prohibits ex parte communications. The ex parte rule applies to all BPA and DOE employees and contractors. Except as provided below, any outside communications with BPA and/or DOE personnel regarding the merits of any issue in BPA's rate proceeding by other Executive Branch agencies, Congress, existing or potential BPA customers (including tribes), or nonprofit or public interest groups are considered outside communications and are subject to the ex parte rule. The rule does not apply to communications relating to (1) matters of procedure only (the status of the rate proceeding, for example); (2) exchanges of data in the course of business or under the Freedom of Information Act; (3) requests for factual information; (4) matters for which BPA is responsible under statutes other than the ratemaking provisions; or (5) matters which all parties agree may be made on an ex parte basis. The ex parte rule remains in effect until the Administrator's Final ROD is issued, which is scheduled to occur on or about July 26, 2017.

    Part II—Scope of BP-18 Rate Proceeding A. Joint Rate Proceeding

    BPA is holding one power and transmission rate proceeding with one procedural schedule, one record, and one ROD.

    B. 2016 Integrated Program Review

    BPA began its 2016 Integrated Program Review (IPR) and Capital Investment Review (CIR) process in June 2016. The IPR/CIR process is designed to allow an opportunity to review and comment on BPA's expense and capital spending level estimates before the spending levels are used to set rates. On October 12, 2016, BPA issued the Final Close-Out Report for the IPR/CIR process. In the Final Close-Out Report, BPA established the program level cost estimates that are used in the BP-18 Initial Proposal. Starting this fall, BPA will engage customers and stakeholders in a discussion to consider additional cost management alternatives which, if adopted, would be reflected in BPA's final rates.

    C. Scope of the Rate Proceeding

    This section provides guidance to the Hearing Officer as to those matters that are within the scope of the rate proceeding and those that are outside the scope. In addition to the items listed below, any other issue that is not a ratemaking issue is outside the scope of this proceeding.

    1. Program Cost Estimates

    Some of the decisions that determine program costs and spending levels have been made in the IPR/CIR public review process outside the rate proceeding. See section II.B. BPA's spending levels for investments and expenses are not determined or subject to review in rate proceedings.

    Pursuant to section 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all argument, testimony, or other evidence that challenges the appropriateness or reasonableness of the Administrator's decisions on cost and spending levels. If any re-examination of spending levels is necessary, such re-examination will occur outside of the rate proceeding. The above exclusion does not extend to those portions of the revenue requirements related to interest rate forecasts, interest expense and credit, Treasury repayment schedules, forecasts of depreciation and amortization expense, forecasts of system replacements used in repayment studies, Residential Exchange Program benefits, purchased power expenses, transmission acquisition expense incurred by Power Services, generation acquisition expense incurred by Transmission Services, minimum required net revenue, use of financial reserves, and the costs of risk mitigation actions resulting from the expense and revenue uncertainties included in the risk analysis. The Administrator also directs the Hearing Officer to exclude argument and evidence regarding BPA's debt management practices and policies. See section II.C.5.

    2. Tiered Rate Methodology (TRM)

    The TRM restricts BPA and customers with Contract High Water Mark (CHWM) contracts from proposing changes to the TRM's ratesetting guidelines unless certain procedures have been successfully concluded. No proposed changes have been subjected to the required procedures.

    Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all argument, testimony, or other evidence that seeks in any way to propose revisions to the TRM made by BPA, customers with a CHWM contract, or their representatives. This restriction does not extend to a party or customer that does not have a CHWM contract.

    3. Service to the Direct Service Industries (DSIs)

    The level and method of service to DSIs during the FY 2018-2019 rate period are established in existing contractual arrangements with Alcoa, Inc. and Port Townsend Paper Corporation. Neither the contracts nor the records of decision supporting those contracts were subject to any petition for review in the Ninth Circuit. For this reason, pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all argument, testimony, or other evidence that seeks in any way to revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's decisions regarding service to the DSIs, including BPA's decision to offer contracts to the DSIs and the method, level of service, or other terms embodied in the existing contracts with Alcoa and Port Townsend.

    4. Generation Inputs

    BPA provides a portion of the available generation from the FCRPS to enable Transmission Services to meet its various requirements. Transmission Services uses these generation inputs to provide ancillary and control area services.

    Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all argument, testimony, or other evidence that seeks in any way to revisit issues regarding reliability of the transmission system, dispatcher standing orders, e-Tag requirements and definitions, open access transmission tariff (OATT) provisions, and business practices. These non-rates issues are generally addressed by BPA in accordance with industry, reliability, and other compliance standards and criteria and are not matters appropriate for the rate proceeding.

    5. Federal and Non-Federal Debt Service and Debt Management

    During the 2016 IPR/CIR process and in other forums, BPA provided the public with background information on BPA's internal Federal and non-Federal debt management policies and practices. While these policies and practices are not decided in the IPR/CIR forum, these discussions were intended to inform interested parties about these matters so the parties would better understand BPA's debt structure. BPA's debt management policies and practices remain outside the scope of the rate proceeding.

    Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all argument, testimony, or other evidence that seeks in any way to address the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's debt management policies and practices. This exclusion does not encompass how debt management actions are reflected in ratemaking.

    6. Potential Environmental Impacts

    Environmental impacts are addressed in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process BPA conducts concurrent with the rate proceeding. See section II.D.

    Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all argument, testimony, or other evidence that seeks in any way to address the potential environmental impacts of the rates being developed in this rate proceeding.

    7. 2008 Average System Cost Methodology (2008 ASCM) and Average System Cost Determinations

    Section 5(c) of the Northwest Power Act established the Residential Exchange Program, which provides benefits to residential and farm consumers of Pacific Northwest utilities based, in part, on a utility's “average system cost” (ASC) of resources. On September 4, 2009, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) granted final approval of BPA's 2008 ASCM. The 2008 ASCM is not subject to challenge or review in a section 7(i) proceeding. Determinations of the ASCs of participating utilities are made in separate processes conducted pursuant to the ASCM. Those processes began with ASC filings on June 1, 2016, and are continuing through July 2017. The determinations of ASCs are not subject to challenge or review in a section 7(i) proceeding.

    Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all argument, testimony, or other evidence that seeks in any way to visit or revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of the 2008 ASCM or that seeks in any way to visit or revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of any of the ongoing ASC determinations.

    8. Rate Period High Water Mark (RHWM) Process

    The RHWM Process preceded the BP-18 rate proceeding. In that process, as directed by the TRM, BPA established FY 2018-2019 RHWMs for Public customers that signed contracts for firm requirements power service providing for tiered rates, referred to as CHWM contracts. BPA established the maximum planned amount of power a customer is eligible to purchase at Tier 1 rates during the rate period, the Above-RHWM Loads for each customer, the System Shaped Load for each customer, the Tier 1 System Firm Critical Output, RHWM Augmentation, the Rate Period Tier 1 System Capability (RT1SC), and the monthly/diurnal shape of RT1SC. The RHWM Process provided customers an opportunity to review, comment on, and challenge BPA's RHWM determinations.

    Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all argument, testimony, or other evidence that seeks in any way to visit or revisit BPA's determination of a customer's FY 2018-2019 RHWM or other RHWM Process determinations.

    9. 2012 Residential Exchange Program Settlement Agreement (2012 REP Settlement)

    On July 26, 2011, the Administrator executed the 2012 REP Settlement, which resolved longstanding litigation over BPA's implementation of the Residential Exchange Program (REP) under section 5(c) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839c(c). The Administrator's findings regarding the legal, factual, and policy challenges to the 2012 REP Settlement are explained in the REP-12 Record of Decision (REP-12 ROD). The 2012 REP Settlement and REP-12 ROD were approved by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Association of Public Agency Customers v. Bonneville Power Administration, 733 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2013). Because the 2012 REP Settlement was part of the REP-12 ROD and was approved by the Court, challenges to BPA's decision to adopt the 2012 REP Settlement and implement its terms in BPA's rate proceedings are not within the scope of this proceeding. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all argument, testimony, or other evidence that seeks in any way to visit or revisit BPA's determination to adopt the 2012 REP Settlement or its terms in this rate proceeding.

    10. Financial Reserves Policy

    BPA is proposing in this rate case a policy to establish targets (and upper and lower thresholds) for financial reserves for each of its business units and the agency as a whole. BPA's financial policies are normally not within the scope of BPA's rate cases; however, for administrative convenience BPA is using the BP-18 rate case process to develop the Financial Reserves Policy in lieu of conducting a parallel, but separate, public process. Therefore, the Financial Reserves Policy, and its implementation in the BP-18 rates, is within the scope of this rate proceeding.

    11. Oversupply Management Protocol

    The proposed OS-18 Oversupply rate is a formula rate designed to recover BPA's oversupply costs. BPA incurs oversupply costs pursuant to the Oversupply Management Protocol, Attachment P of BPA's OATT. Under the proposed formula rates, BPA would recover actual costs incurred during the BP-18 rate period rather than forecast costs, therefore avoiding the need to perform a later true-up between forecast costs and actual costs. Pursuant to Rule 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator limits the scope of this proceeding to issues concerning the rates for recovering the costs of the Oversupply Management Protocol. In particular, the following issues are not part of the scope of the case, and the Hearing Officer is directed to strike all argument, testimony, or other evidence concerning these issues: the terms of the Oversupply Management Protocol; whether the Oversupply Management Protocol complies with orders of the Commission; and whether BPA took all actions to avoid using the Oversupply Management Protocol, including the payment of negative prices to generators outside of BPA's balancing authority area.

    12. Power Product Switching

    On July 18, 2016, BPA issued a letter informing interested parties that Seattle City Light (Seattle) and Klickitat PUD (Klickitat) had requested an early change in their purchase obligations under their Regional Dialogue Power Sales Agreements (Regional Dialogue contracts). In the letter, BPA included its analysis of the proposed early change in purchase obligations and solicited comments from customers and other interested parties. On August 26, 2016, BPA issued a decision letter allowing Seattle and Klickitat to change their purchase obligations from the Slice/Block product to the Block product and Load Following product, respectively, effective October 1, 2017.

    Because BPA has already issued a decision document on Seattle and Klickitat's request for an early change in purchase obligations under their Regional Dialogue contracts, this issue is not within the scope of this proceeding. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all argument, testimony, or other evidence that seeks in any way to visit or revisit BPA's determination to grant Seattle and Klickitat's request for a change in purchase obligations in this rate proceeding.

    D. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    BPA is in the process of assessing the potential environmental effects of its proposed power and transmission rates, consistent with NEPA. The NEPA process is conducted separately from the rate proceeding. As discussed in section II.C.6., all evidence and argument addressing potential environmental impacts of rates being developed in the BP-18 rate proceeding are excluded from the rate proceeding record. Instead, comments on environmental effects should be directed to the NEPA process.

    Because this proposal involves BPA's ongoing business practices related to rates, BPA is reviewing the proposal for consistency with BPA's Business Plan Environmental Impact Statement (Business Plan EIS), completed in June 1995 (BOE/EIS-0183). This policy-level EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of a range of business plan alternatives for BPA that could be varied by applying various policy alternatives, including one for rates. Any combination of alternative policy choices should allow BPA to balance its costs and revenues. The Business Plan EIS also includes response strategies, such as adjustments to rates, that BPA could implement if BPA's costs exceed its revenues.

    In August 1995, the BPA Administrator issued a ROD (Business Plan ROD) that adopted the Market-Driven Alternative from the Business Plan EIS. This alternative was selected because, among other reasons, it allows BPA to (1) recover costs through rates; (2) competitively market BPA's products and services; (3) develop rates that meet customer needs for clarity and simplicity; (4) continue to meet BPA's legal mandates; and (5) avoid adverse environmental impacts. BPA also committed to apply as many response strategies as necessary when BPA's costs and revenues do not balance.

    In April 2007, BPA completed and issued a Supplement Analysis to the Business Plan EIS. This Supplement Analysis found that the Business Plan EIS's relationship-based and policy-level analysis of potential environmental impacts from BPA's business practices remains valid and that BPA's current business practices remain consistent with BPA's Market-Driven Alternative approach. The Business Plan EIS and ROD thus continue to provide a sound basis for making determinations under NEPA concerning BPA's policy-level decisions, including rates.

    Because the proposed rates likely would assist BPA in accomplishing the goals identified in the Business Plan ROD, the proposal appears consistent with these aspects of the Market-Driven Alternative. In addition, this rate proposal is similar to the type of rate designs evaluated in the Business Plan EIS; thus, implementation of this rate proposal would not be expected to result in environmental impacts significantly different from those examined in the Business Plan EIS. Therefore, BPA expects that this rate proposal will likely fall within the scope of the Market-Driven Alternative that was evaluated in the Business Plan EIS and adopted in the Business Plan ROD.

    As part of the Administrator's ROD that will be prepared for the BP-18 rate proceeding, BPA may tier its decision under NEPA to the Business Plan ROD. However, depending upon the ongoing environmental review, BPA may instead issue another appropriate NEPA document. Comments regarding the potential environmental effects of the proposal may be submitted to Stacy Mason, NEPA Compliance Officer, ECP-4, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232. Any such comments received by the comment deadline for Participant Comments identified in section III.A. below will be considered by BPA's NEPA compliance staff in the NEPA process that is being conducted for this proposal.

    Part III—Public Participation in BP-18 A. Distinguishing Between “Participants” and “Parties”

    BPA distinguishes between “participants in” and “parties to” the hearings. Separate from the formal hearing process, BPA will receive written comments, views, opinions, and information from participants, who may submit comments without being subject to the duties of, or having the privileges of, parties. Participants' written comments will be made part of the official record and considered by the Administrator. Participants are not entitled to participate in the prehearing conference; may not cross-examine parties' witnesses, seek discovery, or serve or be served with documents; and are not subject to the same procedural requirements as parties. BPA customers whose rates are subject to this proceeding, or their affiliated customer groups, may not submit participant comments. Members or employees of organizations that have intervened in the rate proceeding may submit participant comments as private individuals (that is, not speaking for their organizations) but may not use the comment procedures to address specific issues raised by their intervenor organizations.

    Written comments by participants will be included in the record if they are received by February 17, 2017. Written views, supporting information, questions, and arguments should be submitted to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    An entity or person becomes a party to the proceeding by filing a petition to intervene, which must state the name and address of the entity or person requesting party status and the entity's or person's interest in the hearing. BPA customers and affiliated customer groups will be granted intervention based on petitions filed in conformance with BPA's Procedures. Other petitioners must explain their interests in sufficient detail to permit the Hearing Officer to determine whether the petitioners have a relevant interest in the hearing. Pursuant to Rule 1010.1(d) of BPA's Procedures, BPA waives the requirement in Rule 1010.4(d) that an opposition to an intervention petition be filed and served 24 hours before the prehearing conference. The time limit for opposing a timely intervention will be established at the prehearing conference. Any party, including BPA, may oppose a petition for intervention. All petitions will be ruled on by the Hearing Officer. Late interventions are strongly disfavored. Opposition to an untimely petition to intervene must be filed and received by BPA within two days after service of the petition.

    B. Developing the Record

    The hearing record will include, among other things, the transcripts of the hearing, written evidence and argument entered into the record by BPA and the parties, written comments from participants, and other material accepted into the record by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer will review the record and certify the record to the Administrator for final decision.

    The Administrator will develop final rates based on the record and such other materials and information as may have been submitted to or developed by the Administrator. The Administrator will serve copies of the Final ROD on all parties. BPA will file its rates with the Commission for confirmation and approval after issuance of the Final ROD.

    Part IV—Summary of Rate Proposals A. Summary of the Power Rate Proposal

    BPA is proposing four rates for Federal power sales and services:

    Priority Firm Power Rate (PF-18)—The PF rate schedule applies to net requirements power sales to public body, cooperative, and Federal agency customers made pursuant to section 5(b) of the Northwest Power Act. It also includes the PF Public rates for the sale of firm requirements power under CHWM contracts and the PF Exchange rates for sales under Residential Purchase and Sale Agreements. The PF Public rate applies to customers taking Load Following, Block, or Slice/Block service. Consistent with the TRM, Tier 1 rates include three charges: (1) Customer charges; (2) a demand charge; and (3) a load shaping charge. In addition, four Tier 2 rates, corresponding to contract options, are applied to customers that have elected to purchase power from BPA for service to their Above-RHWM Load.

    Because very few of BPA's customers are subject to exactly the same mix of PF rate components, BPA has developed a PF rate measure for an average customer purchasing at PF Tier 1 rates. This quantification, the Tier 1 Average Net Cost, is increasing from $33.75/MWh for the PF-16 rate to $34.94/MWh for the PF-18 rate, which is an increase of 3.5 percent for the two-year rate period, or 1.7 percent on an average annual basis.

    The Base PF Exchange rate and its associated surcharges apply to the sale of power to regional utilities that participate in the REP established under section 5(c) of the Northwest Power Act. 16 U.S.C. 839c(c). The Base PF Exchange rate establishes the threshold for participation in the REP; only utilities with ASCs above the appropriate Base PF Exchange rate may receive REP benefits. If a utility meets the threshold, a utility-specific PF Exchange rate will be established in this proceeding for each eligible utility. The utility-specific PF Exchange rate is used in calculating the REP benefits each participant will receive during FY 2018-2019.

    The proposed PF-18 rate schedule also includes resource support services rates for customers with non-Federal resources, and a melded PF rate for any Public customer that elects a power sales contract other than a CHWM contract for firm requirements service. Transfer service charges for delivery, operating reserves, and Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) assessments are applicable to customers served under non-Federal transmission service agreements.

    New Resource Firm Power Rate (NR-18)—The NR-18 rate applies to net requirements power sales to investor-owned utilities (IOUs) made pursuant to section 5(b) of the Northwest Power Act for resale to ultimate consumers; direct consumption; construction, testing and start-up; and station service. The NR-18 rate is also applied to sales of firm power to Public customers when this power is used to serve new large single loads. In addition, the NR rate schedule includes rates for services to support Public customers serving new large single loads with non-Federal resources. In the BP-18 Initial Proposal BPA is forecasting no sales at the NR rate. The average NR-18 rate in the Initial Proposal is $79.63/MWh, an increase of 7.9 percent from the NR-16 rate.

    Industrial Firm Power Rate (IP-18)—The IP rate is applicable to firm power sales to DSI customers authorized by section 5(d)(1)(A) of the Northwest Power Act. 16 U.S.C. 839c(d)(1)(A). In the Initial Proposal BPA is forecasting annual sales of 75 average megawatts (aMW) to DSIs at the IP rate. The average IP-18 rate in the Initial Proposal is $42.82/MWh, an increase of 2.1 percent over the IP-16 rate.

    Firm Power and Surplus Products and Services Rate (FPS-18)—The FPS rate schedule is applicable to sales of various surplus power products and surplus transmission capacity for use inside and outside the Pacific Northwest. The rates for these products are negotiated between BPA and the purchasers. The FPS-18 rate schedule also includes rates for customers with non-Federal resources; the Unanticipated Load Service rate; rates for other capacity, energy, and scheduling products and services; and rates for reserve services for use outside the BPA balancing authority area.

    B. Summary of the Transmission Rate Proposal

    BPA is proposing an overall 1.1 percent increase in transmission rates for the two-year rate period, or 0.5 percent on an average annual basis. BPA is proposing four rates for the use of its Network segment, four rates for use of intertie segments, and several other rates for various purposes. The four rates for use of the Network segment are:

    Formula Power Transmission Rate (FPT-18)—The FPT rate is based on the cost of using specific types of facilities, including a distance component for the use of transmission lines, and is charged on a contract demand basis.

    Integration of Resources Rate (IR-18)—The IR rate is a postage stamp, contract demand rate for use of the Network, similar to Point-to-Point (PTP) service (see below), and includes Scheduling, System Control, and Dispatch Service.

    Network Integration Transmission Rate (NT-18)—The NT rate applies to customers taking network integration service under BPA's OATT and allows customers to flexibly serve their retail load.

    Point-to-Point Rate (PTP-18)—The PTP rate is a contract demand rate that applies to customers taking Point-to-Point service on BPA's network facilities under the OATT. It provides customers with flexible service from identified Points of Receipt to identified Points of Delivery. There are separate PTP rates for long-term firm service, daily firm and non-firm service, and hourly firm and non-firm service.

    BPA is proposing four rates for intertie use:

    The Southern Intertie Rate (IS-18) is a contract demand rate that applies to customers taking Point-to-Point service under BPA's OATT on the Southern Intertie. BPA is proposing to recognize a reduction in the number of high demand hours which results in a 225 percent increase in the Southern Intertie hourly rate.

    The Montana Intertie Rate (IM-18) applies to customers taking Point-to-Point service on the Eastern Intertie.

    The Townsend-Garrison Transmission Rate (TGT-18) is a rate for firm service over BPA's section of the Montana Intertie and is available to parties to the Montana Intertie Agreement.

    The Eastern Intertie Rate (IE-18) is a rate for non-firm service on the portion of the Eastern Intertie capacity that exceeds BPA's firm transmission rights and is available to parties to the Montana Intertie Agreement.

    Other proposed transmission rates are:

    The Use-of-Facilities Rate (UFT-18) establishes a formula rate for the use of a specific facility based on the annual cost of that facility.

    The Advance Funding Rate (AF-18) allows BPA to collect the capital and related costs of specific facilities through an advance-funding mechanism.

    The Scheduling, System Control, and Dispatch Service Rate and the Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service Rate are required ancillary services for transmission service on the Network, the Southern Intertie, and the Montana Intertie.

    The WECC and Peak rates (PW-18) are rates for costs assessed to BPA to cover WECC and Peak reliability functions.

    The Oversupply Rate (OS-18) recovers the costs BPA incurs to displace generation under the Oversupply Management Protocol, Attachment P to BPA's OATT.

    Other charges that may apply include a Delivery Charge for the use of low-voltage delivery substations; a Reservation Fee for customers that postpone their service commencement dates; incremental rates for transmission requests that require new facilities; a penalty charge for failure to comply with dispatch, curtailment, redispatch, or load shedding orders; and an Unauthorized Increase Charge for customers whose use exceeds their contracted amounts.

    C. Ancillary Service and Control Area Service Rates

    Beginning in January 2016, BPA held rate case workshops and solicited stakeholder comments concerning generation inputs issues that form the foundation of most ancillary service and control area service rates. Starting in the summer of 2016, BPA and stakeholders developed a settlement agreement that would set the rates for most ancillary and control area services, including the Variable Energy Resource Balancing Service (VERBS) rates for wind and solar resources, the Dispatchable Energy Resource Balancing Service (DERBS) rate, the two Operating Reserves rates, and the Regulation and Frequency Response rate. The settlement agreement also provides for other limited changes to the rate schedules, as well as BPA's agreement to conduct certain analytical work associated with the future integration of solar generation into BPA's Balancing Authority Area.

    BPA asked all entities that intended to be parties to the BP-18 rate proceeding to either sign the agreement or declare their intention to contest the agreement by October 5, 2016. By that deadline, 20 parties signed or agreed not to contest the settlement agreement. No party declared an intent to contest the agreement.

    BPA will file the BP-18 generation inputs settlement agreement as part of the BP-18 Initial Proposal. Parties will be given an opportunity to contest the agreement pursuant to a timeline established by the Hearing Officer.

    D. Financial Reserves Policy

    In March 2016 BPA began public workshops to discuss establishing a financial reserves policy to guide management of the level of financial reserves available for risk (financial reserves) for BPA as a whole and for Power Services and Transmission Services separately. BPA received customer comment and feedback and used it to develop a financial reserves policy that will be filed as part of the BP-18 Initial Proposal.

    The financial reserves policy is intended to provide a consistent, transparent, and financially prudent method for determining target financial reserves levels and upper and lower financial reserves thresholds for Power Services, Transmission Services, and BPA as a whole. The policy also describes the actions BPA may take in response to financial reserves levels that either fall below a lower threshold or exceed an upper threshold.

    E. Risk Mitigation Tools

    BPA uses risk mitigation tools to buffer against poor financial performance over the rate period to protect the agency's solvency and strong credit rating. The main financial risk mitigation tool BPA relies upon is financial liquidity, which consists of financial reserves and a short-term liquidity facility with the U.S. Treasury.

    1. Power Risk Mitigation Tools

    For Power Services, BPA proposes to use financial reserves attributed to Power Services and the short-term liquidity facility as primary risk mitigation tools. In addition, BPA proposes to include two rate adjustment mechanisms in the power rate schedules (and in certain ancillary and control area services rate schedules) that may adjust rates in the event Power Service's financial reserves fall below or exceed certain thresholds. The Cost Recovery Adjustment Clause (CRAC) will adjust rates upward to generate additional cash within the rate period if financial reserves attributed to Power Services fall below a defined lower threshold. BPA is proposing to replace the current Dividend Distribution Clause with a provision that expands the Administrator's options for using financial reserves attributed to Power Services when Power Services financial reserves and agency financial reserves are above established thresholds. When available liquidity and the CRAC are insufficient to meet the Power Services Treasury Payment Probability (TPP) standard of at least 95 percent, BPA includes Planned Net Revenues for Risk (PNRR) in Power rates. The TPP is the probability of BPA making its Treasury payments on time and in full each year of the two-year rate period.

    In the Initial Proposal, BPA proposes to include no PNRR and to cap the maximum revenue recoverable through the Power CRAC at $300 million per year. BPA also proposes to continue the National Marine Fisheries Service FCRPS Biological Opinion Adjustment (NFB Adjustment) and the Emergency NFB Surcharge, given the continuation of litigation regarding the Biological Opinion.

    2. Transmission Risk Mitigation Tools

    BPA proposes to use financial reserves attributed to Transmission Services as the primary risk mitigation tool. BPA also proposes to include provisions for two rate adjustments in the Transmission rate schedules similar to those in the Power rate schedules: (1) The CRAC, and (2) an adjustment that provides options for using financial reserves attributed to Transmission Services when Transmission Services financial reserves and agency financial reserves are above established thresholds. When available liquidity and the CRAC are insufficient for Transmission Services to meet the TPP standard, BPA includes PNRR in Transmission rates. In the Initial Proposal, BPA proposes to include no PNRR and to cap the maximum revenue recoverable through the Transmission CRAC at $100 million per year.

    Part V—Proposed BP-18 Rate Schedules

    BPA's proposed BP-18 Power Rate Schedules and Transmission Rate Schedules are a part of this notice and are available for viewing and downloading on BPA's Web site at http://www.bpa.gov/goto/BP18.

    Issued this 1st day of November, 2016. Elliot E. Mainzer, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27181 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FE Docket No. 16-110-LNG] Lake Charles Exports, LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on August 15, 2016, by Lake Charles Exports, LLC (LCE), requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG), in a volume equivalent to 121 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/yr) of natural gas (0.33 Bcf per day). LCE seeks authorization to export the LNG by vessel from the existing Lake Charles Terminal located in Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.1 LCE requests authorization to export this LNG to any country with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries).2 The requested export volume (121 Bcf/yr) is incremental and therefore would be additive to the volume of LNG previously authorized for export from the Lake Charles Terminal to non-FTA countries in DOE/FE Order No. 3324-A (730 Bcf/yr).3 LCE states that, through this request, it seeks to align its authorized LNG export volumes for non-FTA countries with the maximum liquefaction production capacity of the Lake Charles Terminal, as approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. LCE requests the authorization for a 20-year term to commence on the earlier of the date of first export or seven years from the date the requested authorization is issued. LCE seeks to export this LNG on its own behalf and as agent for other entities who hold title to the LNG at the time of export. The Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Additional details can be found in LCE's Application, posted on the DOE/FE Web site at: http://www.energy.gov/fe/lake-charles-exports-llc-fe-dkt-16-110-lng-export-fta-nftas.

    Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.

    1 Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC, owns and operates the Lake Charles Terminal. LCE will own the proposed liquefaction facility and hold the requested LNG export authorization. App. at 2.

    2 In the Application, LCE also requests authorization to export the same volume of LNG to any nation that currently has, or in the future may enter into, a FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (FTA countries). DOE/FE will review that request for a FTA export authorization separately pursuant to NGA § 3(c), 15 U.S.C. 717b(c). The proposed export volumes for FTA and non-FTA countries are not additive.

    3 App. at 2; see Lake Charles Exports, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 3324-A, FE Docket No. 11-59-LNG, Final Opinion and Order Granting Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel from the Lake Charles Terminal in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations (July 29, 2016).

    DATES:

    Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, January 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic Filing by email: [email protected]

    Regular Mail: U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, DC 20026-4375.

    Hand Delivery or Private Delivery Services (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.): U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kyle W. Moorman or Larine Moore, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7970; (202) 586-9578. Cassandra Bernstein, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76), Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9793.
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE/FE Evaluation

    The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, and U.S. energy security. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy, international considerations, and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. As part of this analysis, DOE will consider the following two studies examining the cumulative impacts of exporting domestically produced LNG:

    Effect of Increased Levels of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports on U.S. Energy Markets, conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration upon DOE's request (“2014 EIA LNG Export Study”); 4 and

    4 The 2014 EIA LNG Export Study, published on Oct. 29, 2014, is available at: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/fe/.

    The Macroeconomic Impact of Increasing U.S. LNG Exports, conducted jointly by the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and Oxford Economics, on behalf of DOE (“2015 LNG Export Study”).5

    5 The 2015 LNG Export Study, published on Oct. 29, 2015, is available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/20151113_macro_impact_of_lng_exports_0.pdf.

    Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:

    Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas from the United States, 79 FR 48132 (Aug. 15, 2014); 6 and

    6 The Addendum and related documents are available at: http://energy.gov/fe/addendum-environmental-review-documents-concerning-exports-natural-gas-united-states.

    Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States, 79 FR 32260 (June 4, 2014).7

    7 The Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Report is available at: http://energy.gov/fe/life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-perspective-exporting-liquefied-natural-gas-united-states.

    Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.

    Public Comment Procedures

    In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested persons will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

    Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.

    Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to [email protected], with FE Docket No. 16-110-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation and International Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation and International Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 16-110-LNG. PLEASE NOTE: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater in length than fifty (50) pages must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

    A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

    The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Regulation and International Engagement docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically at: http://energy.gov/fe/lake-charles-exports-llc-fe-dkt-16-110-lng-export-fta-nftas.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 2016. John A. Anderson, Director, Office of Regulation and International Engagement. Office of Oil and Natural Gas
    [FR Doc. 2016-27180 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FE Docket No. 16-109-LNG] Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on August 12, 2016, by Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC (Lake Charles LNG Export), requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG), in a volume equivalent to 121 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/yr) of natural gas (0.33 Bcf per day). Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.

    DATES:

    Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, January 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic Filing by email: [email protected]

    Regular Mail

    U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, DC 20026-4375.

    Hand Delivery or Private Delivery Services (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.)

    U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kyle W. Moorman or Larine Moore, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7970; (202) 586-9578. Cassandra Bernstein, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76), Office of the Assistant General Counsel for, Electricity and Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Lake Charles LNG Export seeks authorization to export the LNG by vessel from the existing Lake Charles Liquefaction Terminal (Lake Charles Terminal) located in Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.1 Lake Charles LNG Export requests authorization to export this LNG to any country with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries).2 Lake Charles LNG Export states that the requested export volume (121 Bcf/yr) is incremental and therefore additive to the volume of LNG previously authorized for export from the Lake Charles Terminal to non-FTA countries in DOE/FE Order No. 3868 (730 Bcf/yr).3 Lake Charles LNG Export further states that, through this request, it seeks to align its authorized LNG export volumes for non-FTA countries with the maximum liquefaction production capacity of the Lake Charles Terminal, as approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Lake Charles LNG Export requests the authorization for a 20-year term to commence on the earlier of the date of first export or seven years from the date the requested authorization is issued. Lake Charles LNG Export seeks to export this LNG on its own behalf and as agent for other entities who hold title to the LNG at the time of export. The Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Additional details can be found in Lake Charles LNG Export's Application, posted on the DOE/FE Web site at: http://www.energy.gov/fe/lake-charles-lng-export-company-llc-fe-docket-16-109-lng-export-fta-and-nftas.

    1 Lake Charles LNG Export states that its affiliate, Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC, owns and operates the Lake Charles Terminal. Lake Charles LNG Export states that it will own the proposed liquefaction facility and hold the requested LNG export authorization.

    2 In the Application, Lake Charles LNG Export also requests authorization to export LNG to any nation that currently has, or in the future may enter into, a FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (FTA countries). DOE/FE will review that request for a FTA export authorization separately pursuant to NGA § 3(c), 15 U.S.C. 717b(c). The proposed export volumes for FTA and non-FTA countries are not additive.

    3Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 3868, FE Docket No. 13-04-LNG, Opinion and Order Granting Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas by Vessel from the Lake Charles Terminal in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations (July 29, 2016).

    DOE/FE Evaluation

    The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, and U.S. energy security. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy, international considerations, and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. As part of this analysis, DOE will consider the following two studies examining the cumulative impacts of exporting domestically produced LNG:

    Effect of Increased Levels of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports on U.S. Energy Markets, conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration upon DOE's request (2014 EIA LNG Export Study);4 and

    4 The 2014 EIA LNG Export Study, published on Oct. 29, 2014, is available at: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/fe/.

    The Macroeconomic Impact of Increasing U.S. LNG Exports, conducted jointly by the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and Oxford Economics, on behalf of DOE (2015 LNG Export Study).5

    5 The 2015 LNG Export Study, dated Oct. 29, 2015, is available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/20151113_macro_impact_of_lng_exports_0.pdf.

    Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:

    Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 48132 (Aug. 15, 2014);6 and

    6 The Addendum and related documents are available at: http://energy.gov/fe/addendum-environmental-review-documents-concerning-exports-natural-gas-united-states.

    Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States, 79 FR 32260 (June 4, 2014).7

    7 The Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Report is available at: http://energy.gov/fe/life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-perspective-exporting-liquefied-natural-gas-united-states.

    Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.

    Public Comment Procedures

    In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested persons will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

    Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.

    Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to [email protected], with FE Docket No. 16-109-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation and International Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation and International Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 16-109-LNG. Please note: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater in length than 50 pages must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

    A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

    The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Regulation and International Engagement docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://energy.gov/fe/lake-charles-lng-export-company-llc-fe-docket-16-109-lng-export-fta-and-nftas.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 2016. John A. Anderson, Director, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas. [FR Doc. 2016-27175 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY U.S. Energy Information Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery AGENCY:

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    30-Day Notice of Submission of Information Collection Approval From the Office of Management and Budget and Request for Comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, EIA has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted by December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted to:

    DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    and to

    Jacob Bournazian, Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, or by fax at 202-586-0552, or by email at [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Jacob Bournazian, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, phone: 202-586-5562, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Number: 1905-0210.

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    Abstract: The proposed information collection activity provides a means to collect qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery.

    Qualitative feedback means data that provide useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations. This feedback also provides an early warning of issues with service, or focuses attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve the accuracy of data reported on survey instruments or the delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    The 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register of August 1, 2016 at 81 FR 50492 and is available at https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-01/pdf/2016-18120.pdf. EIA proposes to increase the burden hour estimate shown in the 60-day notice from 15,000 hours to 15,750 hours (5,250 hours annually) to reflect current program needs. Below we provide EIA's projected average estimates for the next three years:

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: 10.

    Average Number of Respondents per Activity: 5,000.

    Annual Estimated Number of Responses: 50,000.

    Frequency of Response: Once per request.

    Average Minutes per Response: 6.3.

    Annual Burden Hours: 5,250.

    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 Office of Management and Budget control number.

    Statutory Authority:

    Executive Order (EO) 13571, Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 4, 2016. Nanda Srinivasan, Director, Office of Survey Development and Statistical Integration, U.S. Energy Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27173 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365; FRL-9955-09-ORD] Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Meeting—December 2016 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting (via conference call) of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee.

    DATES:

    The conference call will be held on Friday, December 2, 2016, from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Eastern Time. These times are approximate; the conference call may adjourn early if all business is finished or may adjourn late if additional time is needed. Written comments and requests for the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the meeting will be accepted through Thursday, December 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Participation in the conference call will be by teleconference only; meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the call from Tim Benner, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    Submitting Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Send comments by electronic mail (email) to: [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365.

    Fax: Fax comments to: (202) 566-0224, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365.

    Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Docket, Mail Code: 2822T, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365. Note: this is not a mailing address. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Docket, EPA/DC, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Tim Benner, Mail Code 8104R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564-6769; via fax at: (202) 565-2911; or via email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    General Information: The conference call is open to the public. Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft agenda, attending the conference call, or making a presentation during the conference call may contact Tim Benner, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes. Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following: Presentation and discussion of the subcommittee's draft responses to the charge questions and approval of the final draft letter report prior to its submission to the BOSC Executive Committee.

    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tim Benner at (202) 564-6769 or [email protected] To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tim Benner, preferably at least ten days prior to the conference call, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Fred S. Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27187 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0021; FRL-9954-07] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0021 and the file symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, 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 L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), and Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P). The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each application summary.

    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. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    1. EPA Registration Number: 100-1374. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0537. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Sedaxane. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Grain, cereal, group 15; Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 and Peanut (seed treatment). Contact: RD.

    2. EPA Registration Number: 100-1381. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0537. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Sedaxane. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Grain, cereal, group 15; Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 and Peanut (seed treatment). Contact: RD.

    3. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-1571. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Oxathiapiprolin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Cacao. Contact: RD.

    4. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-1572. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Oxathiapiprolin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Cacao. Contact: RD.

    5. EPA Registration Number: 264-1077. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0541. Applicant: Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Fluopyram. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Seed treatment use on Corn (seed treatment); Sorghum (seed treatment); Tobacco; and Wheat (seed treatment). Contact: RD.

    6. EPA Registration Number: 264-1078. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0541. Applicant: Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Fluopyram. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Tobacco. Contact: RD.

    7. EPA Registration Number: 264-1137. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0508. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Fluoxastrobin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: Rapeseed subgroup 20A (seed treatment). Contact: RD.

    8. EPA Registration Number: 264-1167. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0541. Applicant: Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Fluopyram. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Corn, Sorghum and Wheat (seed treatment). Contact: RD.

    9. EPA Registration Number: 264-1169. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0508. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Fluoxastrobin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: Rapeseed subgroup 20A (seed treatment). Contact: RD.

    10. EPA File Symbol: 279-GANR. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0787. Applicant: FMC 2929 Walnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Active Ingredient: Pyroxasulfone. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Dried Shelled Beans and Peas (Crop Subgroup 6C), Flax, and Sunflower subgroup 20B. Contact: RD.

    11. EPA Registration Number: 352-890. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049. Applicant: DuPont Crop Protection, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714. Active ingredient: Oxathiapiprolin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Cacao. Contact: RD.

    12. EPA Registration Number: 63588-91. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0787. Applicant: K-I Chemical USA. Inc., 11 Martine Ave., Suite 970 White Plains, NY 10606. Active Ingredient: Pyroxasulfone. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Dried Shelled Beans and Peas (Crop Subgroup 6C), Flax, Peanut, Peanut Hay, and Sunflower subgroup 20B. Contact: RD.

    13. EPA Registration Number: 63588-92. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0787. Applicant: K-I Chemical USA. Inc., 11 Martine Ave., Suite 970 White Plains, NY 10606. Active Ingredient: Pyroxasulfone. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Dried Shelled Beans and Peas (Crop Subgroup 6C), Flax, Peanut, Peanut Hay, and Sunflower subgroup 20B. Contact: RD.

    14. EPA Registration Number: 70506-173. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0536. Applicant: United Phosphorus, Inc. c/o Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., 4110 136th St. CT NW., Gig Harbor, WA 98332. Active ingredient: Ziram. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Filbert (Hazelnut). Contact: RD.

    15. EPA Registration Number: 70506-179. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0536. Applicant: United Phosphorus, Inc. c/o Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., 4110 136th St. CT NW., Gig Harbor, WA 98332. Active ingredient: Ziram. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Filbert (Hazelnut). Contact: RD.

    16. EPA Registration Number: 71693-2. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0567. Applicant: Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council, 3721 E. Wier Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85040. Active ingredient: Aspergillus flavus strain AF36. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Almond and Fig. Contact: BPPD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 28, 2016. Rachel C. Holloman, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27192 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0021; FRL-9954-05] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0021 and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, 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 L. Goodis, Acting Director, 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. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    1. EPA Registration Number: 279-GANA. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0538. Applicant: FMC Agricultural Solutions, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Active ingredient: Bixafen. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Barley; Corn; Oats; Peanut; Potato; Rye; Sorghum; Soybean; Sugar beet; Triticale; Vegetable, root, subgroup 1A; Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C; and Wheat Contact: RD.

    2. EPA Registration Number: 279-GANE. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0538. Applicant: FMC Agricultural Solutions, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Active ingredient: Bixafen and Iprodione. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Potato Contact: RD.

    3. EPA Registration Number: 279-GANG. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0538. Applicant: FMC Agricultural Solutions, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Active ingredient: Bixafen and Flutriafol. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Corn; Peanut; Sorghum; Soybean; Sugar beet; Triticale; and Wheat Contact: RD.

    4. EPA Registration Number: 279-GANL. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0538. Applicant: FMC Agricultural Solutions, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Active ingredient: Bixafen and Tebuconazole. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Barley; Corn; Oats; Peanut; Soybean; and Wheat Contact: RD.

    5. EPA Registration Number: 279-GANU. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0538. Applicant: FMC Agricultural Solutions, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Active ingredient: Bixafen and Azoxystrobin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Barley; Corn; Oats; Peanut; Rye; Soybean; Triticale; Vegetable, root, subgroup 1A; Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C; and and Wheat Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 28, 2016. Rachael Holloman, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27202 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677; FRL-9954-24] Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control Act AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is announcing its receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which information has been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the information received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: John Schaeffer, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8173; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures

    Information received about the following chemical substances and/or mixtures is identified in Unit IV.:

    Ethanedioic acid (CASRN 144-62-7).

    Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) (CASRN 556-67-2).

    Phenol, 2,4-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)-6-[2-(2-nitrophenyl)diazenyl]- (CASRN 70693-50-4).

    II. Authority

    TSCA section 4(d) (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement promulgated under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603).

    III. Docket Information

    A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this Federal Register document, which announces the receipt of the information. Upon EPA's completion of its quality assurance review, the information received will be added to the docket identified in Unit IV., which represents the docket used for the TSCA section 4 rule, order, and/or consent agreement. In addition, once completed, EPA reviews of the information received will be added to the same docket. Use the docket ID number provided in Unit IV. to access the information received and any available EPA review.

    EPA's dockets are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    IV. Information Received

    As specified by TSCA section 4(d), this unit identifies the information received by EPA.

    A. Ethanedioic acid (CASRN 144-62-7)

    1. Chemical Use(s): Ethanedioic acid is used as a rust remover; in antirust metal cleaners and coatings; as a flame-proofing and cross-linking agent in cellulose fabrics; as a reducing agent in mordent wool dying; as an acid dye stabilizing agent in nylon; as a scouring agent for cotton printing; and as a dye stripper for wool. Ethanedioic acid is also used for degumming silk; for the separation and recovery of rare earth elements from ore; for bleaching leather and masonry; for cleaning aluminum and wood decks; and as a synthetic intermediate for pharmaceuticals

    2. Applicable Rule, Order, or Consent Agreement: Chemical testing requirements for second group of high production volume chemicals (HPV2), 40 CFR 799.5087.

    3. Applicable docket ID number: The information received will be added to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531.

    4. Information Received: EPA received the following information:

    Request for an exemption from testing from Atotech USA Inc.

    B. Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) (CASRN 556-67-2)

    1. Chemical Use(s): D4 is used as an intermediate for silicone copolymers and other chemicals. D4 is also used in industrial processing applications as a solvent (which becomes part of a product formulation or mixture), finishing agent, and an adhesive and sealant chemical. It is also used for both consumer and commercial purposes in paints and coatings, and plastic and rubber products and has consumer uses in polishes, sanitation, soaps, detergents, adhesives, and sealants.

    2. Applicable Rule, Order, or Consent Agreement: Enforceable Consent Agreement for Environmental Testing for Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) (CASRN 556-67-2).

    3. Applicable docket ID number: The information received will be added to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0209.

    4. Information Received: EPA received the following information:

    a. Summary of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Copy of the Field Notebook of the Wichita Kansas Sampling Event (Sampling of Benthic Organisms).

    b. Request for a modification to a study plan to provide for the collection of additional quality assurance samples for biosolids and sediment.

    C. Phenol, 2,4-bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)-6-[2-(2-nitrophenyl)diazenyl]- (CASRN 70693-50-4).

    1. Chemical Use(s): Used in UV absorber or as a light stabilizer for plastics.

    2. Applicable Rule, Order, or Consent Agreement: Chemical testing requirements for third group of high production volume chemicals (HPV3), 40 CFR 799.5089.

    3. Applicable docket ID number: The information received will be added to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112.

    4. Information Received: EPA received the following information:

    Physical/Chemical Properties (A1, A2). Melting Point and Boiling Point.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: October 27, 2016. Maria J. Doa, Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27190 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0483; FRL-9952-84] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for August 2016 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or expired; and a periodic status report on any new chemicals under EPA review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document covers the period from August 1, 2016 to August 31, 2016. This document also corrects the docket number of the previously published second Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for June 2016 in the Federal Register of October 27, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0483, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, 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: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 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:

    For technical information contact: Jim Rahai, IMD 7407M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8593; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.

    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. What action is the agency taking?

    This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from August 1, 2016 to August 31, 2016, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

    III. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic reports on the status of new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.

    For the 57 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

    III. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a notice before initiating the activity. TSCA furthermore prohibits such manufacturing or processing from commencing until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(ii)). Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic reports on the status of new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.

    For the 57 PMNs received by EPA during this period, the table provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

    Table 1—PMNs Received From August 1, 2016 to August 31, 2016 Case No. Received date Projected
  • notice end
  • date
  • Manufacturer
  • importer
  • Use Chemical
    P-16-0502 8/1/2016 10/30/2016 CBI (S) Corrosion inhibitor for penetrating or spray oils (S) Undecanoic acid, branched. P-16-0502 8/1/2016 10/30/2016 CBI (S) Chemical intermediate for ester production for oil additives and lubricants (S) Undecanoic acid, branched. P-16-0502 8/1/2016 10/30/2016 CBI (S) Corrosion inhibitor for gear oils (S) Undecanoic acid, branched. P-16-0502 8/1/2016 10/30/2016 CBI (S) Chemical intermediate (neutralized) for use as a corrosion inhibitor (S) Undecanoic acid, branched. P-16-0502 8/1/2016 10/30/2016 CBI (S) Corrosion inhibitor for hydraulic fluids (S) Undecanoic acid, branched. P-16-0502 8/1/2016 10/30/2016 CBI (S) Export (S) Undecanoic acid, branched. P-16-0503 8/2/2016 10/31/2016 Allnex USA Inc. (S) Site limited intermediate for production of a deck stain coating resin additive (G) Fatty acids, polymers with alkanoic acid, substituted carbomonocycle, alkyl peroxide-initiated. P-16-0504 8/2/2016 10/31/2016 Colonial Chemical, Inc (S) Fire fighting foams (S) Amides, soya, N-[-3(dimethylamino)propyl], N-oxides. P-16-0504 8/2/2016 10/31/2016 Colonial Chemical, Inc (S) Household surfactant formulas (S) Amides, soya, N-[-3(dimethylamino)propyl], N-oxides. P-16-0505 8/2/2016 10/31/2016 CBI (S) Polymeric resin for ultraviolet (uv) curable acrylates (S) Poly[oxy(methyl- 1, 2- ethanediyl) ] , ?- (1- oxo- 2- propen- 1- yl) - ?- [(1- oxo- 2- propen- 1- yl) oxy]. P-16-0506 8/31/2016 11/29/2016 CBI (G) Filler (G) Organosilane modified alumina. P-16-0507 8/3/2016 11/1/2016 Lamberti USA Inc. (G) Additive for industrial purposes (G) Hydroxy acids, polymer, reaction product with polyethyleneimine. P-16-0509 8/5/2016 11/3/2016 CBI (G) For packaging application (G) Modified evoh. P-16-0510 8/5/2016 11/3/2016 International Flavors and Fragrances Inc (S) The notified polymer functions to reduce malodors. It will be sold to industrial and commercial customers for their incorporation into industrial, commercial, and household consumer products such as floor cleaners, cat litters, fabric refresher sprays, Etc (S) Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, bis[2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]propyl] ether. P-16-0511 8/15/2016 11/13/2016 CBI (G) Oilfield additive (S) Benzenesulfonic acid, 4 - C10 - 13-sec-alkyl derivs., compds. with ethanolamine. P-16-0512 8/9/2016 11/7/2016 CBI (S) Component of a ultraviolet curable printing inks (G) Fatty acid dimers, polymer with acrylic acid and pentaerythritol reaction products. P-16-0513 8/8/2016 11/6/2016 CBI (S) Intermediate for further reaction (G) Alkylphenol. P-16-0514 8/9/2016 11/7/2016 CBI (G) Catalyst (G) Mixed metal oxide. P-16-0515 8/9/2016 11/7/2016 CBI (G) Additive (G) Diamine substituted arylimidazole. P-16-0516 8/12/2016 11/10/2016 CBI (S) Intermediate for pesticide manufacture (G) Aminohalocarboxylate. P-16-0517 8/12/2016 11/10/2016 CBI (G) Monomer for polymer application (G) Methacrylic acid ester. P-16-0518 8/12/2016 11/10/2016 CBI (G) Adhesion resin (G) Polyalkylether polyester P-16-0519 8/12/2016 11/10/2016 CBI (G) Adhesion resin (G) Polyalkylether polyester. P-16-0520 8/15/2016 11/13/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent and pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0521 8/15/2016 11/13/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent and pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), potassium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0522 8/15/2016 11/13/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent and pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), sodium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0523 8/15/2016 11/13/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent and pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), ammonium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0524 8/18/2016 11/16/2016 Miwon North America, Inc. (S) Resin for industrial coating (G) Acrylated resin. P-16-0525 8/18/2016 11/16/2016 CBI (G) Ingredient for ink, coating and adhesive formulations (G) Polyester benzoate. P-16-0526 8/18/2016 11/16/2016 CBI (G) Coatings application (G) Fluorinated alkyl derivative. P-16-0526 8/18/2016 11/16/2016 CBI (G) Electronic cleaner (G) Fluorinated alkyl derivative. P-16-0526 8/18/2016 11/16/2016 CBI (G) Printing application (G) Fluorinated alkyl derivative. P-16-0527 8/19/2016 11/17/2016 CBI (S) Uv absorber for plastic articles (G) Bis[[(diphenyl-heteroaryl)-substituted phenoxy]ethyl] dodecanedioate. P-16-0528 8/23/2016 11/21/2016 Shell Chemical LP (S) Coatings (S) Hydrocarbons, C16 - 22, branched and linear. P-16-0528 8/23/2016 11/21/2016 Shell Chemical LP (S) Cleaning fluids (S) Hydrocarbons, C16 - 22, branched and linear. P-16-0528 8/23/2016 11/21/2016 Shell Chemical LP (S) Sold as intermediate (S) Hydrocarbons, C16 - 22, branched and linear. P-16-0528 8/23/2016 11/21/2016 Shell Chemical LP (S) Agrochemicals (S) Hydrocarbons, C16 - 22, branched and linear. P-16-0528 8/23/2016 11/21/2016 Shell Chemical LP (S) Metal workings fluids/Rolling oils (S) Hydrocarbons, C16 - 22, branched and linear. P-16-0529 8/24/2016 11/22/2016 CBI (S) Personal care products (G) Polyalkyl methylsiloxane. P-16-0529 8/24/2016 11/22/2016 CBI (G) Textile treatment (G) Polyalkyl methylsiloxane. P-16-0529 8/24/2016 11/22/2016 CBI (G) Commercial polish (G) Polyalkyl methylsiloxane. P-16-0530 8/25/2016 11/23/2016 CBI (S) Concrete and Stone coating (S) 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl, 2-(dimethylamino) ethyl ester, polymer with ethyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl m2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl 2-propenoate, acetate salt. P-16-0530 8/25/2016 11/23/2016 CBI (S) Concrete and Stone coating (S) 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-(dimethylamino) ethyl ester, polymer with ethyl 2-propenoate, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl 2-propenoate, acetate (salt). P-16-0531 8/24/2016 11/22/2016 CBI (G) Additive for use in mineral processing (G) Alkyloxy propanamine. P-16-0532 8/25/2016 11/23/2016 CBI (G) Ingredient used in fertilizer manufacturing (G) Substituted heteromonocycle. P-16-0533 8/25/2016 11/23/2016 CBI (G) The blended final product is used as a cleaning agent for electronics manufacturing (G) Ethanaminium, alkyl-, salt with aromatic triazole. P-16-0534 8/31/2016 11/29/2016 CBI (G) Component of ink (G) Alkyl alkenoic acid, polymer with alkenylcarbomonocycle telomer with substituted alkanoic acid hydroxyl alkyl substituted alkenyl substituted alkyl ester, polyalkylene glycol alkyl ether alkyl alkenoate, dialkylene glycol diheteromonocyclic ether and alkylcarbomonocyclic alkenoate, metal salt. P-16-0535 8/31/2016 11/29/2016 CBI (G) Component of ink (G) Alkyl alkenoic acid, polymer with alkenylcarbomonocycle telomer with substituted alkanoic acid hydroxyl alkyl substituted alkenyl substituted alkyl ester, alkanediol diheteromonocyclic ether, polyalkylene glycol alkyl ether alkyl alkenoate and alkylcarbomonocyclic alkenoate, metal salt. P-16-0536 8/31/2016 11/29/2016 CBI (G) Component of ink (G) Alkyl alkenoic acid, polymer with bis heteromonocyclic substituted alkyl carbomonocycle, alkenylcarbomonocycle telomer with substituted alkanoic acid hydroxyl alkyl substituted alkenyl substituted alkyl ester, polyalkylene glycol alkyl ether alkyl alkenoate and alkylcarbomonocyclic alkenoate, metal salt. P-16-0538 8/26/2016 11/24/2016 Omnium International (S) PMN substance is a component in a metalworking fluid preparation imported into the U.S (S) 9-octadecenoic acid (9z)-, compound with N-cyclohexylcyclohexanamine (1:1). P-16-0539 8/26/2016 11/24/2016 CBI (G) Photolithography (G) Organic sulfonate compound. P-16-0540 8/29/2016 11/27/2016 CBI (G) Polymeric film former for coatings (G) Diphenolic compound, polymer with 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane and 4,4′-methylenebis[di-alkyl-substituted phenol]. P-16-0541 8/29/2016 11/27/2016 Specialty Organics, Inc. (S) Adhesive for wood particle/Chip/Fiber board (S) Soybean meal, reaction products with phosphoric trichloride. P-16-0542 8/30/2016 11/28/2016 CBI (G) Chemical/Polymer Modifier (G) Polydimethylsiloxane with functional end-caps. P-16-0543 8/31/2016 11/29/2016 CBI (G) Battery ingredient (G) Halogenophosphoric acid metal salt. P-16-0544 8/31/2016 11/29/2016 Guardian Industries Corp (S) Additive to influence melting temperature of raw materials and physical characteristics of the final product during the manufacture of flat glass (S) Flue dust, glass-manufacturing desulfurization, calcium hydroxide-treated.
  • Definition: The dust produced form the flue gas exhaust cleaning of a glass manufacturing process followed by treatment with hydrated lime. It consists primarily of caso4 and ca(co3).
  • P-16-0544 8/31/2016 11/29/2016 Guardian Industries Corp (S) Additive to influence melting temperature of raw materials and physical characteristics of the final product during the manufacture of flat glass (S) Flue dust, glass-manufg. desulfurization, calcium hydroxide-treated.
  • Definition: The dust produced form the flue gas exhaust cleaning of a glass manufacturing process followed by treatment with hydrated lime. It consists primarily of caso4 and ca(co3).
  • For the 46 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 3 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the projected date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; and the chemical identity.

    Table 2—NOCs Received From August 1, 2016 to August 31, 2016 Case No. Received date Commencement date Chemical P-04-0641 8/16/2016 8/14/2016 (G) Polyetherpolyol polymer with aromatic dialkylamine. P-04-0641 8/16/2016 8/15/2016 (G) Polyetherpolyol polymer with aromatic dialkylamine. P-06-0458 8/29/2016 5/21/2013 (S) 13-docosenoic acid, magnesium salt, (13z)-. P-06-0458 8/29/2016 5/22/2013 (S) 13-docosenoic acid, magnesium salt, (13z)-. P-12-0190 8/11/2016 7/10/2016 (G) Fatty acid ester. P-12-0190 8/11/2016 7/11/2016 (G) Fatty acid ester. P-12-0249 8/23/2016 7/12/2012 (S) Canola oil, reaction product with 1-butene. P-12-0249 8/23/2016 7/13/2012 (S) Canola oil, reaction product with 1-butene. P-12-0250 8/23/2016 7/18/2012 (S) Canola oil, reaction products with 1-butene, distillation residues. P-12-0250 8/23/2016 7/19/2012 (S) Canola oil, reaction products with 1-butene, distillation residues. P-12-0251 8/23/2016 8/14/2012 (S) Canola oil, reaction products with 1-butene, distillation residues, methyl esters. P-12-0251 8/23/2016 8/15/2012 (S) Canola oil, reaction products with 1-butene, distillation residues, methyl esters. P-12-0382 8/12/2016 7/13/2016 (S) Alkenes, C20 - 24 a-, reaction products with 1-hexacosene, 1-octacosene, 1-octadecene and polyethylene distn. residues. P-12-0382 8/12/2016 7/14/2016 (S) Alkenes, c20 - 24 a-, reaction products with 1-hexacosene, 1-octacosene, 1-octadecene and polyethylene distn. residues. P-12-0513 8/26/2016 7/15/2016 (G) Aromatic dicarboxylic acid, polymer with dialkyl alkanediol, alkyl-(hydroxyalkyl)-alkanediol, dicarboxylic acid, heteropolcyclic anhydride, alkanetriol, hydroxy-[(oxoalkyl)oxy]alkyl ester. P-12-0513 8/26/2016 7/16/2016 (G) Aromatic dicarboxylic acid, polymer with dialkyl alkanediol, alkyl-(hydroxyalkyl)-alkanediol, dicarboxylic acid, heteropolcyclic anhydride, alkanetriol, hydroxy-[(oxoalkyl)oxy]alkyl ester. P-14-0260 8/29/2016 8/3/2016 (S) Propene, 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoro-. P-14-0260 8/29/2016 8/4/2016 (S) Propene, 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoro-. P-14-0331 8/1/2016 7/17/2016 (G) 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, octadecyl ester, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate and alkyl lactam. P-14-0331 8/1/2016 7/18/2016 (G) 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, octadecyl ester, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate and alkyl lactam. P-14-0373 8/6/2016 8/3/2016 (S) Neononanoic acid, ethenyl ester, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and rel-(1r, 2r, 4r)-1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo [2.2.1]heptyl-2-yl 2-methyl-2-propenoate. P-14-0373 8/6/2016 8/4/2016 (S) Neononanoic acid, ethenyl ester, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene, 2-hydroxyethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and rel-(1r, 2r, 4r)-1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo [2.2.1]heptyl-2-yl 2-methyl-2-propenoate. P-14-0479 8/17/2016 6/28/2016 (S) Carbonic acid, dimethyl ester, polymer with 1,4-diisocyanatobenzene, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,5-pentanediol and 2,2′-[1,?4-phenylenebis(oxy)]bis[ethanol]. P-14-0479 8/17/2016 6/29/2016 (S) Carbonic acid, dimethyl ester, polymer with 1,4-diisocyanatobenzene, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,5-pentanediol and 2,2′-[1,?4-phenylenebis(oxy)]bis[ethanol]. P-14-0851 8/19/2016 7/24/2016 (G) Polyurethane. P-14-0851 8/19/2016 7/25/2016 (G) Polyurethane. P-14-0852 8/19/2016 7/24/2016 (G) Polyurethane. P-14-0852 8/19/2016 7/25/2016 (G) Polyurethane. P-14-0853 8/22/2016 7/24/2016 (G) Polyurethane. P-14-0853 8/22/2016 7/25/2016 (G) Polyurethane. P-14-0854 8/22/2016 7/24/2016 (G) Polyurethane. P-14-0854 8/22/2016 7/25/2016 (G) Polyurethane. P-15-0569 8/5/2016 8/3/2016 (S) Benzene, 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methyl,homopolymer, N1, N1-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine-and polytheylene-polypropylene glycol mono-bu ether-blocked. P-15-0569 8/5/2016 8/4/2016 (S) Benzene, 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methyl,homopolymer, N1, N1-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine-and polytheylene-polypropylene glycol mono-bu ether-blocked. P-16-0036 8/29/2016 8/1/2016 (G) Substituted heteropolycycle. P-16-0036 8/29/2016 8/2/2016 (G) Substituted heteropolycycle. P-16-0070 8/22/2016 8/7/2016 (S) Boron sodium oxide (b5nao8), labeled with boron-10. P-16-0070 8/22/2016 8/8/2016 (S) Boron sodium oxide (b5nao8), labeled with boron-10. P-16-0158 8/16/2016 7/21/2016 (G) Modified urethane polymer salt with polyether. P-16-0158 8/16/2016 7/22/2016 (G) Modified urethane polymer salt with polyether. P-16-0160 8/29/2016 7/31/2016 (S) Ethanol, 2-amino-, reaction products with ammonia, by-products from, distillation residues. P-16-0160 8/29/2016 8/1/2016 (S) Ethanol, 2-amino-, reaction products with ammonia, by-products from, distillation residues. P-16-0181 8/12/2016 7/21/2016 (G) Butenoic acid, thio-ethanediyl ester. P-16-0181 8/12/2016 7/22/2016 (G) Butenoic acid, thio-ethanediyl ester. P-16-0281 8/30/2016 8/11/2016 (G) Fatty alcohols—dimers, trimmers, polymers. P-16-0281 8/30/2016 8/12/2016 (G) Fatty alcohols—dimers, trimmers, polymers. V. Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 27, 2016 (81 FR 74784) (FRL-9952-62), in the first column, the Docket Identification number is corrected to read EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0482.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: October 26, 2016. Pamela Myrick, Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27193 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9030-1] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 10/31/2016 Through 11/04/2016. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20160261, Draft, USFS, ID, Coeur d Alene Basin Natural Resource Restoration Plan, Comment Period Ends: 01/13/2017, Contact: Jo Christensen 208-765-7417 EIS No. 20160262, Draft Supplement, Caltrans, CA, State Route 241-91 Tolled Express Lanes Connector Project, Comment Period Ends: 01/09/2017, Contact: Bahar Heydari 657-328-6533 EIS No. 20160263, Draft, USN, WA, EA-18G “Growler” Airfield Operations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex, Comment Period Ends: 01/25/2017, Contact: Sarah Stallings 757-322-4733 EIS No. 20160264, Final, USFWS, PRO, Programmatic—Eagle Rule Revision, Review Period Ends: 12/09/2016, Contact: Eliza Savage 703 358-2329 EIS No. 20160265, Draft Supplement, USFS, MT, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan to Comply with the District Court Order (Bighorn Sheep) 2009 Revised Forest Plan, Comment Period Ends: 02/09/2017, Contact: Jan Bowey 406-683-3853 EIS No. 20160266, Draft, NRC, MO, Construction Permit for the Northwest Medical Isotopes Radioisotope Production Facility, Comment Period Ends: 12/29/2016, Contact: David Drucker 301-415-6223 EIS No. 20160267, Final, VA, SD, National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation: Reconfiguration of VA Black Hills Health Care System, Review Period Ends: 12/09/2016, Contact: Billie J. Beal 605-720-7243 Dated: November 7, 2016. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27186 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9954-71] Access to Confidential Business Information by Battelle Memorial Institute and Its Identified Subcontractor, Avanti Corporation AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has authorized its contractors, Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) of Columbus, OH and Avanti Corporation of Alexandria, VA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11 and 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

    DATES:

    Access to the confidential data occurred on October 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Scott Sherlock, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8257; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number EP-W-16-017, contractors BMI of 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH and Avanti Corporation of 5520 Cherokee Avenue, Suite 205, Alexandria, VA are assisting the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing statistical and technical support for the assessment of toxic substances. They are also providing statistical, mathematical, field data collection, and technical analysis support and planning for OPPT programs such as Lead Programs and other technology and exposure related studies.

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number EP-W-16-017, BMI and Avanti Corporation required access to CBI submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11 and 21 of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. BMI and Avanti Corporation personnel were given access to information submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11 and 21 of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11 and 21 of TSCA that EPA has provided BMI and Avanti Corporation access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract is taking place at EPA Headquarters and BMI's site located in Columbus, OH, in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until June 12, 2021. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

    BMI and Avanti Corporation personnel have signed nondisclosure agreements and were briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Pamela S. Myrick, Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27188 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9954-70] Access to Confidential Business Information by Eastern Research Group, Inc. AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has authorized its contractor, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) of Lexington, MA, access to information which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

    DATES:

    Access to the confidential data occurred on or about October 5, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Scott Sherlock, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8257; fax number: (202) 564-8251; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number EP-W-12-006, work assignment number 4-28, contractor ERG of 110 Hartwell Ave, Suite 1, Lexington, MA is assisting the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in preparing engineering reports for the Premanufacture Notice (PMN) review program; performing analyses of Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) data; and reviewing CBI data for Existing Chemical engineering reports.

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number EP-W-12-006, work assignment number 4-28, ERG required access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. ERG's personnel were given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA has provided ERG access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract is taking place at EPA Headquarters and ERG's site located at 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200, Chantilly, Va. in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until December 31, 2016. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

    ERG personnel were required to sign nondisclosure agreements and were briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Pamela S. Myrick, Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27189 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0484; FRL-9954-52] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for September 2016 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or expired; and a periodic status report on any new chemicals under EPA review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document covers the period from September 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0484, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, 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: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 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:

    For technical information contact: Jim Rahai, IMD 7407M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8593; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.

    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. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from September 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

    III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory, please go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic reports on the status of new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.

    For the 71 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; The date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

    Table 1—PMNs Received From September 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016 Case No. Received date Projected
  • notice end date
  • Manufacturer
  • importer
  • Use Chemical
    P-16-0379 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) Intermediate for polymer synthesis (G) Vinyl functional polymethylalkylpolymer. P-16-0399 9/16/2016 12/15/2016 Tryeco LLC (S) Compound to be used in preparation of advanced seed coatings (S) Starch, polymer with 2-propenoic acid, potassium salt. oxidized. P-16-0399 9/16/2016 12/15/2016 Tryeco LLC (S) Agricultural soil amendment for turf applications and direct soil injection with fertilizers (S) Starch, polymer with 2-propenoic acid, potassium salt. oxidized. P-16-0399 9/16/2016 12/15/2016 Tryeco LLC (S) Agricultural soil amendment for filed crops as “agrisorb plus” granular soil amendment (S) Starch, polymer with 2-propenoic acid, potassium salt. oxidized. P-16-0429 9/20/2016 12/19/2016 CBI (G) Universal tint paste resin having high solids (G) Endcapped polysiloxane. P-16-0460 9/28/2016 12/27/2016 CBI (G) Process aid (G) Silane-treated aluminosilicate. P-16-0461 9/28/2016 12/27/2016 CBI (G) Process aid (G) Silane-treated aluminosilicate. P-16-0462 9/28/2016 12/27/2016 CBI (G) Process aid (G) Silane-treated aluminosilicate. P-16-0463 9/28/2016 12/27/2016 CBI (G) Process aid (G) Silane-treated aluminosilicate. P-16-0464 9/28/2016 12/27/2016 CBI (G) Process aid (G) Silane-treated aluminosilicate. P-16-0487 9/22/2016 12/21/2016 Jaychem LLC (S) Mass coloration of paper (G) Benzenesulfonic acid 1,2-diazenediylbis[6-ethenyl]-3-sulfophenyl diazenyl-2-sulfophenyl ethenyl salt. P-16-0520 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) As described above, the notified polymer will be use as a pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0520 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent and pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0520 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0520 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0521 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), potassium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0521 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) As described above, the notified polymer will be use as a pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), potassium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0521 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent and pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), potassium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0521 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), potassium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0522 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) As described above, the notified polymer will be use as a pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), sodium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0522 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), sodium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0522 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent and pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), sodium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0522 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), sodium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0523 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), ammonium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0523 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) As described above, the notified polymer will be use as a pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), ammonium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0523 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), ammonium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0523 9/26/2016 12/25/2016 CBI (G) The anticipated use is as a deposit control agent and pigment dispersant (G) 2-propenoic acid, polymer with N-(alkyl)-2propenamide, sodium alkyl alkene sulfonate (1:1) and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl) amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), ammonium salt, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(ho)s(o)2]2o2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. P-16-0528 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Shell Chemical LP (S) Metal workings fluids/rolling oils (S) Hydrocarbons, C16-22, branched and linear. P-16-0528 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Shell Chemical LP (S) Coatings (S) Hydrocarbons, C16-22, branched and linear. P-16-0528 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Shell Chemical LP (S) Agrochemicals (S) Hydrocarbons, C16-22, branched and linear. P-16-0528 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Shell Chemical LP (S) Cleaning fluids (S) Hydrocarbons, C16-22, branched and linear. P-16-0528 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Shell Chemical LP (S) Sold as intermediate (S) Hydrocarbons, C16-22, branched and linear. P-16-0537 9/21/2016 12/20/2016 CBI (G) Masking photopolymer (G) Formaldehyde phenol isobenzofurandione polymer. P-16-0540 9/28/2016 12/27/2016 CBI (G) Polymeric film former for coatings (G) Diphenolic compound, polymer with 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane and 4,4′-methylenebis[di-alkyl-substituted phenol]. P-16-0541 9/19/2016 12/18/2016 Specialty Organics, Inc. (S) Adhesive for wood particle/chip/fiberboard (S) Soybean meal, reaction products with phosphoric trichloride. P-16-0545 9/2/2016 12/1/2016 CBI (G) Device chemical (G) Substituted siloxane polymer. P-16-0546 9/16/2016 12/15/2016 Cardolite Corporation (S) GX-9203 is used for the adhesive application (G) Cashew, nutshell liquid, polymer with acid and halohydrin. P-16-0547 9/6/2016 12/5/2016 CBI (G) Catalyst (G) Neodymium aluminum alkyl catalyst. P-16-0548 9/8/2016 12/7/2016 CBI (G) Resin catalyst (G) Triarylsulfonium salt. P-16-0570 9/21/2016 12/20/2016 CBI (S) Aromatic polyester polyol for rigid foam (G) Aromatic polyester polyol. P-16-0571 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 CBI (G) Additive for coatings (G) Alkyl alkenoate, alkanediyl, polymer with alkyl alkenoate, substituted carbomonocycle, alkyl alkenoate and heteromonocycle alkyl alkenoate, diazene bis alkyl heteromonocycle initiated. P-16-0572 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Hexion Inc (S) Tackifier in hot melt adhesive and pressure sensitive adhesive formulation (G) Polyamine polyacid adducts. P-16-0572 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Hexion Inc (G) Adhesive ingredient (G) Polyamine polyacid adducts. P-16-0572 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Hexion Inc (G) Adhesive for coating (G) Polyamine polyacid adducts. P-16-0572 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Hexion Inc (G) Adhesive for coating particulate materials (G) Polyamine polyacid adducts. P-16-0573 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Hexion Inc (G) Adhesive ingredient (G) Polyamine polyacid adducts. P-16-0573 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Hexion Inc (S) Tackifier in hot melt adhesive and pressure sensitive adhesive formulation (G) Polyamine polyacid adducts. P-16-0573 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Hexion Inc (G) Adhesive for coating particulate materials (G) Polyamine polyacid adducts. P-16-0573 9/14/2016 12/13/2016 Hexion Inc (G) Adhesive for coating (G) Polyamine polyacid adducts. P-16-0575 9/15/2016 12/14/2016 CBI (S) Polymerization of glucose (S) Glucosyltransferase—the CASRN was determined using the international union of biochemistry and molecular biology (iubmb) enzyme nomenclature recommendations for the noticed enzyme (see attachment—iubmb nomenclature). reaction catalyzed: sucrose+[(1-->6)-?-d-glucosyl]n = d-fructose + [(1-->6)-?-d-glucosyl]n+1iubmb number: 2.4.1.5 in addition to catalyzing the formation of alpha-1-6-glucan linkages as specified in the iubmb number 2.4.1.5, depending on the source organism and gene, the glycosyltransferase enzyme may catalyze other alpha linkages including alpha 1-3 for the noticed enzyme and other linkages (e.g. 1,4-, 1,6-). P-16-0576 9/16/2016 12/15/2016 CBI (G) Intermediate (G) Modified alkyl polyamine. P-16-0577 9/16/2016 12/15/2016 CBI (G) Oil lubricant additive (G) Alkyl polyamine. P-16-0579 9/19/2016 12/18/2016 Allnex USA Inc. (S) Ultraviolet (uv) curable coating resin (G) Waste plastics, poly(ethylene terephthalate), depolymd. with polypropylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1), polymers with alkenoic and alkanoic acids. P-16-0580 9/19/2016 12/18/2016 CBI (G) Synthetic aircraft engine lubricant for contained use industrial lubricant (G) Trimethylolpropane ester of mixed linear and branched carboxylic acids. P-16-0581 9/19/2016 12/18/2016 CBI (S) Polymer additive (G) Polysaccharide. P-16-0581 9/19/2016 12/18/2016 CBI (S) Fiber additive (G) Polysaccharide. P-16-0581 9/19/2016 12/18/2016 CBI (S) Composite component (G) Polysaccharide. P-16-0581 9/19/2016 12/18/2016 CBI (S) Paper coating component (G) Polysaccharide. P-16-0582 9/20/2016 12/19/2016 CBI (S) Lubricity additive for industrial oils And other lubricants (G) Carboxylic acids, polyalkyl unsaturated, oligomers, polymers with substituted alkyl alkenol and alkylpolyol. P-16-0582 9/20/2016 12/19/2016 CBI (S) Lubricity additive for automotive engine oil (G) Carboxylic acids, polyalkyl unsaturated, oligomers, polymers with substituted alkyl alkenol and alkylpolyol. P-16-0583 9/21/2016 12/20/2016 CBI (S) Sealant for head lamps of cars (G) Aromatic hydrocarbon resin. P-16-0584 9/22/2016 12/21/2016 CBI (G) Additive used to impart specific physicochemical property(ies) to finished articles (G) Multi-walled carbon nanotubes. P-16-0585 9/22/2016 12/21/2016 CBI (G) Additive used to impart specific physicochemical property(ies) to finished articles (G) Multi-walled carbon nanotubes. P-16-0586 9/22/2016 12/21/2016 CBI (G) Additive used to impart specific physicochemical property(ies) to finished articles (G) Muti-walled carbon nanotubes. P-16-0587 9/22/2016 12/21/2016 Kemira Chemicals (S) Flocculant used in iron ore processing plant (S) Galactoarabinoxylan. P-16-0588 9/22/2016 12/21/2016 CBI (G) Additive for coatings (G) Alkyl methacrylate, polymer with alkyl acrylate and polyesters. P-16-0589 9/22/2016 12/21/2016 CBI (G) Synthetic aircraft engine lubricant for contained use industrial lubricant (G) Pentaerythritol ester of mixed linear and branched carboxylic acids. P-16-0593 9/28/2016 12/27/2016 CBI (S) Aromatic polyester polyol for rigid foam (G) Aromatic polyester polyol. P-16-0594 9/28/2016 12/27/2016 Chitec Technology Co., Ltd (G) Ink additive (G) Alkanone, substituted oxyalkyl substituted alkyl carbomonocycle] substituted dialkyl alkylcarbomonocycle. P-16-0595 9/29/2016 12/28/2016 CBI (G) Polymer (G) Polyether polyurethane. P-16-0596 9/29/2016 12/28/2016 Allnex USA Inc. (S) Site limited intermediate used for production of uv curable coating resin (G) Alkenoic acid, reaction products with polyethylene glycol ether with hydroxyalkyl substituted alkane.

    For the 21 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 3 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the projected date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; and the chemical identity.

    Table 2—NOCs Received From September 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016 Case No. Received date Commencement date Chemical P-05-0415 9/9/2016 9/6/2016 (G) Acrylic polymer with styrene, peroxy-initiated. P-08-0724 9/22/2016 8/23/2016 (G) Cycloaliphatic anhydride, polymer with hydroxy alkyl diol, alkyl ester. P-11-0012 9/1/2016 8/23/2016 (G) Slump retainer in concrete. P-11-0424 9/19/2016 8/25/2016 (G) Alkenoyloxy arylphenone. P-12-0504 9/21/2016 9/20/2016 (G) Phosphinic acid, sodium salt (1:1), reaction products with alkenedioic anhydride homopolymer, sodium salts. P-13-0948 9/9/2016 8/31/2016 (G) Amine phosphate. P-15-0109 9/22/2016 8/28/2016 (S) 1,2,4,5-benzenetetracarboxylic acid, mixed et and me esters, compds. with 4,4'-methylenebis[benzeneamine] mixed et and me 4,4'-carbonylbis[1,2-benzenedicarboxylate]. P-15-0545 9/28/2016 9/19/2016 (G) Amine-functional acrylic polymer. P-15-0660 9/14/2016 8/19/2016 (G) Alicyclic anhydride, polymer with alkanepolyol, 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane, 4,4'-(1-methylethylidene)bis[phenol] and cyclic ester. P-15-0662 9/14/2016 8/26/2016 (G) Alicyclic anhydride, polymer with alkanepolyol, 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane, , alkanediol,4,4'-(1-methylethylidene)bis[phenol] and cyclic ester. P-15-0693 9/2/2016 8/25/2016 (G) 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, reaction products with polyethylenimine and polypropylene glycol -alkyl 3-(5-carboxy-1,3-dihydro-1,3-dioxo-2H-isoindol-2-yl) ethers. P-15-0704 9/6/2016 8/10/2016 (S) Siloxanes and silicones, di-me, [(butylethenylmethylsilyl)oxy]- and hydrogen-terminated. P-15-0745 9/12/2016 9/8/2016 (G) Naturally-occurring minerals, reaction products with boron sodium oxide (b4na2o7), hetero substituted alkyl acrylate polymer, kaolin and sodium silicate. P-16-0036 9/13/2016 8/2/2016 (G) Monohydroxy substituted heteropolycycle. P-16-0094 9/27/2016 9/24/2016 (G) Perfluoropolyether modified organosilane. P-16-0237 9/15/2016 8/20/2016 (S) 2-propenoic acid, dodecyl ester, polymer with 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate. P-16-0263 9/8/2016 8/11/2016 (G) Alkene polymer with anhydride and imides. P-16-0266 9/14/2016 9/8/2016 (G) Polyester polyurethane polyol. P-16-0272 9/9/2016 8/24/2016 (S) Lecithins, soya, hydrogenated. P-16-0340 9/7/2016 8/29/2016 (G) Glycerides, C8-18 and C18 unsaturated, from algal fermentation. P-16-0392 9/23/2016 9/6/2016 (S) Soybean oil, mixed with hydrogenated soybean oil, interesterified. Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: October 27, 2016. Pamela Myrick, Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27195 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0360] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before December 12, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the Supplementary Information section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0360.

    Title: Section 80.409, Station Logs (Maritime Services).

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local and tribal government.

    Number of Respondents: 19,919 respondents; 19,919 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 27.3-95 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609.

    Total Annual Burden: 561,188 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this extension (no change in the recordkeeping requirement) to the OMB after this 60 day comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance from them. The information collection requirements are as follows:

    Section 80.409(c), Public Coast Station Logs: This requirement is necessary to document the operation and public correspondence of public coast radio telegraph, public coast radiotelephone stations, and Alaska public-fixed stations, including the logging of distress and safety calls where applicable. Entries must be made giving details of all work performed which may affect the proper operation of the station. Logs must be retained by the licensee for a period of two years from the date of entry, and, where applicable, for such additional periods such as logs relating to a distress situation or disaster must be retained for three years from the date of entry in the log. If the Commission has notified the licensee of an investigation, the related logs must be retained until the licensee is specifically authorized in writing to destroy them. Logs relating to any claim or complaint of which the station licensee has notice must be retained until the claim or complaint has been satisfied or barred by statute limiting the time for filing suits upon such claims.

    Section 80.409(d), Ship Radiotelegraph Logs: Logs of ship stations which are compulsorily equipped for radiotelegraphy and operating in the band 90 to 535 kHz must contain specific information in log entries according to this subsection.

    Section 80.409(e), Ship Radiotelephone Logs: Logs of ship stations which are compulsorily equipped for radiotelephony must *62128 contain specific information in applicable log entries and the time of their occurrence.

    The recordkeeping requirements contained in section 80.409 is necessary to document the operation and public correspondence service of public coast radiotelegraph, public coast radiotelephone stations and Alaska-public fixed stations, ship radiotelegraph, ship radiotelephone and applicable radiotelephone including the logging of distress and safety calls where applicable.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27127 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    Matters relating to internal personal decisions, or internal rules and practices. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a Considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shelley E. Garr, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27328 Filed 11-8-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 010099-064.

    Title: International Council of Containership Operators.

    Parties: Maersk Line A/S; CMA CGM, S.A.; China COSCO Shipping Corporation Limited; Crowley Maritime Corp.; Evergreen Marine Corporation (Taiwan), Ltd.; Hamburg-Süd KG; Hapag-Lloyd AG and Hapag-Lloyd USA LLC; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Orient Overseas Container Line, Ltd.; Pacific International Lines (Pte) Ltd.; United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G.); Wan Hai Lines Ltd.; Yang Ming Transport Marine Corp.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.

    Filing Party: John Longstreth, Esq.; K & L Gates LLP; 1601 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-1600.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. as a party to the Agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012129-002.

    Title: EUKOR/”K” Line Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: EUKOR Car Carriers, Inc. and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.

    Filing Party: John P. Meade, Esq.; Vice-President; K- Line America, Inc.; 6009 Bethlehem Road; Preston, MD 21655.

    Synopsis: The amendment adds the Dominican Republic, Grand Cayman, St. Maarten, Haiti, and the Bahamas to the geographic scope of the Agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012395-001.

    Title: MSC/ACL Trans-Atlantic Space Charter.

    Parties: Atlantic Container Line A.B. and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor LLP; 1200 Nineteenth St. NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment extends the duration of the Agreement for one year.

    Agreement No.: 012439.

    Title: THE Alliance Agreement.

    Parties: Hapag-Lloyd AG and Hapag-Lloyd USA LLC (acting as one party); Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha; and Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp.

    Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes the Parties to charter and exchange space on one another's vessels and to rationalize, coordinate and cooperate with respect to the Parties' transportation services and operations.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: November 7, 2016. Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27185 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-3275] Product Labeling for Certain Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Product Labeling for Certain Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator Devices.” FDA is providing a specific labeling recommendation in this guidance to promote the safe and effective use of ultrasonic surgical aspirator devices. The labeling recommendation is being made in light of the risk of tissue dissemination and relates to use of these devices in the removal of uterine fibroid. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by January 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-D-3275 for “Product Labeling for Certain Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator Devices.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submiss