Federal Register Vol. 81, No.76,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 76 (April 20, 2016)

Page Range23155-23419
FR Document

81_FR_76
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 23417 - Steps to Increase Competition and Better Inform Consumers and Workers to Support Continued Growth of the American EconomyPDF
81 FR 23413 - National Park Week, 2016PDF
81 FR 23156 - Establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley Viticultural Area and Realignment of the Columbia Valley Viticultural AreaPDF
81 FR 23284 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 23329 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 23343 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 23320 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23319 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 23297 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 23194 - Eligibility of the Republic of Poland To Export Poultry Products to the United StatesPDF
81 FR 23324 - Mississippi; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 23321 - Texas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 23323 - District of Columbia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 23323 - Louisiana; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 23280 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23329 - Section 512 Study: Notice of Location Change for New York Public RoundtablesPDF
81 FR 23321 - Mississippi; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 23322 - Texas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 23315 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
81 FR 23225 - Anchorage Regulations; Special Anchorage Areas, Marina del Rey Harbor, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 23318 - Request for Public Comment: 60 Day Information Collection: Indian Health Service Medical Staff Credentials and Privileges FilesPDF
81 FR 23322 - Technical Mapping Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 23274 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
81 FR 23299 - Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for 9-valent HPV (Human Papillomavirus) VaccinePDF
81 FR 23301 - Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Meningococcal ACWY VaccinesPDF
81 FR 23272 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
81 FR 23300 - Meeting of the Community Preventive Services Task ForcePDF
81 FR 23344 - Secretary of State's Determination Under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998PDF
81 FR 23345 - U.S. Advisory Commission on Public DiplomacyPDF
81 FR 23345 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Turner's Whaling Pictures” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 23187 - Clarification of Requirements for Method 303 Certification TrainingPDF
81 FR 23293 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Control of Evaporative Emissions From New and In-Use Portable Gasoline Containers (Renewal), ICR 2213.05, OMB 2060-0597PDF
81 FR 23294 - Aquashade, Nithiazine, d-limonene, and 2H-Cyclopent(d)isothiazol-3(4H)-one, 5,6-dihydro-2-methyl- (MTI) Registration Review Interim Decisions; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 23276 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science CenterPDF
81 FR 23356 - Enhanced-Use Lease of Department of Veterans Affairs Real Property for the Development of Affordable Housing Facility in Minneapolis, MinnesotaPDF
81 FR 23304 - Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act; Stakeholder Consultation Meetings on the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act Reauthorization; Request for Notification of Stakeholder Intention To ParticipatePDF
81 FR 23305 - Animal Drug User Fee Act; Stakeholder Consultation Meetings on the Animal Drug User Fee Act Reauthorization; Request for Notification of Stakeholder Intention To ParticipatePDF
81 FR 23311 - Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act; Public Meeting; Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 23309 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Agreement for Shipment of Devices for SterilizationPDF
81 FR 23313 - Animal Drug User Fee Act; Public Meeting; Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 23271 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 23296 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
81 FR 23330 - Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2PDF
81 FR 23308 - Preparation for International Cooperation on Cosmetics RegulationPDF
81 FR 23307 - Distributor Labeling for New Animal Drugs; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 23306 - Technical Performance Assessment of Digital Pathology Whole Slide Imaging Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 23188 - Amendment to the Definition of “Condition” and Prerequisite Requirement for Shell Eggs Eligible for Grading and Certification Stated in the Regulations Governing the Voluntary Grading of Shell EggsPDF
81 FR 23331 - Submission for Review: 3206-0226, It's Time To Sign Up for Direct Deposit or Direct Express, RI 38-128PDF
81 FR 23303 - Comparability Protocols for Human Drugs and Biologics: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 23331 - Submission for Review: 3206-0134, Application To Make Deposit or Redeposit (CSRS), SF 2803, Application To Pay Military Deposit for Military Service Performed After December 31, 1956 (CSRS), SF 2803A; and Application To Make Service Credit Payment for Civilian Service (FERS), SF 3108, Application To Pay Military Deposit for Military Service Performed After December 31, 1956 (FERS), SF 3108APDF
81 FR 23333 - Submission for Review: Notification of Application for Refund of Retirement Deductions, SF 3106 and SF 3106A, 3206-0170PDF
81 FR 23332 - Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation of Upcoming MeetingPDF
81 FR 23332 - Submission for Review: 3206-0143, Request to Disability Annuitant for Information on Physical Condition and Employment, RI 30-1PDF
81 FR 23317 - Meeting of the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public HealthPDF
81 FR 23327 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Pu`uhonua o Hōnaunau National Historical Park, Hōnaunau, HIPDF
81 FR 23318 - Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; Delegation of AuthoritiesPDF
81 FR 23283 - Application to Export Electric Energy; MXTREP #1, LLCPDF
81 FR 23198 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meetings for the Circulator Pumps Working Group To Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for Energy Conservation Standards and Test ProceduresPDF
81 FR 23283 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
81 FR 23297 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 23301 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23217 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan EnginesPDF
81 FR 23155 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft EnginesPDF
81 FR 23351 - Beyond Compliance ProgramPDF
81 FR 23278 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23349 - Commercial Driver's License: Missouri Department of Revenue (DOR); Application for ExemptionPDF
81 FR 23269 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23189 - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Standard Utility Allowances Based on the Receipt of Energy Assistance Payments Under the Agricultural Act of 2014PDF
81 FR 23354 - Household Goods Consumer Protection Working Group: Membership SolicitationPDF
81 FR 23349 - Hours of Service of Drivers: McKee Foods Transportation LLC, Exemption; FAST Act Extension of Expiration DatePDF
81 FR 23326 - Notice of Public Meeting, Farmington District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New MexicoPDF
81 FR 23277 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23277 - Defense Policy Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 23346 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Dickenson County, Va.PDF
81 FR 23345 - West Branch Intermediate Holdings, LLC and Continental Rail, LLC-Continuance in Control Exemption-Central Gulf Acquisition CompanyPDF
81 FR 23326 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Recovery Plan for Vine Hill ClarkiaPDF
81 FR 23219 - Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection ActPDF
81 FR 23356 - Funding Opportunity Title: Amended Notice of Allocation Availability (NOAA) for the Combined Calendar Year (CY) 2015-CY 2016 Allocation Round of the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) ProgramPDF
81 FR 23282 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Direct Loan, FFEL, Perkins and TEACH Grant Total and Permanent Disability Discharge Application and Related FormsPDF
81 FR 23281 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2019) Pilot Test RecruitmentPDF
81 FR 23226 - Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Minneapolis, MNPDF
81 FR 23223 - Special Local Regulation; Lake of the Ozarks, Lakeside, MOPDF
81 FR 23290 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 23292 - Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Notice of Application Tendered For Filing with the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule For Licensing and Deadline For Submission of Final AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 23287 - National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, Empire Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Northern Access 2016 ProjectPDF
81 FR 23287 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 23289 - Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County; Notice of Application and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 23288 - Notice of Membership of Performance Review Board For Senior Executives (PRB)PDF
81 FR 23288 - Conway Corporation; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 23289 - City of West Memphis, Arkansas; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 23291 - Texas LNG Brownsville LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 23290 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 23279 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 23162 - Semipostal Stamp ProgramPDF
81 FR 23328 - Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain; Scheduling of Full Five-Year ReviewsPDF
81 FR 23278 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23329 - Public Availability of the U.S. International Trade Commission's FY 2015 Service Contract InventoryPDF
81 FR 23348 - Notice of Policy Clarification for Acceptance of Documents With Digital Signatures by the Federal Aviation Administration Aircraft RegistryPDF
81 FR 23164 - Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Stage I Vapor Recovery RequirementsPDF
81 FR 23232 - Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Stage I Vapor Recovery RequirementsPDF
81 FR 23333 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the iSectors Post-MPT Growth ETF of ETFis Series Trust IPDF
81 FR 23343 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
81 FR 23339 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 5, To List and Trade Shares of the REX VolMAXX Long VIX Weekly Futures Strategy ETF and the REX VolMAXX Inverse VIX Weekly Futures Strategy ETF of the Exchange Traded Concepts TrustPDF
81 FR 23334 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF of First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VIIPDF
81 FR 23296 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 23267 - Incorporating the American National Standard for Compliance Testing of Transmitters Used in Licensed Radio Services (ANSI C63.26-2015) Into the Commission's RulesPDF
81 FR 23302 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23347 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
81 FR 23281 - Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion Project and Associated Roadway Realignment, NEPA Scoping Meeting and Public Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 23325 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) Systems-Access Authorization Form and Rules of Behavior and User AgreementPDF
81 FR 23324 - Notice of a Federal Advisory Committee Meeting Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee Technical Systems Subcommittee Meeting NFPA 70-2014 Task GroupPDF
81 FR 23330 - Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 23355 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Capital Construction Fund and ExhibitsPDF
81 FR 23239 - Proposal of Certain Federal Water Quality Standards Applicable to MainePDF
81 FR 23206 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
81 FR 23212 - Airworthiness Directives; Zodiac Seats California LLC Seating SystemsPDF
81 FR 23214 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
81 FR 23202 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 23208 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited AirplanesPDF
81 FR 23199 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 23228 - Extra-Schedular Evaluations for Individual DisabilitiesPDF
81 FR 23232 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Air Permit Procedure RevisionsPDF
81 FR 23180 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2PDF
81 FR 23175 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for Particle Matter, Ozone, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur DioxidePDF
81 FR 23167 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Update to Materials Incorporated by ReferencePDF
81 FR 23359 - Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications ServicesPDF

Issue

81 76 Wednesday, April 20, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs; Amendments, 23188-23189 2016-09139 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23269 2016-09115 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Viticultural Areas; Establishments and Realignments: Lewis-Clark Valley Viticultural Area; Columbia Valley Viticultural Area, 23156-23162 2016-09264 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23277 2016-09109 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23297-23299 2016-09190 Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for 9-valent HPV (Human Papillomavirus) Vaccine, 23299-23300 2016-09167 Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Meningococcal ACWY Vaccines, 23301 2016-09166 Meetings: Community Preventive Services Task Force, 23300 2016-09164 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23301-23303 2016-09123 2016-09055 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Regulations: Special Anchorage Areas, Marina del Rey Harbor, CA; Meeting, 23225-23226 2016-09171 Safety Zones: Upper Mississippi River, Minneapolis, MN, 23226-23228 2016-09097 Special Local Regulations: Lake of the Ozarks, Lakeside, MO, 23223-23225 2016-09096 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23269-23271 2016-09101
Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Funding Availability: New Markets Tax Credit Program; Amended Notice of Allocation Availability, 23356 2016-09102 Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress NOTICES Meetings: Section 512 Study; New York Public Roundtables; Location Change, 23329-23330 2016-09175 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2016-09076 23278-23281 2016-09117 2016-09176 Meetings: Defense Policy Board, 23277-23278 2016-09108 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 23279-23280 2016-09083
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Direct Loan, FFEL, Perkins and TEACH Grant Total and Permanent Disability Discharge Application and Related Forms, 23282-23283 2016-09100 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study Pilot Test Recruitment, 23281-23282 2016-09099 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures: Circulator Pumps Working Group, Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee; Meetings, 23198-23199 2016-09126 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23283 2016-09125 Applications to Export Electric Energy: MEXTREP, 23283-23284 2016-09127
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Meetings: Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion Project and Associated Roadway Realignment, 23281 2016-09053 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Montana; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 23180-23187 2016-08916 New York; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference, 23167-23175 2016-08829 Rhode Island; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for Particle Matter, Ozone, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide, 23175-23180 2016-08913 Vermont; Stage I Vapor Recovery Requirements, 23164-23167 2016-09068 Clarification of Requirements for Method 303 Certification Training; Withdrawal, 23187 2016-09157 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Louisiana; Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Air Permit Procedure Revisions, 23232-23239 2016-08927 Vermont; Stage I Vapor Recovery Requirements, 23232 2016-09067 Proposal of Certain Federal Water Quality Standards Applicable to Maine, 23239-23267 2016-09025 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Control of Evaporative Emissions from New and In-Use Portable Gasoline Containers, 23293-23294 2016-09156 Pesticide Product Registrations: Aquashade, Nithiazine, d-limonene, and 2H-Cyclopent(d)isothiazol-3(4H)-one, 5,6-dihydro-2-methyl- (MTI), 23294-23296 2016-09155 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines, 23155-23156 2016-09121 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 23199-23202 2016-08953 BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Airplanes, 23208-23212 2016-08957 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 23202-23206 2016-08960 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 23206-23208, 23214-23217 2016-09003 2016-09005 Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan Engines, 23217-23218 2016-09122 Zodiac Seats California LLC Seating Systems, 23212-23214 2016-09004 NOTICES Policy Clarification for Acceptance of Documents with Digital Signatures by the Federal Aviation Administration Aircraft Registry, 23348-23349 2016-09069 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Incorporating the American National Standard for Compliance Testing of Transmitters Used in Licensed Radio Services into the Commission's Rules, 23267-23268 2016-09058 Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and other Telecommunications Services, 23360-23411 2016-08458 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23296 2016-09060 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: District of Columbia; Amendment No. 1, 23323 2016-09178 Louisiana; Amendment No. 4, 23323 2016-09177 Mississippi; Amendment No. 1, 23324 2016-09180 Mississippi; Amendment No. 2, 23321-23322 2016-09174 Texas; Amendment No. 2, 23321 2016-09179 Texas; Amendment No. 3, 23322 2016-09173 Meetings: Technical Mapping Advisory Council, 23322-23323 2016-09169 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Application: Texas LNG Brownsville LLC, 23291-23292 2016-09085 Applications: Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, 23289-23290 2016-09089 Combined Filings, 2016-09090 23287, 23290-23291 2016-09093 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Northern Access 2016 Project; National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., Empire Pipeline, Inc., 23287-23288 2016-09091 Filings: Conway Corp., 23288-23289 2016-09087 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 23290 2016-09084 West Memphis, AR, 23289 2016-09086 Hydroelectric Applications: Wisconsin Public Service Corp., 23292-23293 2016-09092 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23284-23287 2016-09256 Membership of Performance Review Board for Senior Executives, 23288 2016-09088 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 23296-23297 2016-09146 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Beyond Compliance Program, 23351-23354 2016-09118 Commercial Driver's Licenses; Exemption Applications: Missouri Department of Revenue, 23349-23351 2016-09116 Hours of Service of Drivers: McKee Foods Transportation LLC, Exemption; FAST Act Extension of Expiration Date, 23349 2016-09112 Requests for Nominations: Household Goods Consumer Protection Working Group, 23354-23355 2016-09113 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 23297 2016-09124 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES Rules and Regulations under the Hobby Protection Act, 23219-23223 2016-09103 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Recovery Plan for Vine Hill Clarkia, 23326 2016-09104 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Agreement for Shipment of Devices for Sterilization, 23309-23311 2016-09149 Draft Guidance for Industry: Comparability Protocols for Human Drugs and Biologics—Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information, 23303-23304 2016-09137 Guidance for Industry; Availability: Distributor Labeling for New Animal Drugs, 23307-23308 2016-09141 Guidance: Technical Performance Assessment of Digital Pathology Whole Slide Imaging Devices, 23306-23307 2016-09140 Meetings: Animal Drug User Fee Act, 23313-23315 2016-09148 Animal Drug User Fee Act; Request for Notification of Stakeholder Intention to Participate, 23305-23306 2016-09151 Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act, 23311-23313 2016-09150 Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act; Request for Notification of Stakeholder Intention to Participate, 23304-23305 2016-09152 Preparation for International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation, 23308-23309 2016-09143 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service PROPOSED RULES Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Standard Utility Allowances Based on the Receipt of Energy Assistance Payments under the Agricultural Act, 23189-23194 2016-09114 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Eligibility of the Republic of Poland to Export Poultry Products to the United States, 23194-23198 2016-09185 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Delegation of Authorities: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 23318 2016-09128 Meetings: Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health, 23317-23318 2016-09130
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Petitions: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 23315-23317 2016-09172 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23325-23326 2016-09052 Meetings: Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee Technical Systems Subcommittee Meeting NFPA 70-2014 Task Group, 23324 2016-09051 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Indian Health Service Medical Staff Credentials and Privileges Files, 23318-23319 2016-09170 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China, 23272-23274 2016-09165 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the United Arab Emirates, 23271-23272 2016-09147 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China and Spain; Full Five-Year Reviews, 23328-23329 2016-09080 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23329 2016-09232 Service Contract Inventory, 23329 2016-09072 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Farmington District Resource Advisory Council, New Mexico, 23326-23327 2016-09110 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23355-23356 2016-09047 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 23319 2016-09195 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 23276-23277 2016-09154 Exempted Fishing Permit Applications: General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries, 23274-23276 2016-09168 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park, Honaunau, HI, 23327-23328 2016-09129 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, 23330 2016-09049 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Petitions: Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, 23330-23331 2016-09145 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application to Make Deposit or Redeposit, etc., 23331 2016-09136 It's Time to Sign Up for Direct Deposit or Direct Express, 23331-23332 2016-09138 Notification of Application for Refund of Retirement Deductions, 23333 2016-09135 Request to Disability Annuitant for Information on Physical Condition and Employment, 23332-23333 2016-09133 Meetings: Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation, 23332 2016-09134 Postal Service Postal Service RULES Semipostal Stamp Program, 23162-23164 2016-09081 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Park Week (Proc. 9424), 23413-23416 2016-09342 EXECUTIVE ORDERS U.S. Economy; Steps to Increase Competition and Better Inform Consumers and Workers to Support Continued Growth (EO 13725), 23417-23419 2016-09346 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23343 2016-09210 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 23339-23342 2016-09062 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 23343-23344 2016-09063 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 2016-09061 23333-23338 2016-09064 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Turner's Whaling Pictures, 23345 2016-09161 Determinations under the International Religious Freedom Act, 23344-23345 2016-09163 Meetings: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, 23345 2016-09162 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23320-23321 2016-09209 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Continuance in Control Exemptions: West Branch Intermediate Holdings, LLC and Continental Rail, LLC in Control of Central Gulf Acquisition Co., 23345-23346 2016-09106 Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc. in Dickenson County, VA, 23346 2016-09107 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water, 23347-23348 2016-09054 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES Extra-Schedular Evaluations for Individual Disabilities, 23228-23232 2016-08937 NOTICES Enhanced-Use Leases of Real Property: Minneapolis, MN, 23356-23357 2016-09153 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Communications Commission, 23360-23411 2016-08458 Part III Presidential Documents, 23413-23419 2016-09342 2016-09346 Reader Aids

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

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

81 76 Wednesday, April 20, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-5539; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-37-AD; Amendment 39-18493; AD 2016-08-16] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2E turboshaft engines. This AD requires removing the pre-TU 193 adjusted high-pressure/low-pressure pump and metering valve assembly and replacing it with a part that is eligible for installation. This AD also requires replacing the constant delta-pressure (delta-P) diaphragm of the fuel metering valve. This AD was prompted by reports of fuel flow non-conformities found during acceptance tests of Arriel 2E hydro-mechanical metering units (HMUs). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the delta-P diaphragm, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown and damage to the helicopter.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective May 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5539.

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-2015-5539; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kyle Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7183; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2016 (81 FR 30). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Fuel flow non-conformities were found during reception tests of ARRIEL 2E Hydraulic Mechanical Metering Unit (HMU). Investigation and instrumented tests revealed instabilities on the additional check valve. These instabilities lead to hydraulic pulses. All HMU installed on ARRIEL 2E and 2N engines could present these instabilities.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to life reduction of the delta pressure valve diaphragm, and consequently, an uncommanded engine power increase, or an uncommanded in flight shutdown, possibly resulting in an emergency landing.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5539.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 30, January 4, 2016).

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Related Service Information

Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 73 2193, Version A, dated July 16, 2015. The MSB describes procedures for incorporating modification TU 193 and replacing the constant delta-P diaphragm of the fuel metering valve.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 12 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $13,400 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $162,840.

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 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-08-16 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-18493; Docket No. FAA-2015-5539; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-37-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective May 25, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2E turboshaft engines that have a pre-TU 193 adjusted high-pressure/low-pressure (HP/LP) pump and metering valve assembly, installed.

(d) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of fuel flow non-conformities found during acceptance tests of Arriel 2E hydro-mechanical metering units. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the constant delta-pressure (delta-P) diaphragm of the fuel metering valve, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown and damage to the helicopter.

(e) Actions and Compliance

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

(1) Prior to exceeding 880 operating hours since new on the adjusted HP/LP pump and metering valve assembly or within 50 operating hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later:

(i) Remove from service the adjusted HP/LP pump and metering valve assembly and replace with a part that is eligible for installation, and

(ii) replace the constant delta-P diaphragm of the fuel metering valve.

(2) Reserved.

(f) Installation Prohibition

After the effective date of this AD, do not install into any engine any pre-TU 193 adjusted HP/LP pump and metering valve assembly, nor install onto any helicopter any engine that has a pre-TU 193 adjusted HP/LP pump and metering valve assembly.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(h) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kyle Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7183; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0213, dated October 16, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-5539-0002.

(3) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 73 2193, Version A, dated July 16, 2015, can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A., using the contact information in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD.

(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.

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

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

None.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 12, 2016. Ann C. Mollica, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09121 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2015-0005; T.D. TTB-136; Ref: Notice Nos. 149 & 149A] RIN 1513-AC14 Establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley Viticultural Area and Realignment of the Columbia Valley Viticultural Area AGENCY:

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule; Treasury decision.

SUMMARY:

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 306,650-acre Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area in portions of Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah Counties in Idaho and Asotin, Garfield, and Whitman Counties in Washington. TTB is also modifying the boundary of the existing Columbia Valley viticultural area to eliminate a partial overlap with the Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area. The boundary modification will decrease the size of the approximately 11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley viticultural area by approximately 57,020 acres. The Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area is not located within and does not overlap any other viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.

DATES:

This final rule is effective May 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (dated December 10, 2013, superseding Treasury Order 120-01 (Revised), “Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,” dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these laws.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

Definition

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

Requirements

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

Lewis-Clark Valley Petition

TTB received a petition from Dr. Alan Busacca, a licensed geologist and founder of Vinitas Consultants, LLC, on behalf of the Palouse-Lewis Clark Valley Wine Alliance and the Clearwater Economic Development Association. The petition proposed to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and modify the boundary of the existing Columbia Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.74). There are 3 wineries and approximately 16 commercially producing vineyards covering more than 81 acres within the proposed AVA. According to the petition, an additional 50 acres of grapes are expected to be planted within the next few years.

The distinguishing features of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA include its topography, climate, native vegetation, and soils. The proposed AVA is located at the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater Rivers. The topography of the proposed AVA consists primarily of deep, V-notched canyons, low plateaus, and bench lands formed by the two rivers. Almost none of the proposed AVA consists of broad floodplains typically associated with valley floors, which are susceptible to cold-air pooling that can damage new growth and delay fruit maturation. Elevations within the proposed AVA are below 600 meters (approximately 1,970 feet). According to the petition, within the region of proposed AVA, elevations above 600 meters are generally too cold to support reliable ripening of the varietals of Vitis vinifera (V. vinifera) grapes that are grown within the proposed AVA, and winter freezes can be hard enough to kill dormant vines. By contrast, the regions surrounding the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA to the east, south, southwest, and west are steep, rugged mountains with elevations ranging from approximately 2,000 feet to over 6,300 feet. To the north of the proposed AVA are the gently rolling hills of the Palouse high prairie, where the elevations can reach approximately 2,800 feet.

Due to its lower elevations, the climate of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley is generally warmer than that of the surrounding regions and is suitable for growing a variety of grape varietals, including Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, Merlot, and Cabernet Franc. The warm temperatures of the proposed AVA have earned the region the nickname “banana belt of the Pacific Northwest.” Growing degree day (GDD) accumulations within the proposed AVA range from 2,613 to 3,036. GDD accumulations in the surrounding regions are all below 2,000, which is too low for the consistent, successful ripening of most varietals of V. vinifera grapes.

Low shrubs and perennial grasses that have deep masses of fine roots constitute the native vegetation of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. The decomposition of these native grasses and their root mats has contributed to the formation of nutrient-rich soils within the proposed AVA. The soils are high in organic materials that promote healthy vine growth. The majority of these soils are classified as Mollisols soils. The Palouse region to the north of the proposed AVA has similar native grasses, but most of the land is used for growing wheat, which is better suited to the cooler climate of the Palouse. To the east, south, and west of the proposed AVA, conifer trees comprise most of the native vegetation. The understories of these forested regions are covered with pine needle litter instead of perennial grasses. The pine needle litter remains on the surface, so the organic material released by the decomposition of the needles does not mix as deeply into the soil as the material released by decaying grass root mats. As a result, the soils of forested regions are not as high in organic material and nutrients as the soils within the proposed AVA. Additionally, the soils to the east, south, and west of the proposed AVA are classified as Andisols soils, which are comprised primarily of ash and other volcanic materials and contain only small amounts of organic material.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received

TTB published Notice No. 149 in the Federal Register on April 14, 2015 (80 FR 19902), proposing to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. In the document, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed AVA. The document also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas. In Notice No. 149, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, TTB solicited comments on whether the information provided in the petition sufficiently demonstrated that the distinguishing features of the portion of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA that would overlap the established Columbia Valley AVA are so different from those of the established AVA that the overlapping region should be removed from the established AVA and placed entirely within the proposed AVA. The comment period originally closed on June 15, 2015.

In response to Notice No. 149, TTB received 37 comments during the original comment period, 36 of which unequivocally support the establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA, with several commenters citing its distinct topography, climate, and soils. Many of the commenters also stated their belief that the proposed AVA would encourage economic growth in the Lewiston-Clarkston region. Commenters included local vineyard and winery owners; a member of the Lewiston, Idaho City Council; Valley Vision, a local non-profit economic development corporation; representatives of the Clearwater Economic Development Association; representatives of the Port of Lewiston and the Port of Clarkston, Washington; the Idaho Wine Commission; the Dean for Community Programs at Lewis-Clark State College; the Nez Perce County, Idaho Planning and Building Department; and a licensed geologist/hydrologist.

Eleven of the supporting comments also specifically support removing the overlapping region of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA from the Columbia Valley AVA. However, only four of these comments (comments 13, 20, 21, and 36) offer specific reasons for supporting the boundary modification. One commenter (comment 13) reiterated the petition's claim that the different geology of the overlapping region created a topography of bench lands, low plateaus, and steep canyon sides that are distinct from the plains of the Columbia Valley AVA. Another commenter (comment 20) stated that the climate of the overlapping region and the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA are both “more distinctly affected by the interior mountains on the eastern border of the proposed AVA and the soils are distinctly affected by the decomposed granites and basalt substrates that were deposited through centuries of alluvial outwash. . . .” The third commenter (comment 21) stated that the overlapping region and the proposed AVA were “not ravaged by the Missoula Floods as was most of the Columbia Valley.” The fourth commenter (comment 36) stated that his experience growing grapes in the proposed AVA supports the petition's claims that the climate of the proposed AVA has a longer growing season and different soils than the Columbia Valley AVA. The commenter also agreed with the petition that the canyons of the proposed AVA and the overlapping region are “in stark contrast to the shallow and wide basins created by the Columbia River in the Columbia Valley AVA.”

Proposed AVA Boundary Expansion

While supporting establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA, one commenter proposed expanding its boundary to include an area of higher elevations to the northeast of the proposed AVA. This acreage is referred to in this section of the final rule as the “proposed expansion area” for the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. The commenter states he plans to develop a vineyard within the proposed expansion area at approximately 2,800 feet in elevation (see comment 34). The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is limited to elevations of 600 meters (approximately 1,960 feet) and under. Arguing that viticulture is feasible at the higher elevations of the Lewis-Clark Valley, the commenter provided climate data from a station within the proposed expansion area for 2012-2014. While noting that the GDD accumulations within his proposed expansion area are lower than those within the proposed AVA, the commenter stated they are higher than those found in Moscow, Idaho, which is located to the north of the proposed AVA. Climate data from Moscow was included in the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA petition. The commenter believes, therefore, that his data shows the climate in his proposed expansion area is more similar to the climate within the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA than the climate of the nearby regions north of the proposed AVA, including Moscow, Idaho.

The commenter also claimed that precipitation amounts within the proposed expansion area are similar to those within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, although he did not provide any non-anecdotal evidence to support his claim. Finally, the commenter states that although the soils in the proposed expansion area are Andisols soils, “there is no reason to consider this [soil type] any less suitable for viticulture” than the Mollisols soils of the proposed AVA.

TTB has reviewed the commenter's claims and supporting evidence and has decided not to include the proposed expansion area within the proposed AVA for two reasons. First, TTB notes that the commenter states that the property owner is planning to plant a vineyard, which does not indicate that viticulture exists within the proposed expansion area. TTB regulations require that viticulture be present within an area proposed to be added to an AVA. See 27 CFR 9.12(c). Therefore, the proposed expansion area cannot be added to the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA because no evidence has been provided to show that viticulture currently takes place in the proposed expansion area.

Secondly, TTB has determined that the proposed expansion area does not share the same climate and soils as the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and would not be included in the proposed AVA even if viticulture was taking place currently. With respect to climate conditions, the GDD accumulations provided by the commenter ranged from 1,984 to 2,150, which is a significantly lower range from the 2,613-3,036 range found within the proposed AVA. Some grape varietals may grow successfully in regions that have the range of GDD accumulations found in the proposed expansion area. However, because the GDD accumulations are significantly lower within the proposed expansion area, TTB believes that the grapes would be growing under different climatic conditions than are found within the proposed AVA. Although the commenter claims that climate research and projections suggest that temperatures within the proposed expansion area may eventually become as warm as those within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, TTB's determinations concerning the establishment or expansion of AVAs are based on currently available climate data.

Regarding the soils of the proposed expansion area, the commenter states that they are Andisols soils, which are composed largely of volcanic material. However, the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA's soils are primarily Mollisols soils formed from decaying grasses and their roots. Although Andisols soils may be suitable for viticulture, the nutrients and minerals found in volcanic soils differ from those found in Mollisols soils and thus would create different growing conditions for grapevines.

Therefore, due to both a lack of current viticulture and shared distinguishing features in the proposed expansion area, TTB has determined that it will not expand the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA to include the proposed expansion area described in comment 34.

Opposition to Proposed Columbia Valley AVA Boundary Realignment

TTB received one comment that supports the establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA but opposes the proposed realignment of the Columbia Valley AVA (comment 35). The commenter, the owner of a vineyard within the proposed realignment area, stated that he believes his continued inclusion in the Columbia Valley AVA would be beneficial to his business and, therefore, he does not want his vineyard property to be removed from that AVA. Instead, the commenter stated that TTB should allow the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley to partially overlap the Columbia Valley because “the geology, soils and climate of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA are quite similar to those of the Columbia Valley and mostly lay within the elevations affected by the Missoula floods.” The commenter did not provide any evidence to support his claim.

Because the proposed realignment of the Columbia Valley could potentially affect the business practices of wine industry members within the proposed realignment area, TTB published Notice No. 149A in the Federal Register on October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65670) to reopen the comment period for an additional 30 days. In Notice No. 149A, TTB asked for comments on whether the evidence provided in the petition to establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to modify the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA adequately demonstrates that the characteristics of the proposed realignment area are more similar to those of the rest of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA than to the distinguishing features of the Columbia Valley AVA. The reopened comment period closed November 27, 2015.

Comments Received During the Reopened Comment Period

During the reopened comment period, TTB received six additional comments on Notice No. 149. All six comments supported the proposed realignment of the Columbia Valley AVA. Two of the comments supported the proposed realignment but provided no additional evidence. The remaining four comments (comments 39, 40, 41, and 42) provided substantive evidence to support the proposed realignment.

Comment 39 was submitted by Dr. Wade Wolfe, who described himself as one of the contributors to the original Columbia Valley AVA petition. Dr. Wolfe states that defining the original “east boundary of the Columbia Valley was especially problematic” due to that region's cold temperatures, the lack of irrigation infrastructure for vineyards, and the use of the herbicide 2,4-D in the wheat fields of the Palouse. All of these factors, Dr. Wolfe states, limit the future of viticulture in the far eastern portion of the Columbia Valley AVA. In spite of these limiting factors, the decision was made to end the Columbia Valley at the Washington-Idaho border. Dr. Wolfe states his belief that a more appropriate eastern boundary would have been “a location near the Columbia and Garfield County line about 30 miles west of Pullman, WA.” At this point, the Snake River Valley narrows to very steep slopes, and elevations rise to over 2,000 feet, making commercial viticulture unlikely. Dr. Wolfe further stated that the narrow canyon continues along the Snake River until the river “intersects with SR 12 just west of Clarkston,” where the river valley opens up again. This intersection is along the northern border of the proposed realignment area. Dr. Wolfe asserts that the narrow portion of the Snake River creates a logical separation between the valley system of the Columbia Valley AVA and the valley system of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.

Dr. Wolfe also states that the valley system of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, including the proposed realignment area, is further differentiated from the valley system of the Columbia Valley AVA by its separate rain shadow. Marine moisture is blocked from entering the Columbia Valley AVA by the Cascade Mountains. By contrast, the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is in the rain shadow of the Blue Mountains and extensions of the Rocky Mountains. This different rain shadow, according to Dr. Wolfe, “redefines the valley drainage of this section of the Snake River and when combined with the Clearwater River drainage, justifies a separate valley AVA designation.”

Comment 40 was submitted by a licensed geologist/hydrologist. The commenter states that while the Columbia Valley AVA and the proposed realignment area were both affected by repeated “Ice Age outbursts” from Lake Missoula, the effects of the floods were significantly different in both regions. The commenter states that the floods were backed up behind the Wallula Gap “when twice as much floodwater entered the gap than could actually pass through. This hydraulic dam also temporarily reversed the flow of the Snake River to near Lewiston.” As a result of the build-up of water behind the Wallula Gap, “thick accumulations of sediment were deposited toward the center of the backflooded Walla Walla and Yakima Valleys,” within the current Columbia Valley AVA.

The commenter also states that the proposed realignment area was affected by the Bonneville Flood, which did not extend farther into the Columbia Valley AVA. The Bonneville Flood deposited “sediments (soils) of a different character and composition” into the region of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the proposed realignment area, including soils derived from eroded “older sedimentary, metamorphic, and plutonic rocks of the North American craton.” Finally, the commenter states that due to the “higher relief of the canyonlands within the Lewis-Clark Valley,” the soils of the proposed AVA and the proposed realignment area contain a higher percentage of “talus and slopewash shed off the steep canyon walls.” The commenter claims that these types of deposits are not common within the majority of the Columbia Valley AVA, which contains “broad, low-relief basins.”

Comment 41 is from a self-described local wine consumer. The comment largely summarizes the evidence provided in the petition to establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and realign the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA. The commenter states that the proposed realignment area should be removed from the Columbia Valley AVA because “from a statistical perspective,” the vineyards within the proposed realignment area “would represent an outlier.” He explains, “If one were to view the Columbia Valley AVA as a map scatter diagram, the vast majority of vineyards are located in the Interstate-82 corridor between Walla Walla and Yakima, WA.” Approximately 100 miles separate the nearest Columbia Valley AVA vineyard from the nearest vineyard in the proposed realignment area, the commenter claims. Based on the lack of vineyards between Interstate 82 and the proposed realignment area, the commenter believes that the current boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA extends too far east, and the southeastern Columbia Valley AVA boundary should be modified to place the proposed realignment area solely in the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.

Comment 42 was submitted by Dr. Alan Busacca, who submitted the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA petition. Dr. Busacca reiterated Dr. Wolfe's statement from comment 39 that the point where the Snake River narrows forms a logical division between the Columbia Valley AVA and the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. Dr. Busacca further reiterates that the topography of the proposed realignment area and the proposed AVA, which is described as a “unique, almost bowl-like set of plateaus and benches,” is distinctly different from the topography of the Columbia Valley AVA. Dr. Busacca also states that if the climate, topography, and geology of the proposed realignment area are similar to the Columbia Valley AVA, as the opposing commenter claims, then the soils would also be similar, since those three features affect the formation of soil. However, Dr. Busacca states that of the 80 soils found within both the proposed AVA and the proposed realignment area, fewer than 8 also occur in the main grape-growing regions of the Columbia Valley AVA. Therefore, Dr. Busacca claims that the small number of shared soils demonstrates that the proposed realignment area does not share similar topographic, geologic, and climatic characteristics with the Columbia Valley AVA.

Finally, Dr. Busacca addresses the opposing commenter's statement that the proposed realignment area and the Columbia Valley AVA were both affected by the Missoula Floods. Dr. Busacca says that while the floodwaters did reach the proposed AVA, the waters had travelled almost 100 miles upstream along the Snake River, against the flow of the river. As a result, within the proposed AVA, the floods “caused almost no erosion, left little sediment behind, and thus did not today create more than a few tens of acres of unique terroir on small patched [sic] of flat land just above river level.” By contrast, within the Columbia Valley AVA, the floods created the “scabland” regions and built up large deposits of “gravel, sand and silt up to hundreds of feet deep. . . . A whisper and a whimper of such effects totaling a hundred acres or two are all that these floods caused in the Lewiston-Clarkston area.”

TTB Determination

After careful review of the petition and the 43 comments in total received in response to Notices No. 149 and No. 149A, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner and the commenters supports the establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the realignment of the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA, in portions of Washington and Idaho. The realignment is in accordance with TTB's determination that the canyon-and-bench topography and Mollisols soils of the realignment area are more similar to the features of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA than to the broad, rolling floodplains and Aridisols soils of the Columbia Valley AVA. Therefore, TTB is removing the realignment area from the Columbia Valley AVA and placing it entirely within the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, as described in Notice No. 149. These determinations are made in accordance with the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as well as parts 4 and 9 of the TTB regulations, and are effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

Boundary Description

See the narrative description of the boundary of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the modification of the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

Maps

The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.

Impact on Current Wine Labels

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler must obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.

With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Lewis-Clark Valley,” is recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Lewis-Clark Valley” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, must ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin.

Transition Period

Once this final rule to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to modify the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA becomes effective, a transition rule will apply to labels for wines produced from grapes grown in the portion of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA that was formerly within the Columbia Valley AVA. A label containing the words “Columbia Valley” in the brand name or as an appellation of origin may be used on such wine bottled for up to two years from the effective date of this final rule, provided that such label was approved prior to the effective date of this final rule and that the wine conforms to the standards for use of the label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) in effect prior to the final rule. At the end of this two-year transition period, if a wine is no longer eligible for labeling with the Columbia Valley name (e.g., less than 85 percent of the wine is derived from grapes grown in the Columbia Valley, as modified in this final rule), then a label containing the words “Columbia Valley” in the brand name or as an appellation of origin would not be permitted on the bottle. TTB believes that the two-year period should provide adequate time to use up any existing labels. This transition period is described in the regulatory text for the Columbia Valley AVA published at the end of this final rule. In this final rule, TTB has added regulatory text to clarify that wine eligible for labeling with the Columbia Valley name under the new boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA will not be affected by the establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA or by this two-year transition period.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Drafting Information

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

Wine.

The Regulatory Amendment

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Amend § 9.74 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(38) through (40) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 9.74 Columbia Valley.

(b) Approved maps. The approved maps for determining the boundary of the Columbia Valley viticultural area are nine 1:250,000 scale U.S.G.S. maps and one 1:100,000 (metric) scale U.S.G.S. map. They are entitled:

(1) Concrete, Washington, U.S.; British Columbia, Canada, edition of 1955, limited revision 1963;

(2) Okanogan, Washington, edition of 1954, limited revision 1963;

(3) Pendleton, Oregon, Washington, edition of 1954, revised 1973;

(4) Pullman, Washington, Idaho, edition of 1953, revised 1974;

(5) Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 1:100,000 (metric) scale, edition of 1981;

(6) Ritzville, Washington, edition of 1953, limited revision 1965;

(7) The Dalles, Oregon, Washington, edition of 1953, revised 1971;

(8) Walla Walla, Washington, Oregon, edition of 1953, limited revision 1963;

(9) Wenatchee, Washington, edition of 1957, revised 1971; and

(10) Yakima, Washington, edition of 1958, revised 1971.

(c) * * *

(38) Then south following the Washington-Idaho State boundary on the 1:100,000 (metric) scale Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, Oregon map to the 600-meter elevation contour along the eastern boundary of section 9,

R. 46 E./T. 11 N.; and then generally west following the meandering 600-meter contour to the eastern boundary of section 17, R. 45E./T. 11N.; then south following the eastern boundary of section 17 to the southern boundary of section 17; and then west following the southern boundaries of sections 17 and 18 to the Asotin-Garfield county line in section 19, R. 45E./T. 11N.;

(39) Then south following the Garfield-Asotin county line to the 600-meter elevation contour; then following generally west and south in a counterclockwise direction along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to Charley Creek in section 4, R. 44 E./T. 9 N.; and then west following Charley Creek on to the township line between R. 42 E. and R. 43 E.;

(40) Then north following the township line between R. 42 E. and R. 43 E. on the 1:250,000 scale “Pullman, Washington, Idaho” map to Washington Highway 128 at Peola;

(d) Transition period. A label containing the words “Columbia Valley” in the brand name or as an appellation of origin approved prior to May 20, 2016 may be used on wine bottled before May 21, 2018 if the wine conforms to the standards for use of the label set forth in § 4.25 or § 4.39(i) of this chapter in effect prior to May 20, 2016.

3. Add § 9.256 to read as follows:
§ 9.256 Lewis-Clark Valley.

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Lewis-Clark Valley”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Lewis-Clark Valley” is a term of viticultural significance.

(b) Approved maps. The three United States Geographical Survey (USGS) 1:100,000 (metric) scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area are titled:

(1) Clarkston, Wash.-Idaho-Oregon, 1981;

(2) Orofino, Idaho-Washington, 1981; and

(3) Potlatch, Idaho, 1981.

(c) Boundary. The Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area is located in Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah Counties, Idaho, and Asotin, Garfield, and Whitman Counties, Washington. The boundary of the Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area is as follows:

(1) The beginning point is located on the Clarkston map in Washington State along the Garfield-Asotin County line at the southwest corner of section 18, T11N/R45E. From the beginning point, proceed east along the southern boundary line of section 18, crossing over the Snake River, and continue along the southern boundary line of section 17, T11N/R45E, to the southeast corner of section 17; then

(2) Proceed north along the eastern boundary line of section 17 to the 600-meter elevation contour; then

(3) Proceed generally east-northeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour, crossing into Idaho and onto the Orofino map, then continue to follow the elevation contour in an overall clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Orofino and Clarkston maps and finally onto the Potlatch map, and then continuing to follow the 600-meter elevation contour in a clockwise direction to the elevation contour's intersection with the southern boundary line of section 1, T37N/R1W, on the Potlatch map, north of the Nez Perce Indian Reservation boundary and west of the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork of the Clearwater River) in Clearwater County, Idaho; then

(4) Cross the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork of the Clearwater River) by proceeding east along the southern boundary line of section 1, T37N/R1E, to the southeastern corner of section 1; then by proceeding north along the eastern boundary line of section 1 to the southwest corner of section 6, T37N/R2E; and then by proceeding east along the southern boundary line of section 6 to the 600-meter elevation contour; then

(5) Proceed generally east initially, then generally south, and then generally southeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour, crossing onto the Orofino map, and then continuing to follow the elevation contour in an overall clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Orofino and Potlatch maps, to the eastern boundary of section 13, T35N/R2E, on the Orofino map in Clearwater County, Idaho; then

(6) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of section 13, T35N/R2E, to the southeastern corner of section 13, T35N/R2E, northeast of Lolo Creek; then

(7) Proceed west along the southern boundary line of section 13, T35N/R2E, to the Clearwater-Idaho County line in the middle of Lolo Creek; then

(8) Proceed generally west-northwest along the Clearwater-Idaho County line (concurrent with Lolo Creek) to the Lewis County line at the confluence of Lolo Creek and the Clearwater River; then

(9) Proceed generally south along the Lewis-Idaho County line (concurrent with the Clearwater River) to the northern boundary line of section 23, T35N/R2E; then

(10) Proceed west along the northern boundary line of section 23, T35N/R2E, to the 600-meter elevation contour; then

(11) Proceed generally northwest along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour, crossing onto the Potlatch map and then back onto the Orofino map and continuing generally southwest along the 600-meter elevation contour to the common T32N/T31N township boundary line along the southern boundary line of section 35, T32N/R5W, south of Chimney Creek (a tributary of the Snake River) in Nez Perce County, Idaho; then

(12) Proceed west along the common T32N/T31N township boundary line, crossing Chimney Creek, to the Idaho-Washington State line (concurrent with the Nez Perce-Asotin County line) at the center of the Snake River; then

(13) Proceed generally southeast along the Idaho-Washington State line in the Snake River to the northern boundary line of section 29, T31N/R5W; then

(14) Proceed west along the northern boundary line of section 29, T31N/R5W, to the 600-meter elevation contour, northeast of Lime Hill in Asotin County, Washington; then

(15) Proceed generally west and then generally south-southwest along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to the southern boundary line of section 25, T7N/R46E; then

(16) Proceed west along the southern boundary lines of section 25 and 26, crossing onto the Clarkston map, and continuing along the southern boundary lines of section 26 to the 600-meter elevation contour west of Joseph Creek; then

(17) Proceed southeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to the western boundary line of section 34, T7N/R46E; then

(18) Proceed north along the western boundary lines of sections 34 and 27, T7N/R46E, crossing over the Grande Ronde River, to the 600-meter elevation contour; then

(19) Proceed generally northeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour and continue along the 600-meter elevation contour in a clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Clarkston and Orofino maps, until, on the Clarkston map, the 600-meter elevation line intersects the Garfield-Asotin County line for the third time along the western boundary of section 19, T11N/R45E; and then

(20) Proceed north along the Garfield-Asotin County line, returning to the beginning point.

Signed: March 28, 2016. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: April 15, 2016. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016-09264 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 551 Semipostal Stamp Program AGENCY:

Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule revises the provisions governing the Postal Service's discretionary Semipostal Stamp Program to simplify and expedite the process for selecting causes for semipostal stamps, and facilitate the issuance of five such stamps over a 10-year period. It also removes certain restrictions on the commencement date for the Postal Service's discretionary Semipostal Stamp Program, and clarifies how many semipostal stamps issued under that program may be on sale at any one time.

DATES:

This rule is effective on: May 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lori Mazzone, Manager, Stamp Products & Exhibitions, 202-268-6711, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Publication of Proposed Rule

The Semipostal Authorization Act, Public Law 106-253, grants the Postal Service discretionary authority to issue and sell semipostal stamps to advance such causes as it considers to be “in the national public interest and appropriate.” See 39 U.S.C. 416(b). On March 3, 2016, the Postal Service published and requested comments concerning a detailed revision of the rules concerning the discretionary Semipostal Stamp Program, as set forth in 39 CFR part 551 (81 FR 11164). As summarized below, these changes are designed to facilitate the smooth and efficient operation of the discretionary Semipostal Stamp Program.

Revisions

The revision of § 551.3 streamlines and simplifies the selection of causes to receive funds raised through the sale of semipostal stamps, and states the Postal Service's intention to issue five such stamps over the statutory ten-year period. It also notifies the public that no further consideration will be given to previously submitted proposals but that such proposals may be resubmitted under the revised regulations. The paragraph relating to proposals regarding the same subject and proposals for the sharing of funds between two agencies is edited for clarity and moved to § 551.4, concerning submission requirements and criteria, where it more appropriately belongs.

The revision of § 551.4 sharpens the submission requirements and, among other things, makes Postal Service employees ineligible to submit proposals for semipostal stamps.

The revision of § 551.5(a) removes certain restrictions on the commencement date of the discretionary Semipostal Stamp Program. Under current regulations, the 10-year period for the discretionary semipostal stamp program would commence on a date determined by the Office of Stamp Services, but that date must be after the sales period of the Breast Cancer Research stamp (BCRS) is concluded. Most recently, Public Law 114-99 (December 11, 2015) extended that sales period to December 31, 2019. As revised, the 10-year period will commence on a date determined by the Office of Stamp Services, but the date need not be after the BCRS sale period concludes.

The revision of § 551.5(b) clarifies that although only one semipostal stamp under the discretionary Semipostal Stamp Program under 39 U.S.C. 416 (a “discretionary program semipostal stamp”) will be offered for sale at any one time, other semipostal stamps required to be issued by Congress (such as the BCRS) may be on sale when a discretionary program semipostal stamp is on sale. Current regulations state that the Postal Service will offer only one semipostal stamp for sale at any given time during the 10-year period (not specifying whether it is a discretionary program semipostal stamp or a semipostal stamp required by Congress). As revised, the one-at-a-time limitation on the sale of semipostal stamps applies only to discretionary program semipostal stamps.

To minimize confusion regarding applicable postage rates, the revision of § 551.6 specifies that for purposes of calculating the price of a semipostal, the First-Class Mail® single-piece stamped first-ounce rate of postage will be considered “the rate of postage that would otherwise regularly apply.”

Comments and Response

The Postal Service received three comments in response to the proposed rule. All three comments supported the discretionary Semipostal Stamp Program, but suggested that the Postal Service should issue only one semipostal stamp for the entire ten-year duration of the program. The Postal Service believes that the public interest would be better served by issuing five different semipostal stamps for two years each during the ten-year period, and has determined to adopt the amendments to 39 CFR part 551 as proposed.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 551

Administrative practice and procedure.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Postal Service hereby amends 39 CFR part 551 as follows:

PART 551—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 551 continues to read as follows: Authority:

39 U.S.C. 101, 201, 203, 401, 403, 404, 410, 414, 416.

2. Revise § 551.3 to read as follows:
§ 551.3 Procedure for selection of causes and recipient executive agencies.

The Postal Service has discretionary authority to select causes and recipient executive agencies to receive funds raised through the sale of semipostal stamps. These regulations apply only to such discretionary semipostal stamps and do not apply to semipostal stamps that are mandated by Act of Congress, such as the Breast Cancer Research stamp. The procedure for selection of causes and recipient executive agencies is as follows:

(a) The Office of Stamp Services will accept proposals from interested persons for future semipostal stamps beginning on May 20, 2016. The Office of Stamp Services will begin considering proposals on July 5, 2016. The Postal Service intends to issue five semipostal stamps under these regulations during the 10-year period established by Congress in 39 U.S.C. 416(g). Each semipostal stamp will be sold for no more than two years. Proposals may be submitted and will be considered on a rolling basis until seven years after May 20, 2016. The Office of Stamp Services may publicize this request for proposals in the Federal Register or through other means, as it determines in its discretion. Proposals for semipostal stamps made prior to May 20, 2016 will not be given further consideration. Nothing in these regulations should be construed as barring the resubmission of previously submitted causes and recipient executive agencies.

(b) Proposals will be received by the Office of Stamp Services, which will review each proposal under § 551.4.

(c) The Office of Stamp Services will forward those proposals that satisfy the requirements of § 551.4 to the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee for its consideration.

(d) Based on the proposals received from the Office of Stamp Services, the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee may make recommendations on causes and eligible recipient executive agencies to the postmaster general. The Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee may recommend more than one cause and eligible recipient executive agency at the same time.

(e) Meetings of the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee are closed, and deliberations of the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee are pre-decisional in nature.

(f) In making decisions concerning semipostal stamps, the postmaster general may take into consideration such factors, including the recommendations of the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, as the postmaster general determines are appropriate. The decision of the postmaster general shall be the final agency decision.

(g) The Office of Stamp Services will notify each executive agency in writing of a decision designating that agency as a recipient of funds from a semipostal stamp.

(h) As either a separate matter, or in combination with recommendations on a cause and recipient executive agencies, the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee may recommend to the postmaster general a design (i.e., artwork) for the semipostal stamp. The postmaster general will make a final decision on the design to be featured.

(i) The decision of the postmaster general to exercise the Postal Service's discretionary authority to issue a semipostal stamp is final and not subject to challenge or review.

3. Revise § 551.4 to read as follows:
§ 551.4 Submission requirements and selection criteria.

(a) Proposals on recipient executive agencies and causes must satisfy the following requirements:

(1) Interested persons must timely submit the proposal by U.S. Mail to the Office of Stamp Services, Attn: Semipostal Discretionary Program, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 3300, Washington, DC 20260-3501, or in a single Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file sent by email to [email protected] Indicate in the Subject Line: Semipostal Discretionary Program. For purposes of this section, interested persons include, but are not limited to, individuals, corporations, associations, and executive agencies under 5 U.S.C. 105.

(2) The proposal must be signed by the individual or a duly authorized representative and must provide the mailing address, phone number, fax number (if available), and email address of a designated point of contact.

(3) The proposal must describe the cause and the purposes for which the funds would be used.

(4) The proposal must demonstrate that the cause to be funded has broad national appeal, and that the cause is in the national public interest and furthers human welfare. Respondents are encouraged to submit supporting documentation demonstrating that funding the cause would benefit the national public interest.

(5) The proposal must include a letter from an executive agency or agencies on agency letterhead representing that:

(i) It is an executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105,

(ii) It is willing and able to implement the proposal, and

(iii) It is willing and able to meet the requirements of the Semipostal Authorization Act, if it is selected. The letter must be signed by a duly authorized representative of the agency.

(6)(i) A proposal may designate one or two recipient executive agencies to receive funds, but if more than one executive agency is proposed, the proposal must specify the percentage shares of differential revenue, net of the Postal Service's reasonable costs, to be given to each agency. If percentage shares are not specified, it is presumed that the proposal intends that the funds be split evenly between the agencies. If more than two recipient executive agencies are proposed to receive funds and the proposal is selected, the postmaster general will provide the recipient executive agencies with an opportunity to jointly decide which two agencies will receive funds. If the agencies are unable to reach a joint decision within 20 days, the postmaster general shall either decide which two agencies will receive funds or select another proposal.

(ii) If more than one proposal is submitted for the same cause, and the proposals would have different executive agencies receiving funds, the funds may be evenly divided among the executive agencies, with no more than two agencies being designated to receive funds, as determined by the postmaster general.

(b) Proposals become the property of the Postal Service and are not returned to interested persons who submit them. Interested persons who submit proposals are not entitled to any remuneration, compensation, or any other form of payment, whether their proposals are selected or not, for any reason.

(c) The following persons may not submit proposals:

(1) Employees of the United States Postal Service;

(2) Any contractor of the Postal Service that may stand to benefit financially from the Semipostal Stamp Program; or

(3) Members of the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee and their immediate families, and contractors of the Postal Service, and their immediate families, who are involved in any decision-making related to causes, recipient agencies, or artwork for the Semipostal Stamp Program.

(d) Consideration for evaluation will not be given to proposals that request support for any of the following: Anniversaries; public works; people; specific organizations or associations; commercial enterprises or products; cities, towns, municipalities, counties, or secondary schools; hospitals, libraries, or similar institutions; religious institutions; causes that do not further human welfare; or causes determined by the Postal Service or the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee to be inconsistent with the spirit, intent, or history of the Semipostal Authorization Act.

(e) Artwork and stamp designs may not be submitted with proposals.

5. Revise § 551.5 to read as follows:
§ 551.5 Frequency and other limitations.

(a) The Postal Service is authorized to issue semipostal stamps for a 10-year period beginning on the date on which semipostal stamps are first sold to the public under 39 U.S.C. 416. The Office of Stamp Services will determine the date of commencement of the 10-year period.

(b) The Postal Service will offer only one discretionary semipostal stamp for sale at any given time during the 10-year period, although a discretionary semipostal stamp may be offered for sale at the same time as one or more congressionally mandated semipostal stamps.

(c) The sales period for any given discretionary semipostal stamp is limited to no more than two years, as determined by the Office of Stamp Services.

(d) Prior to or after the issuance of a given discretionary semipostal stamp, the Postal Service may withdraw the semipostal stamp from sale, or to reduce the sales period, if, inter alia:

(1) Its sales or revenue statistics are lower than expected,

(2) The sales or revenue projections are lower than expected, or

(3) The cause or recipient executive agency does not further, or does not comply with, the statutory purposes or requirements of the Semipostal Authorization Act.

6. Revise § 551.6 to read as follows:
§ 551.6 Pricing.

(a) The Semipostal Authorization Act, as amended by Public Law 107-67, section 652, 115 Stat. 514 (2001), prescribes that the price of a semipostal stamp is the rate of postage that would otherwise regularly apply, plus a differential of not less than 15 percent. The price of a semipostal stamp shall be an amount that is evenly divisible by five. For purposes of this provision, the First-Class Mail® single-piece stamped first-ounce rate of postage will be considered the rate of postage that would otherwise regularly apply.

(b) The prices of semipostal stamps are determined by the Governors of the United States Postal Service in accordance with the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 416.

Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-09081 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0243; A-1-FRL-9945-12-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Stage I Vapor Recovery Requirements AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Vermont. This revision includes regulatory amendments that clarify and Stage I vapor recovery requirements at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs). The intended effect of this action is to approve Vermont's revised Stage I vapor recovery regulations. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES:

This direct final rule will be effective June 20, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 20, 2016. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0243 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section. For 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:

Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1660, fax number (617) 918-0660, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

I. Background and Purpose II. Summary of Vermont's SIP Revision III. EPA's Evaluation of Vermont's SIP Revision IV. Final Action V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

On January 26, 2015, the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of Vermont's revised Air Pollution Control Regulation (APCR) Section 5-101, Definitions; APCR Section 5-253.2, Bulk Gasoline Terminals; APCR Section 5-253.3, Bulk Gasoline Plants; and APCR Section 5-253.5, Stage I Vapor Recovery Controls at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities.

Stage I vapor recovery systems are systems that capture vapors displaced from storage tanks at GDFs during gasoline tank truck deliveries. When gasoline is delivered into an aboveground or underground storage tank, vapors that were taking up space in the storage tank are displaced by the gasoline entering the storage tank. The Stage I vapor recovery systems route these displaced vapors into the delivery truck's tank. Some vapors are vented when the storage tank exceeds a specified pressure threshold, however the Stage I vapor recovery systems greatly reduce the possibility of these displaced vapors being released into the atmosphere.

Stage I vapor recovery systems have been in place since the 1970s. EPA has issued the following guidance regarding Stage I systems: “Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline Service Stations” (November 1975, EPA Online Publication 450R75102), which is regarded as the control techniques guideline (CTG) for the control of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from this source category; and the EPA document “Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology” (Staff Working Draft, June 1992) contains a model Stage I regulation. EPA has also issued the following CTGs, relevant to this SIP revision: “Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals” (December 1977, EPA-450/2-77-026); and “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants” (December 1977, EPA-450/2-77-035).

II. Summary of Vermont's SIP Revision

The Vermont APCR Section 5-253.2, Bulk Gasoline Terminals; Section 5-253.3, Bulk Gasoline Plants; and Section 5-253.5, Stage I Vapor Recovery Controls at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, were initially approved into the Vermont SIP on April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19829). Vermont's APCRs required gasoline dispensing facilities throughout the state to install Stage I vapor recovery systems and satisfied Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for gasoline dispensing facilities, bulk gasoline terminals, and bulk gasoline plants. The SIP revision approved on April 22, 1998 also included definitions in Section 5-101, Definitions that were associated with the VOC RACT rules.

On January 26, 2015, Vermont submitted a SIP revision consisting of its revised APCR Sections 5-101, 5-253.2, 5-253.3, and 5-253.5. This SIP revision includes regulatory amendments that clarify Stage I vapor recovery requirements, simplify definitions relating to gasoline storage and distribution at gasoline terminals and bulk gasoline plants, improve the consistency of the Vermont APCRs with federal requirements for GDFs, and help to ensure that VOC emission reductions achieved by existing Stage I vapor recovery systems are maintained.

Vermont's January 26, 2015 SIP revision included the amended APCR Section 5-253.5, Stage I Vapor Recovery Controls at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, which was revised to clarify requirements in the existing Stage I vapor recovery regulation. Amongst other clarifying revisions in Vermont's APCR Section 5-253.5, the Stage I vapor recovery regulation was: Revised to ensure awareness that GDFs must also comply with the federal regulations for GDFs, EPA's National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Category: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC; revised to include definitions for “dual-point vapor Stage I vapor recovery system,” “monthly gasoline throughput,” and “startup”; and revised to include a compliance schedule for the installation of dual-point Stage I vapor recovery systems for those GDFs not already so equipped.

In addition, the amended APCRs in Vermont's January 26, 2015 SIP revision were revised as follows: The amended APCR Section 5-101, Definitions, includes revised definitions for “bulk gasoline terminal” and “vapor balance system”; the amended APCR Section 5-253.2, Bulk Gasoline Terminals, adds a reference to a “vapor control system” in addition to the previous wording, which only referred to “vapor collection system,” thus clarifying that the gasoline vapors displaced from gasoline tank trucks during loading must be collected and controlled, and that the emission limits from such vapors apply to both the collection and control systems; and the amended APCR Section 5-253.3, Bulk Gasoline Plants, was revised for clarity as a result of the revised APCR 5-101 definition of “vapor balance system.”

III. EPA's Evaluation of Vermont's SIP Revision

EPA has reviewed Vermont's revised APCRs Sections 5-101, 5-253.2, 5-253.3, and 5-253.5, and has concluded that Vermont's January 26, 2015 SIP revision is approvable. Specifically, Vermont's revised regulations continue to be consistent with EPA's CTGs and meet RACT for the relevant emission source categories.

In addition, Vermont's revised APCRs included in the January 26, 2015 SIP revision are more stringent than the previously approved versions of the rules, thus meeting the CAA section 110(l) anti-backsliding requirements. EPA's most recent approval of APCR Sections 5-253.2 and 5-253.5 was on April 22, 1998 (see 63 FR 19825), Section 5-253.3 was on July 19, 2011 (see 76 FR 42560), and Section 5-101 was on October 5, 2012 (see 77 FR 60907). Vermont's revised APCRs submitted with their January 26, 2015 SIP revision are more stringent by incorporating the requirement for GDFs to meet the federal NESHAP and by clarifying that Stage I requirements apply to vapor control systems as well as vapor collection systems. Furthermore, the defined terms and clarifications added to the Vermont APCRs ensure that all entities subject to the regulations clearly understand the applicable requirements.

Finally, we note that in certain instances the regulations we are approving authorize a Vermont “Air Pollution Control Officer” to make certain determinations or to require specific actions. In approving such provisions, although EPA's authority regarding such determinations or actions is not expressly referenced in the regulatory text, EPA does not intend, and could not intend as a matter of law, to preclude EPA from exercising any legal authority EPA may have under the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations. The regulatory language at Vermont APCR Section 5-253.5(c)(3), relating to determinations regarding whether a facility is being operated and maintained in a manner consistent with safety and good engineering practices for minimizing emissions, is one example of such a provision. Although the provision does not reference EPA's legal authority, the provision would not, and could not, function as a legal matter to preclude EPA from exercising any relevant authority it may have under the Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations.

IV. Final Action

EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Vermont SIP, Vermont's revised APCRs Section 5-101, Definitions; Section 5-253.2, Bulk Gasoline Terminals; Section 5-253.3, Bulk Gasoline Plants; and Section 5-253.5, Stage I Vapor Recovery Controls at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. EPA is approving Vermont's January 26, 2015 SIP revision because it meets all applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 20, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by May 20, 2016.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on June 20, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Incorporation by Reference

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 20, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: April 1, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

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

PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart UU—Vermont 2. In § 52.2370, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising entries for Sections 5-101, 5-253.2, 5-253.3, and 5-253.5 to read as follows:
§ 52.2370 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Vermont Regulations State citation Title/subject State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval
  • date
  • Explanations
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 5-101 Definitions 12/29/14 April 20, 2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Revised definitions for “bulk gasoline terminal” and “vapor balance system.”. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 5-253.2 Bulk Gasoline Terminals 12/29/14 April 20, 2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 5-253.3 Bulk Gasoline Plants 12/29/14 April 20, 2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 5-253.5 Stage I Vapor Recovery Controls at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities 12/29/14 April 20, 2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-09068 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-2015-NY2; FRL-9935-51-Region 2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; administrative change.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the EPA Regional Office.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective April 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866; and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. To view the material at the Region 2 Office, EPA requests that you email the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th floor, New York, NY 10008-1866, telephone number (212) 637-3381, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference Federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register document. On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41705), EPA published a document in the Federal Register beginning the revised IBR procedure for New York.

    This Final Rule continues the revised IBR procedure for New York. In this document, EPA is publishing an updated set of tables listing the regulatory (i.e., IBR) materials in the New York SIP taking into account the additions, corrections and revisions to those materials previously submitted by the state agency and approved by EPA. We are removing the EPA Headquarters Library from paragraph (b)(3), as IBR materials are no longer available at this location. In addition, EPA has found errors in certain entries listed in 40 CFR 52.1670(c), as amended in the published IBR update actions listed above, and is correcting them in this document.

    Since the July 15, 2011 publication of the new IBR procedure, EPA has approved changes to the following regulations and sections for New York:

    A. Added Regulations

    1. Additions of the following regulations or sections in Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations:

    a. Part 240, Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws, and

    b. Part 241, Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Based Surface Coating, and

    c. Part 249, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART).

    2. Additions of the following regulations or sections in Title 19 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations:

    a. Part 937, Access to Publicly Available Records.

    3. Additions of the following regulations or sections in the New York Environmental Conservation Law:

    a. Section 19-0325.

    4. Additions of the following regulations or sections in the New York Public Officers Law:

    a. Section 73-a, Financial disclosure.

    B. Revised Regulations

    1. Revisions to the following regulations or sections in Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations:

    a. Part 200, General Provisions,

    i. Subpart 200.1, and

    ii. Subpart 200.9.

    b. Part 205, Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings.

    c. Part 211, General Prohibitions.

    d. Part 212, General Process Emission.

    e. Part 217, Motor Vehicle Emissions.

    i. Subpart 217-1, Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements Until December 31, 2010,

    ii. Subpart 217-4, Inspection and Maintenance Program Audits Until December 31, 2010, and

    iii. Subpart 217-6, Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements Beginning January 1, 2011.

    f. Part 220, Portland Cement Plants and Glass Plants.

    g. Part 227, Stationary Combustion Installations,

    i. Subpart 227-2, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) For Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).

    h. Part 228, Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers.

    i. Part 234, Graphic Arts.

    2. Revisions to the following regulations in Title 15 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations:

    a. Part 79, Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations

    i. Sections 79.1-79.15, 79.17, 79.20, 79.21, 79.24, 79.25.

    C. Added State Source Specific Requirements 1. Alcoa Massena Operations (West Plant)—Potline S-00001, Baking furnace S-00002, Package Boilers B-00001, Permit ID 6-4058-00003. 2. Arthur Kill Generating Station, NRG—Boiler 30, Permit ID 2-6403-00014. 3. Bowline Generating Station, GenOn—Boilers 1 and 2, Permit ID 3-3922-00003. 4. Con Edison 59th Street Station—Steam Boilers 114 and 115, Permit ID 2-6202-00032. 5. EF Barrett Power Station, NG—Boiler 2, Permit ID 1-2820-00553. 6. International Paper Ticonderoga Mill—Power Boiler and Recovery Furnace, Permit ID 5-1548-00008. 7. Kodak Operations at Eastman Business Park, Kodak—Boilers 41, 42 and 43, Permit ID 8-2614-00205. 8. Lafarge Building Materials—Kilns 1 and 2, Permit ID 4-0124-00001. 9. Lehigh Northeast Cement, Lehigh Cement—Kiln and Clinker cooler, Permit ID 5-5205-00013. 10. Northport Power Station, NG—Boilers 1, 2, 3, and 4, Permit ID 1-4726-00130. 11. Oswego Harbor Power, NRG—Boilers 5 and 6, Permit ID 7-3512-00030. 12. Owens-Corning Insulating Systems Feura Bush, Owens Corning—EU2, EU3, EU12, EU13, and EU14, Permit ID 4-0122-00004. 13. Ravenswood Generating Station, TC—Boilers 10, 20, 30, Permit ID 2-6304-00024. 14. Ravenswood Steam Plant, Con Edison—Boiler 2, Permit ID 2-6304-01378. 15. Roseton Generating Station-Dynegy—Boilers 1 and 2, Permit ID 3-3346-00075. 16. Samuel A Carlson Generating Station, Jamestown Board of Public Utilities—Boiler 12, Permit ID 9-0608-00053. 17. Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Suez]—Boiler 1, Permit ID 7-3132-00052. II. EPA Action

    In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of August 1, 2015. EPA has determined this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the New York regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 22, 2015. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart HH—New York
    2. In § 52.1670, paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) are revised to read as follows:
    § 52.1670 Identification of plan.

    (b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to August 1, 2015, was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and notification of any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register. Entries in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date after August 1, 2015, will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

    (2) EPA Region 2 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by the EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules/regulations, which have been approved as part of the SIP as of August 1, 2015.

    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007; and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    (c) EPA approved regulations.

    EPA-Approved New York State Regulations and Laws State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Comments Title 6, Part 200, Subpart 200.1 General Provisions, Definitions 1/1/11 7/12/13 • The word odor is removed from the Subpart 200.1(d) definition of “air contaminant or air pollutant.” • Redesignation of non-attainment areas to attainment areas (200.1(av)) does not relieve a source from compliance with previously applicable requirements as per letter of Nov. 13, 1981 from H. Hovey, NYSDEC. • Changes in definitions are acceptable to EPA unless a previously approved definition is necessary for implementation of an existing SIP regulation. • EPA is including the definition of “Federally enforceable” with the understanding that (1) the definition applies to provisions of a Title V permit that are correctly identified as Federally enforceable, and (2) a source accepts operating limits and conditions to lower its potential to emit to become a minor source, not to “avoid” applicable requirements. • EPA approval finalized at 78 FR 41846. Title 6, Part 200, Subpart 200.6 General Provisions, Acceptable ambient air quality 2/25/00 4/22/08 • EPA approval finalized at 73 FR 21548. Title 6, Part 200, Subpart 200.7 General Provisions, Maintenance of equipment 2/25/00 4/22/08 • EPA approval finalized at 73 FR 21548. Title 6, Part 200, Subpart 200.9 Referenced material 1/1/11 7/12/13 • EPA is approving reference documents that are not already Federally enforceable.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 78 FR 41846.
  • Title 6, Part 201 Permits and Registrations 4/4/93 10/3/05 • This action removes subpart 201.5(e) from the State's Federally approved SIP.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 57511.
  • Title 6, Part 201,Subpart 201-2.1(b)(21) Permits and Registrations, Definitions 3/5/09 11/17/10 • EPA is including the definition of “Major stationary source or major source or major facility” with the understanding that the definition applies only to provisions of part 231.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 75 FR 70142.
  • Title 6, Part 201, Subpart 201-7.1 Permits and Registrations, Federally Enforceable Emission Caps 7/7/96 10/3/05 • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 57511. Title 6, Part 201, Subpart 201-7.2 Permits and Registrations, Emission Capping Using Synthetic Minor Permits 7/7/96 10/3/05 • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 57511. Title 6, Part 202 Emissions Testing, Sampling and Analytical Determinations 3/24/79 11/12/81 • EPA approval finalized at 46 FR 55690. Title 6, Part 202, Subpart 202-2 Emission Statements 5/29/05 10/31/07 • Section 202-2.3(c)(9) requires facilities to report individual HAPs that may not be classified as criteria pollutants or precursors to assist the State in air quality planning needs. EPA will not take SIP-related enforcement action on these pollutants.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 72 FR 61530.
  • Title 6, Part 204 NOX Budget Trading Program 2/25/00 5/22/01 • Incorporates NOX SIP Call and NOX Budget Trading Program for 2003 and thereafter.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 66 FR 28063.
  • Title 6, Part 205 Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings 1/1/11 3/8/12 • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 13974. Title 6, Part 207 Control Measures for an Air Pollution Episode 2/22/79 11/12/81 • EPA approval finalized at 46 FR 55690. Title 6, Part 211 General Prohibitions 1/1/11 3/8/12 • Section 211.1 (previously numbered 211.2) is not part of the approved plan. (see 11/27/98, 63 FR 65559).
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 13974.
  • Title 6, Part 212 General Process Emission Sources 9/30/10 7/12/13 • SIP revisions submitted in accordance with § 212.10(c)(3) and 212.12(c) are effective only if approved by EPA.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 78 FR 41846.
  • Title 6, Part 213 Contaminant Emissions from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries 5/1/72 9/22/72 • EPA approval finalized at 37 FR 19814. Title 6, Part 214 By-Product Coke Oven Batteries 9/22/94 7/20/06 • EPA approval finalized at 71 FR 41163. Title 6, Part 215 Open Fires 6/16/72 9/22/72 • EPA approval finalized at 37 FR 19814. Title 6, Part 216 Iron and/or Steel Processes 9/22/94 7/20/06 • EPA approval finalized at 71 FR 41163. Title 6, Part 217, Subpart 217-1 Motor Vehicle Emissions, Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements Until December 31, 2010 12/5/10 2/28/12 • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 11742. Title 6, Part 217, Subpart 217-4 Motor Vehicle Emissions, Inspection and Maintenance Program Audits Until December 31, 2010 12/5/10 2/28/12 • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 11742. Title 6, Part 217, Subpart 217-6 Motor Vehicle Emissions, Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements Beginning January 1, 2011 12/5/10 2/28/12 • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 11742. Title 6, Part 218, Subpart 218-1 Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, Applicability and Definitions 12/28/00 1/31/05 • EPA's approval of part 218 only applies to light-duty vehicles.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 4773.
  • Title 6, Part 218, Subpart 218-2 Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, Certification and Prohibitions 12/28/00 1/31/05 • EPA's approval of part 218 only applies to light-duty vehicles. • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 4773. Title 6, Part 218, Subpart 218-3 Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, Fleet Average 12/28/00 1/31/05 • EPA's approval of part 218 only applies to light-duty vehicles. • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 4773. Title 6, Part 218, Subpart 218-4 Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, Zero Emissions Vehicle Sales Mandate 5/28/92 1/6/95 • EPA's approval of part 218 only applies to light-duty vehicles. • EPA approval finalized at 60 FR 2025. Title 6, Part 218, Subpart 218-5 Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, Testing 12/28/00 1/31/05 • EPA's approval of part 218 only applies to light-duty vehicles. • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 4773. Title 6, Part 218, Subpart 218-6 Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Surveillance 12/28/00 1/31/05 • EPA's approval of part 218 only applies to light-duty vehicles. • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 4773. Title 6, Part 218, Subpart 218-7 Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, Aftermarket Parts 12/28/00 1/31/05 • EPA's approval of part 218 only applies to light-duty vehicles. • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 4773. Title 6, Part 218, Subpart 218-8 Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, Severability 12/28/00 1/31/05 • EPA's approval of part 218 only applies to light-duty vehicles. • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 4773. Title 6, Part 219 Incinerators 5/1/72 9/22/72 • EPA approval finalized at 37 FR 19814. Title 6, Part 220 Portland Cement Plants and Glass Plants 7/11/10 7/12/13 • SIP revisions submitted in accordance with § 220-1.6(b)(4) and 220-2.3(a)(4) are effective only if approved by EPA. • EPA approval finalized at 78 FR 41846. Title 6, Part 222 Incinerators—New York City, Nassau and Westchester Counties 6/17/72 9/22/72 • EPA approval finalized at 37 FR 19814. Title 6, Part 223 Petroleum Refineries 8/9/84 7/19/85 • EPA approval finalized at 50 FR 29382. Title 6, Part 224 Sulfuric and Nitric Acid Plants 5/10/84 7/19/85 • Variances adopted by the State pursuant to Part 224.6(b) become applicable only if approved by EPA as SIP revisions.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 50 FR 29382.
  • Title 6, Part 225, Subpart 225-1 Fuel Composition and Use-Sulfur Limitations 3/24/79 11/12/81 • Variances adopted by the State pursuant to §§ 225.2(b) and (c), 225.3, and 225.5(c) become applicable only if approved by EPA or SIP revisions (40 CFR 52.1675(e)).
  • • EPA approval finalized at 46 FR 55690.
  • Title 6, Part 225, Subpart 225-2 Fuel Composition and Use-Waste Fuel 7/28/83 8/2/84 • EPA approval finalized at 49 FR 30936. Title 6, Part 225, Subpart 225-3 Fuel Composition and Use-Gasoline 11/4/01 9/8/05 • The Variance adopted by the State pursuant to section 225-3.5 becomes applicable only if approved by EPA as a SIP revision.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 70 FR 53304.
  • Title 6, Part 226 Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes 5/7/03 1/23/04 • EPA approval finalized at 69 FR 3237. Title 6, Part 227, Subpart 227.2(b)(1) Stationary Combustion Installations 5/1/72 9/22/72 • 1972 version.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 37 FR 19814.
  • Title 6, Part 227,Subpart 227-1 Stationary Combustion Installations 2/25/00 5/22/01 • Existing Part 227 is renumbered Subpart 227-1.
  • • Renumbered sections 227-1.2(a)(2), 227-1.4(a), and 227-1.4(d) continue to be disapproved according to 40 CFR 52.1678(d) and 52.1680(a). (New York repealed existing Part 227.5.).
  • • EPA approval finalized at 66 FR 28063.
  • Title 6, Part 227,Subpart 227-2 Stationary Combustion Installations, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) For Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 7/8/10 7/12/13 • SIP revisions submitted in accordance with § 227-2.3(c) are effective only if approved by EPA.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 78 FR 41846.
  • Title 6, Part 227,Subpart 227-3 Stationary Combustion Installations, Pre-2003 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget and Allowance Program 3/5/99 5/22/01 • Approval of NOX Budget Trading Program for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. NOX caps in the State during 2003 and thereafter established in Part 204.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 66 FR 28063.
  • Title 6, Part 228 Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers 6/5/13 3/4/14 • EPA approval finalized at 79 FR 12082. Title 6, Part 229 Petroleum and Volatile Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer 4/4/93 12/23/97 • SIP revisions submitted in accordance with Section 229.3(g)(1) are effective only if approved by EPA.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 62 FR 67006.
  • Title 6, Part 230 Gasoline Dispensing Sites and Transport Vehicles 9/22/94 4/30/98 • EPA approval finalized at 63 FR 23668. Title 6, Part 231 New Source Review for New and Modified Facilities 3/5/09 11/17/10 • Partial approval; no action taken on provisions that may require PSD permits for sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with emissions below the thresholds identified in EPA's final PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule at 75 FR 31514, 31606 (June 3, 2010).
  • • EPA approval finalized at 75 FR 70140.
  • Title 6, Part 232 Dry Cleaning 8/11/83 6/17/85 • EPA has not determined that § 232.3(a) provides for reasonably available control technology.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 50 FR 25079.
  • Title 6, Part 233 Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Manufacturing Processes 4/4/93 12/23/97 • SIP revisions submitted in accordance with Section 223.3(h)(1) are effective only if approved by EPA.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 62 FR 67006.
  • Title 6, Part 234 Graphic Arts 7/8/10 3/8/12 • SIP revisions submitted in accordance with § 234.3(f) are effective only if approved by EPA.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 13974.
  • Title 6, Part 235 Consumer Products 10/15/09 5/28/10 • EPA approval finalized at 75 FR 29897. Title 6, Part 236 Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Facility Component Leaks 1/12/92 7/27/93 • Variances adopted by the State pursuant to Part 236.6(e)(3) become applicable only if approved by EPA as a SIP revision.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 58 FR 40059.
  • Title 6, Part 239 Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control 7/30/09 5/28/10 • The specific application of provisions associated with alternate test methods, variances and innovative products, must be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 75 FR 29897.
  • Title 6, Part 240, Subpart 240-1 Transportation Conformity, Transportation Conformity General Provisions 9/13/13 7/29/14 • EPA approval finalized at 79 FR 43945. Title 6, Part 240, Subpart 240-2 Transportation Conformity, Consultation 9/13/13 7/29/14 • EPA approval finalized at 79 FR 43945. Title 6, Part 240, Subpart 240-3 Transportation Conformity, Regional Transportation-Related Emissions and Enforceability 9/13/13 7/29/14 • EPA approval finalized at 79 FR 43945. Title 6, Part 241 Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Based Surface Coating 1/1/11 3/8/12 • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 13974. Title 6, Part 243 CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program 10/19/07 1/24/08 • EPA approval finalized at 73 FR 4112. Title 6, Part 244 CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program 10/19/07 1/24/08 • EPA approval finalized at 73 FR 4112. Title 6, Part 245 CAIR SO2Trading Program 10/19/07 1/24/08 • EPA approval finalized at 73 FR 4112. Title 6, Part 249 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 5/6/10 8/28/12 • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915. Title 15, Part 79, Subparts 79.1-79.15, 79.17, 79.20, 79.21, 79.24, 79.25 Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations 12/29/10 2/28/12 • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 11742. Title 19, Part 937 Access To Publicly Available Records 8/27/12 6/20/13 • Only subpart 937.1(a) is approved into the SIP and is for the limited purpose of satisfying Clean Air Act Section 128(a)(2).
  • • EPA approval finalized at 78 FR 37124.
  • Section 19-0325 Environmental Conservation Law, Sulfur reduction requirements 7/15/10 8/28/12 • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915. Section 73-a Public Officers Law, Financial disclosure 8/15/11 6/20/13 • Only subsections 73-a(2)(a)(i) and (ii) are approved into the SIP and are for the limited purpose of satisfying Clean Air Act Section 128(a)(2).
  • • EPA approval finalized at 78 FR 37124.
  • (d) EPA approved State source-specific requirements.

    EPA-Approved New York Source-Specific Provisions Name of source Identifier No. State effective date EPA approval date Comments Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation Consent Order 81-36, 9-0420 8/19/81 1/26/84 • Part 212 VOC RACT Compliance Plan.
  • • Green tire spraying, bead dipping, and under tread and tread end cementing processes.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 49 FR 3436.
  • Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation Consent Order 81-36, 9-0420, Amendment Letter 1 1/29/82 1/26/84 • Part 212 VOC RACT Compliance Plan.
  • • Green tire spraying, bead dipping, and under tread and tread end cementing processes.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 49 FR 3436.
  • Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation Consent Order 81-36, 9-0420, Amendment Letter 2 3/3/82 1/26/84 • Part 212 VOC RACT Compliance Plan.
  • • Green tire spraying, bead dipping, and under tread and tread end cementing processes.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 49 FR 3436.
  • Morton International Inc. A563203003500027C 9/1/95 9/23/97 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Emission point 00027.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 62 FR 49617.
  • Morton International Inc. A563203003500027C, Special Conditions 8/23/95 9/23/97 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Emission point 00027.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 62 FR 49617.
  • University of Rochester 8-2614-00548/00006-0 4/25/96 9/23/97 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Emission points 00003 and 0005.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 62 FR 49617.
  • University of Rochester 8-2614-00548/00006-0, Special Conditions 3/19/96 9/23/97 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Emission points 00003 and 0005.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 62 FR 49617.
  • Algonquin Gas Transmission Company 3-3928-1/9-0 9/23/91 9/23/97 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Emission Points R0100, R0200, R0300, and R0400.
  • • Permit and Special Conditions.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 62 FR 49617.
  • Algonquin Gas Transmission Company 3-3928, Special Conditions 3/18/96 9/23/97 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Emission Points R0100, R0200, R0300.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 62 FR 49617.
  • Algonquin Gas Transmission Company 3-3928-00001/00013 3/29/96 9/23/97 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Emission Point R0400.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 62 FR 49617.
  • Algonquin Gas Transmission Company 3-39228-00001/00010,11,12,13 8/8/96 9/23/97 • Permit Correction.
  • • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Emission Points R0100, R0200, R0300, and R0400.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 62 FR 49617.
  • Tenneco Gas Corporation's (also known as Tenneco Gas Pipeline Company and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company) 144000 8/22/95 7/21/03 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Compressor Station 229.
  • • Emission Points 0001A through 0006A.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 68 FR 42981.
  • Tenneco Gas Corporation's (also known as Tenneco Gas Pipeline Company and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company) 215600, Special Conditions 2/24/97 7/21/03 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Compressor Station 245.
  • • Emission Points 00001 through 00006.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 68 FR 42981.
  • Tenneco Gas Corporation's (also known as Tenneco Gas Pipeline Company and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company) 102600 10/4/95 7/21/03 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Compressor Station 254.
  • • Emission Points 00001 through 00006.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 68 FR 42981.
  • Tenneco Gas Corporation's (also known as Tenneco Gas Pipeline Company and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company) 102600,Special Conditions 9/15/95 7/21/03 • Part 227-2, NOX RACT determination.
  • • Compressor Station 254.
  • • Emission Points 00001 through 00006.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 68 FR 42981.
  • General Chemical Corporation 7-3132-00009/00012 12/16/97 7/1/04 • Part 212, NOX RACT determination. 6/23/05 letter informing NYSDEC that the approval will automatically convert to a disapproval.
  • • Emission Points 0SN1A and 0SN1B.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 69 FR 39858.
  • ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant) 6-4058-00003 3/20/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Emission Points Potline S-00001, Baking furnace S-00002, Package Boilers B-00001.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Arthur Kill Generating Station, NRG 2-6403-00014 3/20/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Boiler 30.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Bowline Generating Station, GenOn 3-3922-00003 6/28/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Boilers 1 and 2.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Con Edison 59th Street Station 2-6202-00032 3/20/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Steam Boilers 114 and 115.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • EF Barrett Power Station, NG 1-2820-00553 3/27/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Boiler 2.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • International Paper Ticonderoga Mill 5-1548-00008 3/19/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Power Boiler and Recovery Furnace.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Kodak Operations at Eastman Business Park, Kodak 8-2614-00205 5/25/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Boilers 41, 42 and 43.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Lafarge Building Materials 4-0124-00001 7/19/11 8/28/12 • Condition 12-14.
  • • Kilns 1 and 2.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Lehigh Northeast Cement, Lehigh Cement 5-5205-00013 7/5/12 8/28/12 • Part 220 and Part 249 BART.
  • • Kiln and Clinker cooler.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Northport Power Station, NG 1-4726-00130 3/27/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Boilers 1, 2, 3, and 4.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Oswego Harbor Power, NRG 7-3512-00030 5/16/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Boilers 5 and 6.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Owens-Corning Insulating Systems Feura Bush, Owens Corning 4-0122-00004 5/18/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • EU2, EU3, EU12, EU13, and EU14.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Ravenswood Generating Station, TC 2-6304-00024 4/6/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Boilers 10, 20, 30.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Ravenswood Steam Plant, Con Edison 2-6304-01378 3/20/12 8/28/12, • Part 249 BART.
  • • Boiler 2.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Roseton Generating Station-Dynegy 3-3346-00075 11/02/11 8/28/12 • Excluding the SO2 BART emissions limits for Boilers 1 and 2 and corresponding monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, which EPA disapproved.
  • • Boilers 1 and 2.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Samuel A Carlson Generating Station, James town Board of Public Utilities 9-0608-00053 2/8/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Boiler 12.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Suez] 7-3132-00052 5/24/12 8/28/12 • Part 249 BART.
  • • Boiler 1.
  • • EPA approval finalized at 77 FR 51915.
  • [FR Doc. 2016-08829 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0402; FRL-9945-13-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for Particle Matter, Ozone, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving most elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Rhode Island regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 fine particle matter (PM2.5), 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Additionally, EPA is disapproving the submissions with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(H), for which a Federal Implementation Plan has been in place for this requirement since 1973. EPA is also correcting an earlier approval of this element for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure requirements. Finally, EPA is approving several statutes submitted by Rhode Island in support of their demonstration that the infrastructure requirements of the CAA have been met. Lastly, EPA is conditionally approving certain elements of Rhode Island's submittal relating to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on May 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0402. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site, although some information, such as confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not publicly available. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1664; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    I. Background and Purpose II. Public Comments III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

    This rulemaking addresses infrastructure SIP submissions from the State of Rhode Island for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The state submitted these infrastructure SIPs on the following dates: 1997 PM2.5—September 10, 2008; 2006 PM2.5—November 6, 2009; 2008 Pb—October 26, 2011; 2008 ozone—January 2, 2013; 2010 NO2—January 2, 2013; and 2010 SO2—June 27, 2014. Details of Rhode Island's submittals and EPA evaluation of those submittals can be found in our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) (81 FR 10168; February 29, 2016).

    EPA is approving most of the elements of the above submittals (details can be found below). Additionally, EPA is disapproving the submissions with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(H). For this element, a Federal Implementation Plan has been in place for this requirement since 1973, such that no further action is required by EPA or Rhode Island. EPA is also, under section 110(k)(6) of the Act, correcting an earlier approval of this element for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure requirements. The correction changes our prior approval of element H for the 1997 ozone NAAQS infrastructure requirements to a disapproval. As stated above, a FIP is already in place, so no further action is required by EPA or Rhode Island. Furthermore, EPA is approving into the Rhode Island SIP several statutes submitted by Rhode Island in support of their demonstration that the infrastructure requirements of the CAA have been met. Also, we are conditionally approving certain elements of Rhode Island's submittal relating to the PSD requirements.

    In addition, EPA is removing the following sections from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): 40 CFR 52.2073(a); 52.2074(a) and (b); 52.2075(a); 52.2078(a); and 52.2079. These sections are no longer necessary for the reasons outlined in the NPR. Finally, although the NPR also proposed removal of 40 CFR 52.2073(b), 52.2075(b), and 52.2078(b), we are not taking final action with respect to these sections today.

    II. Public Comments

    EPA did not receive any comments in response to the NPR.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving SIP submissions from Rhode Island certifying that the state's current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of certain aspects relating to the state's PSD program which we are conditionally approving. Additionally, EPA is disapproving the submissions with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(H). EPA is also correcting an earlier approval of this element for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure requirements. The corrective action is taken under section 110(k)(6) of the Act. The correction changes our prior approval of element H for the 1997 ozone infrastructure requirement to a disapproval of element H. Finally, we are conditionally approving certain elements of Rhode Island's submittals relating to the PSD requirements.

    Specifically, EPA's actions for each infrastructure SIP requirement are shown in Table 1.

    Table 1—EPA's Action on Rhode Island's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for Listed NAAQS Element 2008 Pb 2008 ozone 2010 NO2 2010 SO2 1997 PM2.5 2006 PM2.5 (A): Emission limits and other control measures A A A A A A (B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system A A A A A A (C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures A A A A A A (C)2: PSD program for major sources and major modifications A* A* A* A* A* A* (C)3: PSD program for minor sources and minor modifications A A A A A A (D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS A NI NI NI NI NT (D)2: PSD A* A* A* A* A* A* (D)3: Visibility Protection A A A A A A (D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement A A A A A A (D)5: International Pollution Abatement A A A A A A (E): Adequate resources A A A A A A (E): State boards A A A A A A (E): Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies NA NA NA NA NA NA (F): Stationary source monitoring system A A A A A A (G): Emergency power A A A A A A (H): Future SIP revisions D D D D D D (I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D + + + + + + (J)1: Consultation with government officials A A A A A A (J)2: Public notification A A A A A A (J)3: PSD A* A* A* A* A* A* (J)4: Visibility protection + + + + + + (K): Air quality modeling and data A A A A A A (L): Permitting fees A A A A A A (M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities A A A A A A

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

    A* Approve A Approve, but conditionally approve aspect of PSD program relating to the identification of NOX as a precursor for ozone and addressing the changes made to 40 CFR part 51.116 in EPA's October 20, 2010 rulemaking (75 FR 64864) concerning emissions of fine particulate. D Disapprove, but no further action required because federal regulations already in place. + Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. NI Not included in the September 10, 2008 (PM2.5), January 2, 2013 (ozone and NO2), and May 30, 2013 (SO2) submittals which are the subject of today's action. NT Not taking action in today's action. NS No Submittal. NA Not applicable.

    In addition, we are incorporating into the Rhode Island SIP the following Rhode Island statutes which were included for approval in Rhode Island's infrastructure SIP submittals: (1) Rhode Island General Laws, Title 23—Health and Safety, Chapter 23-23—Air Pollution, Section 23-23-5—Powers and duty of the director., and Section 23-23-16—Emergencies.; (2) Rhode Island General Laws, Title 23—Health and Safety, Chapter 23-23.1—Air Pollution Episode Control, Section 23-23.1-5—Proclamations of episodes and issuance of orders.; and (3) Rhode Island General Laws, Title 36—Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 36-14—Code of Ethics, Sections 36-14-1 through 36-14-7.

    Furthermore, EPA is removing the following sections from the CFR: 40 CFR 52.2073(a); 52.2074(a) and (b); 52.2075(a); 52.2078(a); and 52.2079. These sections are no longer necessary for the reasons outlined in the NPR.

    As noted in Table 1, EPA is conditionally approving aspects of Rhode Island's SIP submittals pertaining to the state's PSD program. The outstanding issue with the PSD program concerns adding NOX as a precursor for ozone, and addressing the changes made to 40 CFR part 51.116 in the October 20, 2010 rulemaking (75 FR 64864) concerning emissions of fine particulate. Rhode Island must submit to EPA by April 20, 2017, these revisions to its PSD program. If Rhode Island fails to do so, this approval will become a disapproval on that date. EPA will notify RI DEM by letter that this action has occurred. At that time, this commitment will no longer be a part of the approved Rhode Island SIP. EPA subsequently will publish a notice in the notice section of the Federal Register notifying the public that the conditional approval automatically converted to a disapproval. If the state meets its commitment within the applicable timeframe, the conditionally approved submission will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new submittal. If EPA disapproves the new submittal, the conditionally approved aspect of Rhode Island's PSD program will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA approves the revised PSD program submittal, then the portions of Rhode Island's infrastructure SIP submittals that were conditionally approved will be fully approved in their entirety and replace the conditional approval in the SIP. In addition, final disapproval of an infrastructure SIP submittal triggers the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c).

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of: (1) Rhode Island General Laws, Title 23—Health and Safety, Chapter 23-23—Air Pollution, Section 23-23-5—Powers and duty of the director., and Section 23-23-16—Emergencies.; (2) Rhode Island General Laws, Title 23—Health and Safety, Chapter 23-23.1—Air Pollution Episode Control, Section 23-23.1-5—Proclamations of episodes and issuance of orders.; and (3) Rhode Island General Laws, Title 36—Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 36-14—Code of Ethics, Sections 36-14-1 through 36-14-7. These are described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through http://www.regulations.gov.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 20, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 7, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

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

    PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart OO—Rhode Island 2. In § 52.2070, Tables (c) and (e) are amended by adding new state citations to the end of the tables to read as follows:
    § 52.2070 Identification of plan.

    (c) EPA approved regulations.

    EPA-Approved Rhode Island Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations *         *         *         *         *         *         * Rhode Island General Laws, Title 23, Chapter 23-23 Air Pollution Submitted 1/2/2013 1 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 23-23-5—Powers and duty of director.
  • Section 23-23-16—Emergencies.
  • Rhode Island General Laws, Title 23, Chapter 23-23.1 Air Pollution Episode Control Submitted 1/2/2013 1 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 23-23.1-5—Proclamations of episodes and issuances of orders. Rhode Island General Laws, Title 36, Chapter 36-14 Code of Ethics Submitted 1/2/2013 1 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 36-14-1—Declaration of policy.
  • Section 36-14-2—Definitions.
  • Section 36-14-3—Code of ethics. Section 36-14-4—Persons subject to the code of ethics. Section 36-14-5—Prohibited activities. Section 36-14-6—Statement of conflict of interest. Section 36-14-7—Interest in conflict with discharge of duties. 1 This is the date Rhode Island submitted these Rhode Island General Laws to EPA for approval.

    (e) Nonregulatory.

    Rhode Island Non-Regulatory Name of non regulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/effective date EPA approved date Explanations *         *         *         *         *         *         * Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Statewide Submitted 1/2/2013 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects related to PSD which were conditionally approved and element (H) which was disapproved. See 52.2077. Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS Statewide Submitted 10/26/2011 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects related to PSD which were conditionally approved and element (H) which was disapproved. See 52.2077. Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Statewide Submitted 1/2/2013 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects related to PSD which were conditionally approved and element (H) which was disapproved. See 52.2077. Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide Submitted 9/10/2008 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects related to PSD which were conditionally approved and element (H) which was disapproved. See 52.2077. Infrastructure SIP for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide Submitted 11/6/2009 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects related to PSD which were conditionally approved and element (H) which was disapproved. See 52.2077. Infrastructure SIP for 2010 SO2 NAAQS Statewide Submitted 6/27/2014 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Approved submittal, except for certain aspects related to PSD which were conditionally approved and element (H) which was disapproved. See 52.2077.
    § 52.2073 [Amended]
    3. Section 52.2073 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a).
    § 52.2074 [Amended]
    4. Section 52.2074 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (a) and (b).
    § 52.2075 [Amended]
    5. Section 52.2075 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a). 6. Section 52.2077 is added to read as follows:
    § 52.2077 Identification of plan—conditional approvals and disapprovals.

    (a) Conditional approvals. (1) 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on January 2, 2013, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program pertaining to adding NOX as a precursor for ozone, and addressing the changes made to 40 CFR part 51.116 in the October 20, 2010 rulemaking (75 FR 64864) concerning emissions of fine particulate. On February 18, 2016, the State of Rhode Island supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (2) 2008 Lead NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on October 26, 2011, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NOX as a precursor for ozone, and addressing the changes made to 40 CFR part 51.116 in the October 20, 2010 rulemaking (75 FR 64864) concerning emissions of fine particulate. On February 18, 2016, the State of Rhode Island supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (3) 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on January 2, 2013, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NOX as a precursor for ozone, and addressing the changes made to 40 CFR part 51.116 in the October 20, 2010 rulemaking (75 FR 64864) concerning emissions of fine particulate. On February 18, 2016, the State of Rhode Island supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (4) 1997 fine particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on September 10, 2008, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NOX as a precursor for ozone, and addressing the changes made to 40 CFR part 51.116 in the October 20, 2010 rulemaking (75 FR 64864) concerning emissions of fine particulate. On February 18, 2016, the State of Rhode Island supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (5) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on November 6, 2009, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to providing adding NOX as a precursor for ozone, and addressing the changes made to 40 CFR part 51.116 in the October 20, 2010 rulemaking (75 FR 64864) concerning emissions of fine particulate. On February 18, 2016, the State of Rhode Island supplemented this submittal with a commitment to address these requirements for PSD.

    (b) Disapprovals. (1) 1997 Ozone NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on December 14, 2007, is disapproved for Clean Air Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A Federal Implantation Plan is already in place at 40 CFR 52.2080.

    (2) 2008 Ozone NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on January 2, 2013, is disapproved for Clean Air Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A Federal Implantation Plan is already in place at 40 CFR 52.2080.

    (3) 2008 Lead NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on October 26, 2011, is disapproved for Clean Air Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A Federal Implantation Plan is already in place at 40 CFR 52.2080.

    (4) 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on January 2, 2013, is disapproved for Clean Air Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A Federal Implantation Plan is already in place at 40 CFR 52.2080.

    (5) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on September 10, 2008, is disapproved for Clean Air Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A Federal Implantation Plan is already in place at 40 CFR 52.2080.

    (6) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on November 6, 2009, is disapproved for Clean Air Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A Federal Implantation Plan is already in place at 40 CFR 52.2080.

    § 52.2078 [Amended]
    7. Section 52.2078 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a).
    § 52.2079 [Removed and Reserved]
    8. Section 52.2079 is removed and reserved.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08913 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0556, FRL-9945-14-Region 8] Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Montana AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of Montana to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008, lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010, sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2012. The EPA is also approving 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is conditionally approving CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) with regard to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and element 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is disapproving element 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, the EPA is approving SIP revisions the State submitted to update Montana's PSD program and provisions regarding state boards.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on May 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0556. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are provided in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in our proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on January 26, 2016 (81 FR 4225).

    In our NPR, the EPA proposed to approve, conditionally approve, take no action on, and disapprove infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's certifications. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action to approve infrastructure elements from the State's certifications. We are also conditionally approving elements (C), D(i)(II) element 3 and (J) with respect to the requirement to have a PSD program that meets the requirements of part C of Title 1 of the Act. The EPA is taking final action to disapprove (D)(i)(II) element 4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are also taking final action to approve revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) from the August 21, 2012 submittal and conditionally approve a revision from the March 24, 2015 submittal to bring Montana's PSD program up to date with respect to current requirements for PM2.5. In this action, we are taking final action to approve new ARM and sections of the Montana Code Annotated submitted on December 17, 2015 to satisfy requirements of element (E)(ii), state boards.

    II. Response to Comments

    We received two comment letters during the public comment period. One comment letter was submitted anonymously and the other by Andrea Issod from the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program (Sierra Club) and Anne Hedges from the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC). We also received a request for comment period extension from Andrea Issod from the Sierra Club. The EPA contacted the commenter and after a short discussion, the commenter decided not to follow through with their extension request.

    Comment 1: The EPA cannot approve the PSD portions of all these Infrastructure SIPs until EPA has finally approved the Class I and Class II PM2.5 increments into the Montana SIP. I appreciate EPA's efforts to address this issue.

    Response: We agree with the commenter that adoption of PM2.5 increments is a necessary requirement when assessing a state's PSD program for the purposes of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, and (J). In this action, we are approving the necessary portions of Montana's August 21, 2012 submission to satisfy the requirements of the October 20, 2010 rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” (75 FR 64864). Montana adopted 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1), which includes Class I and Class II increments, into ARM 17.8.804(1). By meeting this structural requirement for the PSD program in its SIP, the State has also met the relevant Infrastructure SIP elements relevant to the PSD program. Accordingly, the EPA concludes that the issue identified by the commenter has been properly addressed.

    Comment 2: The Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) Comment Letter states the following on pages 2, 3, 26 and 27:

    Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) submit to EPA that the Montana PSD program as implemented by MTDEQ fails to require PSD permits for all modified major sources that are required to be covered under the SIP PSD permitting program pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166, due to MTDEQ's policy interpretations of its PSD program that result in rules that are less stringent and thus less inclusive than the federal PSD program. Further, because the MTDEQ's implementation of the Montana PSD program does not cover all PSD-subject modified major sources, MTDEQ's implementation of its PSD program also fails to cover all regulated [New Source Review] NSR pollutants including GHG pollutants for which the PSD permitting requirements only apply to “anyway sources,” i.e., sources that would otherwise be subject to PSD permitting for other pollutants.

    MTDEQ is following policy interpretations that differ from its EPA-approved PSD rule incorporated into the Montana SIP (which tracks EPA's 1980 PSD regulations) and as a result, Montana's implementation of the PSD program is less inclusive and less stringent than the 1980 federal PSD rules because it fails to include all physical or operational changes that would be major modifications under the federal PSD requirements. Further, MTDEQ's policy interpretations mean that its implementation of the PSD program is less stringent than the 2002 NSR Reform Rules promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 80186), as amended by EPA on June 13, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 32526) for physical or operational changes at existing major sources.

    Although EPA has stated in the proposed approval of the Montana infrastructure SIP approval that it “does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP” including existing provisions of the state's PSD program that may be inconsistent with the current federal PSD rules reflecting NSR Reform, EPA has no basis for attempting to limit public comment and EPA review of this issue when a state's policy interpretations of its PSD program result in a program that is less inclusive and less stringent than the current federal PSD program, and is therefore contrary to law.

    EPA cannot assume that Montana's minor source permitting program will ensure protection of these NAAQS for those modified sources that, pursuant to MTDEQ's policy interpretations, do not trigger applicability under the Montana PSD program as major modifications. The Montana SIP includes an exemption from the requirement to obtain a Montana Air Quality Permit for “construction or changed conditions of operation” at a facility that does not increase the facility's potential to emit by more than 5 tons per year. ARM 17.8.743(1), ARM 17.8.745 “Exclusion for De Minimis Changes.” This rule allows a source to apply an emissions test comparing potential to emit pre- and post-change, and if the increase in potential to emit is less than 5 tons per year, no Montana Air Quality Permit is required for the construction or changed operation. For those modifications to existing major sources that do not trigger PSD based on MTDEQ's policy interpretations allowing the source to use an actual emissions to [an] estimated future actual emissions test, it is likely that such a modified source could avoid the requirement to obtain a Montana Air Quality permit under the potential-to[-]potential comparison of the de minimis exemption in Montana's SIP. Even if a modified major source could not initially be exempt under the potential-to-potential test of the Montana de minimis rule, the Montana rule also allows an existing source to revise the federally enforceable emission limitations (thus reducing its potential to emit) through an administrative process pursuant to ARM 17.8.764 (see ARM 17.8.745(1)(a)(5) and (2).

    While the de minimis rule does not allow construction or changed conditions that would affect the plume rise or dispersion characteristics of emissions in a manner that would cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation (see ARM 17.8.745(1)(a)(iii)), this provision will not ensure protection of the NAAQS due to emissions from the modified major sources that avoid PSD permitting due to MTDEQ's policy interpretations. To determine if a modified source will cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, the de minimis rule requires notification to MTDEQ if the physical or operational change will change stack height, stack diameter, stack flow, stack gas temperature, or source location, but it does not require ambient air modeling. ARM 17.8.745(b). However, given that the majority of existing sources have never been modeled for compliance with the recent NAAQS for lead, ozone, 1-hour NO2, 1-hour SO2, or PM2.5 NAAQS, it will be extremely difficult for MTDEQ to determine that a change in stack parameters or source location would cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. Further, it is not evident that MTDEQ always requires submittal of such information to determine if construction or changed operating conditions at an existing source would affect the plume rise or dispersion characteristics of a modified source, given that MTDEQ allows certain emission sources to be excluded from notification requirements of the de minimis rule pursuant to ARM 17.8.745(c).

    Response: The commenters' concerns are directed not to whether the existing SIP for Montana meets the relevant structural requirements for PSD programs, but rather to whether Montana is in fact faithfully implementing the existing provisions of its EPA-approved SIP. As the EPA has explained in other contexts, comments like these highlight an important distinction between whether an infrastructure SIP submission meets the applicable requirements of the CAA on its face (i.e., pertain to the facial sufficiency of the state's SIP), and whether a state is actually complying with the requirements of that SIP (i.e., pertain to adequacy of the state's implementation of the SIP).1 These comments implicate the question of the degree to which implementation concerns are relevant in the context of acting on a state's infrastructure SIP. In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA interprets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require the Agency to focus on whether the state has a SIP that provides the requisite legal framework for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS. Generally speaking, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions is limited to whether, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2), the submission facially meets the requirements of the statutory criteria outlined therein, as applicable. In the case of section 110(a)(2)(C), for example, the statute requires a state to have a SIP that “include[s] a program to provide for . . . regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary sources . . . including a permit program as required in parts C and D of this subchapter.” Thus, the EPA reviews a state's infrastructure SIP submission to assure that the structural elements of the state's PSD permitting program meets current CAA requirements for such programs, e.g., that it addresses GHG emissions.

    1 See “Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements of the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” 76 FR 81371 (Dec. 28, 2011).

    This is not to say that the EPA has no role in reviewing whether a state is faithfully implementing its approved SIP, or otherwise complying with the CAA and its implementing regulations. To the contrary, there are multiple statutory tools that the EPA can use to rectify problems with state implementation of its SIP, and the existence of these tools is consistent with the EPA's interpretation of section 110(a)(2) with respect to the Agency's role in reviewing infrastructure SIP submissions. For example, the CAA provides the EPA the authority to issue a SIP call, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5); make a finding of failure to implement, id. §§ 7410(m), 7509(a)(4); and take measures to address specific permits pursuant to the EPA's case-by-case permitting oversight. See, e.g., § 7661d(b). The appropriateness of employing these authorities depends on the nature and extent of the particular implementation problems at issue.

    With respect to Montana's infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA analyzed the submission itself, and evaluated the text of its provisions for compliance with the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2). In the proposal, the EPA explicitly evaluated the State's submission on a requirement-by-requirement basis and explained its views on the adequacy of the State's SIP for purposes of meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements.

    The EPA appreciates and takes seriously the commenters' assertions that Montana has adopted “policy interpretations” outside the context of the SIP that may undermine the State's implementation of the SIP as approved by the EPA. However, because this action involves a review of the SIP itself, the EPA is not evaluating the merits of these assertions concerning implementation of the SIP in the context of this action. Instead, the EPA intends to evaluate the merits of these assertions, separate from this action, at a future time. In the meantime, the EPA is finalizing its proposed approval of the infrastructure SIP submission that is currently before the Agency. If the EPA later determines that there are indeed concerns with respect to the implementation of the PSD program in Montana, the Agency intends to take appropriate action to ensure those problems are rectified using whatever statutory tools are appropriate to the implementation problem identified.

    With respect to the requirements related to PSD relevant to this approval of the infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA has determined that the State's SIP as previously approved, and as revised in this action, meets the relevant structural requirements for purposes of PSD in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, and (J). Some examples of these basic structural SIP requirements include having state law authority to carry out the SIP, an overarching permitting program in place, and a properly deployed monitoring network. As to the PSD program in particular, these basic structural requirements include those provisions necessary for the permitting program to address all federally regulated pollutants and the proper sources. The EPA considers action on the infrastructure SIP submissions required by section 110(a)(1) and (2) to be an evaluation of a state's SIP to assure that it meets the basic structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, not a time to address all potential substantive defects in existing SIP provisions, or alleged defects in implementation of the SIP. [Therefore, EPA generally considers evaluations of a state's implementation of its NSR program to be outside the scope of an infrastructure SIP review, rather than an unambiguous requirement of the EPA's action on an infrastructure SIP with regard to section 110(a)(2)(C).]

    Comment 3: The Sierra Club and MEIC comment letter gives a history of the Montana PSD program as well as a history of the corresponding federal PSD program with respect to how it is determined whether a physical or operational change at an existing major stationary source is subject to PSD permitting requirements. The comment discusses MTDEQ's policy interpretations recently set forth in a citizen suit enforcement proceeding, stating that these interpretations “make Montana's implementation of the PSD program less stringent”. The Sierra Club and MEIC Comment Letter states the following on pages 4 and 5:

    The basic structure of Montana's PSD permitting rules has been the same since the EPA's initial SIP approval of Montana's PSD rules. Specifically, Montana's PSD rules define the applicability to PSD for physical or operational changes at an existing source based on the same regulatory language in EPA's PSD regulations as of 1980. That is, to determine if a physical change or change in the method of operation at an existing major source is subject to PSD as a major modification, one evaluates changes in `actual emissions [.]

    The comment evaluates the definition of “actual emissions” and how Montana's SIP has defined this term over the years, and notes two substantive revisions to the definition of “actual emissions” since 1980, stating on pages 6, 7, and 8:

    The first revision was made in 1992, where EPA modified the definition of “actual emissions” to allow electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) to use the “representative actual annual emissions,” and adopted associated definitions including of “representative actual annual emissions” and emissions reporting provisions for EGUs. 57 Fed. Reg. 32314 at 32335-6 (July 21, 1992); 40 CFR 51.166(b)(21)(iv) and (v), (b)(30), and (b)(32). In addition, although EPA did not adopt any regulatory revisions regarding the actual emissions baseline before a physical or operational change, EPA set forth a presumption that it considers any 2 year period in the 5 years immediately preceding the physical or operational change at an EGU to be representative of normal source operations for the EGU. 57 Fed. Reg. 32325. The 1992 rulemaking is referred to as the “WEPCO Rule” because the rule changes came about as a result of the 7th Circuit Court decision in Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. Reilly, 893 F.2d 901 (7th Cir. 1990) (“WEPCO Decision”).

    A review of the current SIP-approved Montana rules show that Montana did not revise its PSD regulations to incorporate any of the regulatory changes of the 1992 WEPCO rulemaking.

    In 2002, EPA again revised the definition of “actual emissions” and adopted new terms and definitions of “projected actual emissions” and “baseline actual emissions” along with numerous other revisions to its PSD regulations. 67 Fed. Reg. 80186-80289 (Dec 31, 2002, also known as “NSR Reform” Rule). EPA adopted a two-step process for determining PSD applicability for physical or operational changes. First, it must be determined if a project will result in a significant emission increase of any regulated NSR pollutant and, if so, then second, it must be determined if the project will result in a significant net emissions increase of any regulated NSR pollutant. 67 Fed. Reg. 80260; 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(a)-(f). EPA essentially allowed all sources (not just EGUs as allowed in 1992) to use an actual-to-projected actual emissions increase test to determine whether a physical or operational change was a major modification, except in certain circumstances such as when a new emissions unit is added. 67 Fed. Reg. 80260-2; 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(a)-(f), (b)(40) and (b)(47).

    In the NSR Reform rules, EPA adopted several new rules. EPA adopted a new definition of “baseline actual emissions” which codified the 2-in-5 year presumptive baseline that EPA announced in the 1992 WEPCO rule for EGUs, and also promulgated a provision for non-EGUs allowing them to look back ten years before a physical or operational change in determining baseline emissions. 67 Fed. Reg. 80263-4; 40 CFR 51.166(b)(47). EPA also adopted a new definition of “projected actual emissions” which defines how modified sources are to project actual emissions when such modifications are not subject to the actual-to-potential to emit test pursuant to the procedures identified in 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(a)-(f). 67 Fed. Reg. 80262-3; 40 CFR 51.166(b)(40). In addition, EPA adopted provisions for reporting to permitting authorities pre- and post-project when there is a reasonable possibility that a project that is not considered a major modification may result in a significant emissions increase. 67 Fed. Reg. 80264; 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6) and (r)(7). There were numerous other revisions to the federal permitting rules adopted in the December 31, 2002 rulemaking, such as requirements to establish PALs. Two other new provisions of the 2002 NSR Reform rule regarding pollutant control projects and clean units were later eliminated from the PSD regulations, after being vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in New York v. EPA, 413 F. 3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 72 Fed. Reg. 32526-9 (June 13, 2007). A review of the EPA-approved SIP for Montana shows that Montana did not adopt any of the 2002 New Source Review Reform revisions as revisions to its PSD regulations.

    Although EPA has made some revisions to its rules regarding baseline emissions and how to project future emissions for physical or operational changes at existing sources, it is clear that, since 1986, the Montana SIP has continued to have the same definition of “actual emissions” and the same applicability approach as applied under EPA's 1980 PSD rules. On its face, Montana's PSD rules track EPA's PSD rules as they existed in 1980, and Montana's rules do not implement the 1992 or 2002 federal rule revisions. Given that the 1992 and 2002 federal rule revisions were intended to be less inclusive than the 1980 PSD rule, allowing for more modifications to not be considered as major modifications subject to PSD review, would be less stringent than the current federal PSD rules.

    Montana is implementing policy interpretations regarding the definition of “actual emissions,” which pertain to both the determination of actual emissions before a physical or operational change and the determination of the future emissions expected after a physical or operational change, which are less stringent than EPA's interpretation of the same language of its 1980 PSD rules, resulting in Montana's program as implemented being less stringent than EPA's 1980 PSD requirements. In addition, those policy interpretations of Montana's PSD program are less stringent than EPA's current PSD requirements reflective of NSR Reform.”

    Response: The commenter's assertion that Montana is, through policy interpretations, implementing its PSD program in a less-stringent manner than required by PSD rules is addressed in our response to comment 2. We note that, while Montana's alleged “policy interpretations” of its SIP are outside the scope of the EPA's review in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, we evaluated the “structural” requirements for a PSD program to fulfill the NAAQS infrastructure requirements as required in 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, and (J). In the context of the specific applicability issues raised by the commenter, we have determined that Montana's PSD program provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS requirements being approved in this rulemaking by applying the EPA's 1980 PSD rules. In addition, EPA has evaluated the State's SIP for compliance with other structural elements such as the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, 2008 PM2.5 NSR, and 2010 PM2.5 Increments (a complete discussion can be found in section VI. Program for enforcement of control measures of the proposed rule).

    While we agree with the history the commenter has provided with regard to what Montana has and has not adopted into the State's EPA-approved PSD program, we note that Montana was not required to adopt any of the provisions of the 1992 WEPCO Rule. For example, the state of Utah adopted WEPCO revisions, which we acted on in 69 FR 51368 (Aug. 19, 2004). In that rulemaking, we explained that states generally: “were not required to adopt revisions to implement these changes, although these changes are in effect in areas where the Federal PSD permitting regulations apply. Utah has opted to revise its NSR program to incorporate the changes to the EPA's NSR rules promulgated on July 21, 1992.”

    We note that the commenter agrees with this premise. See, e.g., Sierra Club and MEIC Comment Letter at page 16 (stating that “states were not required to adopt that new rule language” in reference to the 1992 WEPCO Rule). Because Montana was not required to adopt the 1992 WEPCO Rule, or to revise its SIP in response to that EPA action, the EPA need not review the state's infrastructure SIP submission for consistency with the requirements of the 1992 WEPCO Rule. In the context of evaluating a state's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to PSD permitting program requirements, the EPA evaluates only whether the SIP meets structural requirements (e.g., having authority to address GHG emissions in such permits). Thus, the State's decision whether or not to revise its PSD permitting program to incorporate the changes contemplated in the 1992 WEPCO Rule does not preclude the EPA from approving Montana's infrastructure SIP in this action.

    This is consistent with the EPA's September 13, 2013, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” 2 (2013 Guidance, contained within this docket), wherein we explain that: “Structural PSD program provisions include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including GHG. Structural PSD provisions do not include provisions which under 40 CFR 51.166 are at the option of the air agency.”

    2 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Under the Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 2013).

    In the EPA's 2013 Guidance and in several EPA rulemakings, the Agency discussed the issue of addressing the 2002 NSR Reform Rule, which followed the 1992 WEPCO Rule, within the context of infrastructure SIPs. Specifically, the EPA explained in the 2013 Guidance that the issue of “existing SIP provisions for PSD programs that have not addressed the NSR Reform Rules may be dealt with separately, outside of the context of acting on a state's infrastructure SIP.” 3 The EPA explained its reasoning for this approach to the NSR Reform Rules in a 2007 guidance document,4 which we further explained in our July 13, 2011 rulemaking (76 FR 41078. See page 41078, column three, first full paragraph through page 41079, first column).

    3 2013 Guidance at p. 28.

    4 “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X (October 2, 2007).

    Comment 4 Sierra Club and MEIC Comment Letter

    The comment asserts that Montana's “policy interpretations” of the term “actual emissions” as set forth in amicus briefs and appearances in a citizen suit PSD enforcement action against the Colstrip Power Plant are inconsistent and less stringent than the EPA's interpretation of the same language in the 1980 federal PSD regulations and are less stringent than the current federal PSD regulations. The comment also states that MTDEQ's interpretation of how to determine baseline emissions is inconsistent with and less stringent than the EPA's historical and current PSD regulations. The comment states that the MTDEQ never informed the public of its policy interpretations set forth in the amicus briefs, and Montana does not have authority to implement policy without going through rulemaking.

    Response: In our response to comment 2, we discussed the difference between the legal sufficiency and the structural requirements of a PSD program within the context of evaluation of the infrastructure SIP submission and the implementation of the EPA approved SIP. The commenter's assertion that Montana's PSD regulations are less stringent than the 1980 federal PSD regulations and the current federal PSD regulations is based upon allegations concerning how Montana interprets federal PSD regulations and the State's own “policy interpretations.” As mentioned in our response to comment 2, these implementation concerns fall outside the scope of this action because the EPA is not evaluating the issue of how the state implements its PSD program in this context. In that same vein, the EPA does not consider this the appropriate context in which to evaluate whether MT DEQ's interpretations of PSD applicability tests, or how the State defines “actual emissions” or “like-kind replacements,” etc., and whether these interpretations make Montana's PSD program less stringent than the 1980 federal PSD regulations and the current federal PSD regulations. As noted in our response above, the EPA has other authorities to take appropriate action to address alleged SIP implementation deficiencies.

    III. Final Action

    For reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is taking final action to approve infrastructure elements from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1. We are also conditionally approving elements (C), D(i)(II) element 3 and (J) with respect to the requirement to have a PSD program that meets the requirements of part C of Title 1 of the Act as shown in Table 2. Elements we are taking no action on are reflected in Table 4. The EPA is disapproving (D)(i)(II) element 4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (Table 3). Finalization of this disapproval does not require further action from the State, and does not create a new FIP obligation for the EPA. We are also approving revisions to the ARM from the August 21, 2012 submittal (Table 1) and conditionally approving a revision from the March 24, 2015 submittal (Table 2) to bring Montana's PSD program up to date with respect to current requirements for PM2.5. If Montana does not submit a SIP revision to correct the language in ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii) within one year of this action, conditional approvals will automatically revert to disapprovals for ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii), and elements (C), D(i)(II) element 3 and (J) with respect to PSD requirements. Finally, we are approving new ARM and sections of the Montana Code Annotated submitted on December 17, 2015 to satisfy requirements of element (E)(ii), state boards.

    A comprehensive summary of infrastructure elements, and revisions and additions to the ARM organized by the EPA's final rule action are provided in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4.

    Table 1—List of Montana Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Approving Approval February 10, 2010 submittal—1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(ii) for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. December 19, 2011 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) and (M). January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) and (M). June 4, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) and (M). July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) and (M). December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR requirements, (D)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L) and (M). August 21, 2012 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: ARM 17.8.801(3), 17.8.801(21), 17.8.801(27), 17.8.804(1), 17.8.818(7)(a)(iv)-(xi), 17.8.822(9), 17.8.822(10), 17.8.822(11), 17.8.822(12) and 17.8.825(4). December 17, 2015 submittal—New Rules to ARM, CAA Section 128 New Rule I (ARM 17.8.150), II (ARM 17.8.151), III (ARM 17.8.152), and Montana Code Annotated 2-2-121(2)(e) and 2-2-121(8). Table 2—List of Montana Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Conditionally Approving Conditional approval February 10, 2010 submittal—1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(II) element 3 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. December 19, 2011 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: (C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: (C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. June 4, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: (C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (C) and (J) with respect to PSD, and (D)(i)(II) element 3. March 24, 2015 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii). Table 3—List of Montana Infrastructure Elements That the EPA Is Disapproving Disapproval February 10, 2010 submittal—1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(II) element 4 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: (D)(i)(II) element 4. June 4, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(II) element 4. July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(II) element 4. December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(II) element 4. Table 4—List of Montana Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Taking No Action On No action Revised section Reason “No Action” Revision to be made in future rulemaking
  • action
  • Revision made in a separate rulemaking action (80 FR 72937) Revision deletes section of the ARM never approved into State's SIP Revision superseded by revision in March 24, 2015 State submittal
    January 3, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 x July 15, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 x December 17, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 x August 21, 2012 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii) x ARM 17.8.820(2) x March 24, 2015 submittal—Revisions to ARM, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: ARM 17.8.820(2) x
    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ARM and Montana Code Annotated discussed in section III, Final Action of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 20, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 30, 2016. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart BB—Montana 2. Section 52.1370 is amended by: a. In paragraph (c) adding in numerical order, the table entries for “17.8.150”, “17.8.151”, and “17.8.152”; and revising the table entries for “17.8.801”, “17.8.804”, “17.8.818”, “17.8.822”, and “17.8.825”; and b. In paragraph (e), under “(1) Statewide” adding three entries at the end of the table.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 52.1370 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    State citation Rule title State effective date EPA final rule date Final rule citation Comments (1) Statewide (i) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 01, General Provisions *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.8.150 Definitions 10/30/2015 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] 17.8.151 Board Action 10/30/2015 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] 17.8.152 Reporting 10/30/2015 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] (vi) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 08, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.8.801 Definitions 10/14/2011 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] 17.8.804 Ambient Air Increments 10/14/2011 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] 17.8.818 Review of Major Stationary Source and Major Modifications—Source Applicability and Exemptions 10/10/2014 4/20/2016. [Insert Federal Register citation] 17.8.822 Air Quality Analysis 10/14/2011 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] 17.8.825 Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas—Additional Requirements 10/14/2011 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (e) * * *

    Title/subject State effective date Notice of final rule date NFR citation (1) Statewide *         *         *         *         *         *         * Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards N/A 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation]. Infrastructure Requirements, Interstate Transport of Pollution 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS N/A 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation]. Montana Code Annotated 2-2-121(2)(e) and 2-2-121(8) N/A 4/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation]. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-08916 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0492; FRL-9945-34-OAR] RIN 2060-AR97 Clarification of Requirements for Method 303 Certification Training AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule for Clarification of Requirements for Method 303 Certification Training, published on February 25, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective April 20, 2016, the EPA withdraws the direct final rule published at 81 FR 9350, on February 25, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kim Garnett, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (Mail Code: E143-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1158; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Because the EPA received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule for Clarification of Requirements for Method 303 Certification Training, published on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9350). We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by March 28, 2016, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. We subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule. We will address those comments in any subsequent final action, which will be based on the parallel proposed rule also published on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9407). As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09157 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 76 Wednesday, April 20, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 56 [Doc. No. AMS-LPS-15-0044] Amendment to the Definition of “Condition” and Prerequisite Requirement for Shell Eggs Eligible for Grading and Certification Stated in the Regulations Governing the Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposes to amend the Regulations Governing the Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs to clarify the definition of “condition” and revise the prerequisite requirement for shell eggs eligible for voluntary USDA grading and certification. The proposed revision to the prerequisite requirement will prohibit the use of Salmonella Enteritidis-adulterated or recalled shell eggs from being presented to USDA for grading and certification. AMS is proposing to revise the definition of “condition” to remove any food safety implications resulting from the use of the term “wholesomeness” and clarify that AMS' role in grading and certification of shell eggs is solely for a quality determination.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this proposed rule electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. Written comments may also be submitted to Mark Perigen, National Shell Egg Supervisor, Quality Assessment Division (QAD), Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 0258, Room 3932S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; or by facsimile to (202) 690-2746. All comments should reference the docket number (AMS-LPS-15-0044), the date, and the page number of this issue of the Federal Register. Submitted comments will be available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or during regular business hours at the above address. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Bowden, Chief, Standardization Branch, Quality Assessment Division, Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 0258, Room 3932S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; by facsimile to (202) 690-2746; or via email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background and Proposed Changes

    Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural products while maintaining the integrity of the USDA grademark. Shell egg grading is a voluntary program provided under the AMA and offered on a fee-for-service basis. It is designed to assist in the orderly marketing of shell eggs by providing the official certification of egg quality, size, condition, and other factors.

    This proposed amendment is in accordance with recommendations stated in the 2012 Audit Report, USDA Controls Over Shell Egg Inspection, issued by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG). In that report, OIG stated the regulatory definition of “condition” for shell eggs was confusing as it relates to quality and food safety. OIG also stated the integrity of the USDA grademark for quality was not adequately protected from adulterated shell eggs.

    AMS is proposing to revise the definition of “condition” to remove any food safety implications resulting from the use of the term “wholesomeness” and clarify that AMS' role in grading and certification of shell eggs is solely for a quality determination. The revised definition will remove the term “wholesomeness” and state that “condition” is a characteristic detected by sensory examination. The presence of microorganisms, specifically Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) or other pathogens, in the content of an egg cannot be detected during such an examination. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, not AMS, maintain jurisdiction for food safety related issues associated with shell eggs.

    AMS is also proposing to revise the prerequisite requirement of shell eggs eligible for USDA grading and certification. The revision will prohibit the use of SE-adulterated or recalled shell eggs from being presented to USDA for grading and certification. This action protects the integrity of the USDA grademark for quality and is consistent with the current AMS policy implemented subsequent to the referenced 2012 OIG audit.

    Executive Order 12866, 13175, and 13563

    USDA is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, AMS has performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis regarding economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities.

    AMS is proposing to amend the Regulations Governing the Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs, 7 CFR part 56 to revise the definition of the term “condition” to clarify that it relates solely to a quality determination and not food safety. The current regulation definition for “condition” includes the term “wholesomeness” which denotes a food safety connotation. AMS' role in grading and certification of shell eggs is for a quality determination only. By removing any food safety related terms from the current definition of “condition,” AMS will remove confusion or misunderstanding over use of the term.

    Since this change is a technical correction and editorial in nature, and will not result in a change to the way service is provided to our customers, AMS has determined it will not have a financial impact on small entities that utilize their services.

    AMS also proposes to revise the prerequisite requirement of shell eggs eligible for USDA grading and certification. The revision will prohibit the use of SE-adulterated shell eggs or recalled shell eggs from being presented to USDA for grading and certification.

    The FDA prohibits the use of SE-adulterated shell eggs from being sold to consumers. When shell eggs are suspected of being adulterated with SE, the packing facility is obligated to test the shell eggs to assure only safe product is distributed to consumers. If shell eggs are found to be adulterated with SE, the FDA will issue a request to the packing facility to voluntarily recall the product, or will exercise its mandatory recall authority to return the product to the origin facility. The product must either be destroyed or reconditioned under FDA supervision.

    Since SE-adulterated shell eggs or shell eggs that have been recalled are no longer eligible for distribution to consumers, but are either destroyed or reconditioned under the direction of the FDA, changing the AMS regulation will not have an impact on small entities since those shell eggs are deemed unfit for human consumption.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule, and there are no new requirements. Should any changes become necessary they would be submitted to OMB for approval. The assigned OMB control number is 0581-0128, as approved on July 8, 2014.

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

    E-Government Act

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government information and services, and for other purposes.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 56

    Agriculture, Eggs and egg products, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Food packaging, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Voluntary standards.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR part 56 be amended as follows:

    PART 56—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE VOLUNTARY GRADING OF SHELL EGGS 1. The authority citation for part 56 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.

    2. Amend § 56.1 by revising the definition of Condition to read as follows:
    § 56.1 Meaning of words and terms defined.

    Condition means any characteristic detected by sensory examination (visual, touch, or odor), including the state of preservation, cleanliness, soundness, or fitness for human food that affects the marketing of the product.

    3. Amend § 56.40 by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) and adding paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) to read as follows:
    § 56.40 Grading requirements of shell eggs identified with grademarks.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Not possess any undesirable odors or flavors;

    (3) Not have previously been shipped for retail sale;

    (4) Not originate from a layer house environment determined positive for the presence of Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) unless the eggs from the layer house have been sampled and have tested negative for the presence of SE in the eggs; and

    (5) Not originate from eggs testing positive for SE, or not have been subject to a product recall.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09139 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service 7 CFR Part 273 RIN 0584-AE43 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Standard Utility Allowances Based on the Receipt of Energy Assistance Payments Under the Agricultural Act of 2014 AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would revise Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations in accordance with amendments made to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) that requires States that elect to use a heating or cooling standard utility allowance (HCSUA) in SNAP eligibility determinations to make the HCSUA available to households that have received a payment under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (LIHEAA) (known as a Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) payment), or other similar energy assistance program payment, greater than $20 annually in the current month or in the immediately preceding 12 months.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    The USDA Food and Nutrition Service invites interested persons to submit written comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted in writing by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Send comments to Sasha Gersten-Paal, Branch Chief, Certification Policy Branch, Program Development Division, FNS, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, 703-305-2507.

    All written comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the written comments publicly available on the Internet via http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sasha Gersten-Paal, Branch Chief, Certification Policy Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, 703-305-2507.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, establishes uniform national eligibility standards for SNAP, including the definition of a SNAP household, countable income and assets, allowable deductions from gross income, and maximum benefit levels. Households are allowed to deduct certain amounts from their gross monthly income, including shelter expenses that exceed 50 percent of their income after all other deductions (up to a maximum limit for households that do not have elderly or disabled members). Household benefits are calculated based on the household's maximum allotment and net income; households with lower net incomes generally receive larger benefits than households with higher net incomes.

    Shelter expenses include the basic cost of housing as well as utilities and other allowable expenses. In order to simplify program administration, States are permitted to establish Standard Utility Allowances (SUAs) that households may use in lieu of actual utility expenses. States may establish multiple SUAs to reflect differences in households' circumstances. The heating or cooling SUA (HCSUA) is one such SUA and is available to households that pay heating or cooling expenses separate from their rent or mortgage, as well as households that receive Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) payments or other similar energy assistance program payments. Households that do not pay heating or cooling expenses out-of-pocket but that are billed directly for other utility costs are entitled to a SUA (or SUAs) appropriate to the types of utility expenses they incur, where applicable.

    For the purposes of the HCSUA, receipt of a LIHEAP payment serves as a reasonable proxy for the actual utility costs that a household incurs, providing a simpler way for States and applicants to determine utility costs. Before the enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv) of the Act provided that all households receiving a LIHEAP payment or on behalf of which a LIHEAP payment was made automatically qualified for the HCSUA, regardless of the amount of the LIHEAP payment. Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) reflect this requirement.

    Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 amends Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act by requiring States electing to use an HCSUA to make the HCSUA available to households that received a payment or on behalf of which a payment was made under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 or other similar energy assistance program, if in the current month or in the immediately preceding 12 months, the household either received such a payment or such a payment was made on behalf of the household that was greater than $20 annually.

    This rule codifies guidance FNS issued to States following passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014. The Department is proposing to amend the regulations at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) to incorporate these changes.

    Other Similar Energy Assistance Program

    Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act, as amended by Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, provides for the HCSUA upon receipt of LIHEAP payments as well as payments from an “other similar energy assistance program.” The Department is also proposing to amend the regulations at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) to establish a standard for determining what constitutes an “other similar energy assistance program.” “[O]ther similar energy assistance program” would be defined as a separate home energy assistance program designed to provide heating or cooling assistance through a payment directly to or on behalf of low-income households.

    For the purposes of this preamble discussion, the phrase “qualifying LIHEAP or other payment” refers to those LIHEAP or other similar energy assistance program payments that are in excess of $20 annually and have been received by or made on behalf of the household in the current or immediately preceding 12 months.

    The language in the Act refers to LIHEAP or other similar energy assistance program payments received by or made “on behalf of” households, while the existing regulatory language refers to direct or indirect payments received by households. To support consistency, the Department proposes that the regulatory language reflect the statutory language.

    Qualifying LIHEAP or Other Payment

    Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act, as amended by Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, requires that the payment received by or made on behalf of the household must exceed $20 annually. The Department does not have discretion to alter the $20 threshold. However, standards regarding the payment would be important and helpful in order to ensure uniformity across State agencies. Therefore, the payment must be quantifiable in order to be acceptable for purposes of granting the HCSUA. By quantifiable, the Department means that the State agency must be able to quantify, in dollars, the amount of the payment. The Department is proposing to codify these requirements at revised 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C)(1)(iii).

    Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act also requires receipt of the payment in the “current” month or the immediately preceding 12 months in order to confer eligibility for the HCSUA. As proposed, the “current month” refers strictly to the calendar month, meaning from the first to the final day of a given month.

    On a related note, the Department proposes to revise language at 7 CFR 273.10(d)(6), which currently provides that all energy assistance payments except for those made under the LIHEAA must be prorated over the entire heating or cooling season that the payment is intended to cover. This was a technical error that FNS proposes to correct in this rule. Such a correction is consistent with the language in the Agricultural Act of 2014 that qualifying LIHEAP payments must be received in the current month or the immediately preceding 12 months in order to confer eligibility for the HCSUA. Additionally, the Agricultural Act of 2014 struck language in Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act requiring that households incur “out-of-pocket heating or cooling expenses in excess of any assistance paid on behalf of the household to an energy provider.” In light of these changes made by the Agricultural Act of 2014, FNS is proposing to amend 7 CFR 273.10(d)(6) to reflect the requirement in Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(IV) that assistance under LIHEAA be considered to be prorated over the heating or cooling season.

    The new language in Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of the Act no longer allows a household to qualify for a HCSUA based on anticipated receipt in future months. This rule proposes that applying the HCSUA to a household's case based on anticipated receipt is only permissible if the payment is anticipated to be received by the household within the current calendar month. At the State agency's option, if a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment greater than $20 (or payment which would bring the household's total payments for the year to a total greater than $20) is scheduled for the current month, the payment may be considered to have been received for the purposes of conferring eligibility for the HCSUA. However, if the payment is not actually made within that month, benefits received by the household would be considered an overissuance and the State agency should pursue a claim against the household for any benefits issued in error in accordance with its established claims management procedures. The Department is proposing to revise 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) accordingly to codify these requirements.

    State agencies would be responsible for tracking the date and receipt of the qualifying LIHEAP or other payment to ensure the payment satisfies the timing requirements and exceeds the $20 minimum threshold. The Department encourages State agencies to modify data sharing agreements with their respective LIHEAP agencies, as appropriate, to ensure transmission of timely and accurate information needed for SNAP eligibility and benefit determinations.

    If a household has not received a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment at the time of certification and has not incurred actual utility expenses, the household would not be entitled to the HCSUA at certification. If the household were to subsequently receive a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment, or if one were made on the household's behalf during the certification period, the State agency would need to take action according to the rules of their chosen reporting system under 7 CFR 273.12.

    The Department notes that this provision does not affect a household's ability, if any, to use actual costs rather than the standardized HCSUA. SNAP households that are billed directly for utility costs are entitled to a Standard Utility Allowance (SUA) appropriate to the types of utility expenses they incur. In States that do not have mandatory SUA policies, the household is entitled to use its actual costs, rather than the standard. The Department encourages all State agencies to review their available utility allowances to ensure that all households with actual expenses are able to claim an allowance that best represents that types of utility expenses they have.

    As a related issue, the regulations at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) as currently written provide that a HCSUA is available to households in private rental housing who are billed by their landlords on the basis of individual usage or who are charged a flat rate separately from their rent. However, the Department understands that some individuals renting in public housing may also be billed based on individual usage or separately from their rent. Although the more common situation is for public housing properties to include heating and cooling costs in the rent, public housing rental situations with separate heating and cooling costs do exist. For these reasons, the Department is proposing a technical correction to § 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) by removing the word “private” from this provision.

    In States with mandatory HCSUAs, utility costs do not require verification for SNAP purposes, unless questionable. Similarly, receipt of more than $20 in qualifying LIHEAP or other payments would not require verification for SNAP purposes, unless questionable. In States that do not mandate use of the HCSUA, verification of utility costs is mandatory if the household wishes to claim utility costs in excess of the State agency's HCSUA and the expense would actually result in a deduction. State agencies should consider program access, integrity, and the potential for Quality Control errors in determining their verification procedures.

    Special Circumstances

    State agencies that use the HCSUA would need to make the HCSUA available to SNAP households that have received a qualifying LIHEAP or other similar energy assistance program payment, regardless of any change in the household's residence or address. The Act does not specify that the qualifying LIHEAP or other payment must be received at the household's current address or place of residence.

    If the State agency has an indication that a household received a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment in another State, the State would need to act on it. Again, for States that have elected to use a HCSUA, the HCSUA would need to be made available to households that have received a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment, provided that the payment was received in the current month or preceding 12 months and was in excess of $20 over the same time period.

    If a household that has received a qualifying LIHEAP or other payment subsequently splits into two SNAP households, State agencies would need to determine which one household is eligible for the HCSUA based on the qualifying LIHEAP or other payment. The Department believes the State agency is in the best situation to determine which household would receive the HCSUA based on the qualifying LIHEAP or other payment. As with other discretionary policy decisions, a State's chosen policy would need to be applied in a consistent and equitable way. The Department is proposing to revise 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii)(C) to incorporate these standards.

    The Department has received several inquiries regarding weatherization projects and eligibility for the HCSUA. The Department understands that State agencies may use a portion of LIHEAP block grant funding to support weatherization projects. Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv) of the Act requires State agencies that use the HCSUA to make the HCSUA available to SNAP households that have received a LIHEAP or other payment, provided the payment was received by or made on behalf of the household in the current or preceding 12 months and exceeds $20 annually.

    The Act does not explicitly address how State agencies should evaluate LIHEAP funds that are used to pay for weatherization projects on behalf of households in multi-family dwellings. However, to be an acceptable qualifying LIHEAP or other payment, the payment must be quantifiable to the household. The Department is proposing that weatherization projects for multi-family dwellings cannot confer eligibility for the HCSUA for households within the multi-family dwelling. The Act does not explicitly address how State agencies should evaluate LIHEAP funds that are used to pay for weatherization projects in multi-family dwellings. However, in a June 15, 1999 Information Memorandum issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees LIHEAP at the Federal level, HHS determined that weatherization of multi-unit buildings “is not a benefit provided to an individual, household or family eligibility unit.” Because the Act requires that the LIHEAP or other payment must have been received by or made on behalf of a household, the Department is proposing that such payments cannot confer eligibility for the HCSUA. However, the Department requests comment on whether HHS' guidance is fully applicable in this situation, such as when weatherization of multi-family dwellings is funded by other similar energy assistance programs, and is considering alternative approaches that may allow multi-family dwelling weatherization projects to confer eligibility for the HCSUA. The Department requests comment on this proposal as well as potential alternative approaches.

    Procedural Matters Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be economically significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

    Regulatory Impact Analysis

    As required for all rules that have been designated as significant by OMB, a RIA was developed for this proposed rule. The RIA for this rule was published as part of docket number [Docket Placeholder] on www.regulations.gov. A summary of the analysis follows:

    The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that accompanies this proposed rule outlines the savings to the Government as well as the effect of the proposed rule on low-income families, program participation, and State agencies. The RIA also outlines the uncertainty in assumptions on savings and alternatives considered when drafting the proposed rule.

    The Department estimates that the total savings to the Government from reduced SNAP benefits will be $2.2 billion between FY 2016 and FY 2020. The Department estimates that the effect of the rule on low-income families will result in potentially smaller benefit amounts for some families, primarily those living in States that have minimum LIHEAP payments below the new minimum threshold for LIHEAP payments required to be eligible for a HCSUA. The Department estimates that the impact on SNAP participation will be minimal, with one-fourth of households in States that do not increase their LIHEAP payment above the $20 threshold seeing a decrease in benefits, but likely still being eligible to participate in the program. The Department estimates that the impact on State agencies will be minimal since States already made changes to their current caseload in accordance with the timeframes established under Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 and the FNS guidance implementing Section 4006. There is some uncertainty concerning the estimates in the RIA, in part because they assume no changes in State behavior over time. Thirteen States have increased their minimum LIHEAP payments following the enactment of Section 4006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. If one or more of these thirteen states decreases or discontinues these minimum payments in future years, savings would increase. Conversely, if any additional States decide to issue LIHEAP payments above the $20 threshold in future years, savings would decrease. The Department did not consider any alternatives to this rule because the language in the Agricultural Act of 2014 was very specific and prescriptive regarding the implementation dates and the payment threshold required.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, it has been certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. State agencies that administer SNAP will be affected to the extent they implement the changes to program operations.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

    This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

    Executive Order 12372

    SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and related Notice (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is included in the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

    Federalism Summary Impact Statement

    Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13121.

    The Department has determined that this proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. This rule does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, under Section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule, when published as a final rule, is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Dates section of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.

    Civil Rights Impact Analysis

    The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify and address any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, the Department has determined that this rule will not in any way limit or reduce the ability of protected classes of individuals. The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, or disability.

    The changes to SNAP regulations in this proposed rule are required by law and are not intended to limit the participation of any group of individuals in the SNAP program.

    Impact on Households: This mandatory change will impact all households uniformly, regardless of status in a protected class. Although LIHEAP and other similar energy assistance program payments are issued by agencies other than USDA, FNS understands that these payments are not disseminated to specific portions of the population based on status in a protected class. Nor does FNS have information indicating that particular protected classes receive these payments.

    In States that do not provide minimum LIHEAP payments greater than $20, the new legislation may affect the number of households that qualify for the HCSUA and may cause a reduction to those households' monthly SNAP benefit amounts. However, households that previously qualified for the HCSUA based on the receipt of a $20 or less LIHEAP payment may still qualify for the HCSUA if they incur heating or cooling expenses. Only those households without actual heating and cooling costs will experience a benefit change due to the implementation of this provision of the Agricultural Act of 2014.

    Further, FNS specifically prohibits the State and local government agencies that administer the program from engaging in discriminatory actions. Discrimination in any aspect of program administration is prohibited by SNAP regulations, the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Where State agencies have options, and they choose to implement a certain provision, they must implement it in such a way that it complies with these requirements and the regulations at 7 CFR 272.6.

    Impact on State Agencies: State agencies have already implemented this requirement, and have already completed necessary changes to eligibility systems, manuals, and training procedures for staff. Also, although State agencies had some flexibility to stagger the application of this provision to ongoing caseloads, at this point, the new requirements are being used to determine program eligibility for all new applicants and ongoing cases.

    Training and Outreach: SNAP is administered by State agencies which communicate program information and program rules based on Federal law and regulations to those within their jurisdiction, including individuals from protected classes that may be affected by program changes. After the passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014, FNS worked with State agencies to ensure their understanding of the changes required by Section 4006. FNS released an implementation memorandum on this provision with all State agencies on March 5, 2014. In response to various State agencies' questions on LIHEAP-related issues, FNS shared guidance through a Question & Answer memorandum on April 7, 2014 and a second Q&A memorandum on August 20, 2014 to address the State agencies' questions and concerns and ensure clarity on requirements for implementing the requirement.

    FNS also maintains a public Web site that provides basic information on each program, including SNAP. Interested persons, including potential applicants, applicants, and participants can find information about these changes as well as State agency contact information, downloadable applications, and links to State agency Web sites and online applications.

    After careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, and the characteristics of SNAP households and individual participants, the Department has determined that this proposed rule will not have a disparate impact on any group or class of persons.

    Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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.

    FNS has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. On February 18, 2015, the agency held a webinar for tribal participation and comments. No comments were received. If a Tribe requests consultation, FNS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR 13200) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be implemented. This proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements subject to approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994. State agencies were required to make minimal, one-time changes to their eligibility systems, manuals, and training procedures for staff by May 5, 2014 to comply with the provisions of the statute. Other minimal burdens imposed on State agencies by this proposed rule are usual and customary within the course of their normal business activities.

    E-Government Act Compliance

    The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 273

    Determining household eligibility and benefit levels, Income and deductions.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR part 273 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 273—CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS 1. The authority citation for part 273 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.

    2. In § 273.9, revise paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(C) to read as follows:
    § 273.9 Income and deductions.

    (d) * * *

    (6) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (C)(1) A standard with a heating or cooling component must be made available to the following households:

    (i) Households that incur heating or cooling expenses separately from their rent or mortgage;

    (ii) Households in rental housing who are billed by their landlords on the basis of individual usage or who are charged a flat rate separately from their rent. However, households in public housing units which have central utility meters and which charge households only for excess heating or cooling costs are not entitled to a standard that includes heating or cooling costs based only on the charge for excess usage, unless the State agency mandates the use of standard utility allowances in accordance with paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(E) of this section; and

    (iii) Households that receive a payment or on behalf of which a payment was made under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (LIHEAA) or other similar energy assistance program, if in the current month or in the immediately preceding 12 months and such payment was greater than $20 annually. Other similar energy assistance programs are separate home energy assistance programs designed to provide heating or cooling assistance through a payment received by or made on behalf of low-income households. A payment received by a household or made on behalf of a household under LIHEAA or other similar energy assistance program must be quantifiable in order to confer eligibility for the heating and cooling standard utility allowance. A quantifiable payment is one that the State agency quantifies, in dollars. The State agency shall document the date and receipt of a payment made under LIHEAA or other similar energy assistance program to ensure the payment was received in the current month or the immediately preceding 12 months and exceeds $20 annually. In determining a household's eligibility for the HCSUA, State agencies shall not consider anticipated receipt of a payment to be an actual payment received under the LIHEAA or other similar energy assistance program. However, for purposes of this subclause, a State agency may consider a payment under the LIHEAA or other similar energy assistance program to be received by the household or on behalf of the household if the household is scheduled to receive the payment in the current month. In a case where a payment is scheduled to be received in the current month and the payment is not actually made within that month, the State agency is responsible for determining whether an overissuance has occurred and, if so, establishing a claim against the household for any benefits issued in error in accordance with the requirements at 7 CFR 273.18. If a household that has received a payment made under the LIHEAA or other similar energy assistance program or such a payment has been made on a household's behalf and the household subsequently splits into two SNAP households, the State agency must determine which one household is eligible for the heating and cooling standard utility allowance as a result of receiving that payment.

    (2) A household that has both an occupied home and an unoccupied home is only entitled to one standard.

    3. In § 273.10, revise paragraph (d)(6) to read as follows:
    § 273.10 Determining household eligibility and benefit levels.

    (d) * * *

    (6) Energy Assistance Payments. The State agency shall prorate energy assistance payments as provided for in § 273.9(d) of this part over the entire heating or cooling season the payment is intended to cover.

    Dated: April 12, 2016. Kevin Concannon, Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09114 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 381 [Docket No. FSIS-2015-0042] RIN 0583-ZA11 Eligibility of the Republic of Poland To Export Poultry Products to the United States AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to add the Republic of Poland (Poland) to the list of countries in the regulations eligible to export poultry products to the United States. FSIS has reviewed Poland's poultry laws, regulations, and inspection system as implemented and has tentatively determined that they are equivalent to the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), the regulations implementing this statute, and the U.S. food safety system for poultry.

    Should this rule become final, slaughtered poultry, or parts or other products thereof, processed in certified Polish establishments, would be eligible for export to the United States. Although Poland may be listed in FSIS's regulations as eligible to export poultry products to the United States, the products must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United States, including those of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), before any products can enter the United States. All such products would be subject to re-inspection at U.S. ports-of-entry by FSIS inspectors.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-163B, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2015-0042. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, go to the FSIS Docket Room at Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-164, Washington, DC 20250-3700 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205-0495.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    FSIS is proposing to amend its poultry products inspection regulations to add Poland to the list of countries eligible to export poultry products to the United States (9 CFR 381.196(b)). Poland is not currently listed as eligible to export such products to the United States.

    Statutory Basis for Proposed Action

    Section 17 of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 466) prohibits importation into the United States of slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, of any kind unless they are healthful, wholesome, fit for human food, not adulterated, and contain no dye, chemical, preservative, or ingredient that renders them unhealthful, unwholesome, adulterated, or unfit for human food. Under the PPIA and the regulations that implement it, poultry products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling accuracy that are equivalent to those of the United States. Section 381.196 of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets out the procedures by which foreign countries may become eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States.

    Section 381.196(a) requires a foreign country's poultry inspection system to include standards equivalent to those of the United States and to provide legal authority for the inspection system and its implementing regulations that is equivalent to that of the United States. Specifically, a country's legal authority and regulations must impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection by, or under the direct supervision of, a veterinarian; (2) official controls by the national government over establishment construction, facilities, and equipment; (3) direct and continuous official supervision of slaughtering of poultry and processing of poultry products by inspectors to ensure that product is not adulterated or misbranded; (4) complete separation of establishments certified to export from those not certified; (5) maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout certified establishments; (6) requirements for sanitation and for sanitary handling of product at establishments certified to export; (7) official controls over condemned product; (8) a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system; and (9) any other requirements found in the PPIA and its implementing regulations (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(ii)).

    The country's inspection system must also impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Organizational structure and staffing to ensure uniform enforcement of the requisite laws and regulations in all certified establishments; (2) national government control and supervision over the official activities of employees or licensees; (3) assignment of qualified inspectors; (4) enforcement and certification authority; (5) administrative and technical support; (6) inspection, sanitation, quality, species verification, and residue standards; and (7) any other inspection requirements (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(i)).

    The foreign country's inspection system must ensure that establishments preparing poultry or poultry products for export to the United States, and their products, comply with requirements equivalent to those of the PPIA and the regulations promulgated by FSIS under the authority of that statute. The foreign country certifies the appropriate establishments as having met the required standards and advises FSIS of those establishments that are certified or removed from certification. Before FSIS will grant approval to the country to export poultry or poultry products to the United States, FSIS must first determine that reliance can be placed on the certification of establishments by the foreign country.

    As indicated above, a foreign country's inspection system must be evaluated by FSIS before eligibility to export poultry products to the United States can be granted. This evaluation consists of two processes: A document review and an on-site review. The document review is an evaluation of the laws, regulations, and other written materials used by the country to effect its inspection program. To help the country in organizing its materials, FSIS provides the country with a series of questions asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures in six areas or equivalence components: (1) Government Oversight, (2) Statutory Authority and Food Safety Regulations, (3) Sanitation, (4) HACCP Systems, (5) Chemical Residue Testing Programs, and (6) Microbiological Testing Programs. FSIS evaluates the information submitted to verify that the critical points in the six equivalence components are addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement. If the document review is satisfactory, an onsite review is scheduled using a multidisciplinary team to evaluate all aspects of the country's inspection program. This comprehensive process is described more fully on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/equivalence/equivalence-process-overview.

    The PPIA and implementing regulations require that foreign countries determined by the Administrator to have acceptable inspection systems be listed in the regulations as eligible to export poultry products to the United States. FSIS must engage in rulemaking to list a country as eligible. Countries found eligible to export poultry or poultry products to the United States are listed in the poultry inspection regulations at 9 CFR 381.196(b). Once listed, the government of an eligible country must certify to FSIS that establishments that wish to export poultry products to the United States are operating under requirements equivalent to those of the United States (9 CFR 381.196(a)(3)). Countries must renew certifications of establishments annually (9 CFR 381.196(a)(3)). To verify that products imported into the United States are not adulterated or misbranded, FSIS re-inspects and randomly samples those products at ports-of-entry before they enter U.S. commerce.

    Evaluation of the Polish Poultry Inspection System

    In 2004, the government of Poland requested approval to export raw, ready-to-eat (RTE), and canned poultry to the United States. Poland stated that, if approved, its immediate intent was to export chicken, turkey, and goose meat to the United States. FSIS conducted a document review of Poland's poultry (slaughter and processing) inspection system to determine whether that system was equivalent to the United States poultry inspection system. FSIS concluded, on the basis of that review, that Poland's laws, regulations, control programs, and procedures were sufficient to achieve the level of public health protection required by FSIS.

    Accordingly, FSIS proceeded with an on-site audit of Poland's poultry inspection system from May 10 to June 1, 2011, to verify whether Poland's General Veterinary Inspectorate (GVI), which is Poland's central competent authority (CCA) in charge of food inspection, has effectively implemented a poultry inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. FSIS reviewed two processing and one cold storage establishment intending to export to the United States. From the on-site audit, FSIS concluded that Poland's poultry inspection system did not meet the Government Oversight, Sanitation, HACCP Systems, and Microbiological Testing Programs equivalence components. For example, FSIS found that there was inconsistency in the enforcement of corrective action requirements in response to non-compliances. In addition, FSIS found that the CCA was lacking current policy or regulations that specifically require establishments to develop and implement written Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures and HACCP plans as conditions for gaining certification for export of poultry products to the United States. FSIS also found that the GVI did not possess evidence of staff participation in training, did not maintain tracked records of training at all levels of the CCA, and that the GVI did not have a mechanism to assess the effectiveness of the training programs.

    In addition, FSIS was not able to audit the poultry slaughter inspection in operation because the GVI withdrew the poultry slaughter establishment scheduled for the FSIS audit. FSIS's report discussing the findings of the 2011 on-site audit and the initial corrective actions proffered by GVI is available at the following web address: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/18fc607d-9511-4cc8-8e4c-bc9f6b90cb0c/Poland_Poultry_2011_FAR.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

    Following the 2011 on-site audit, Poland addressed the FSIS audit findings through corrective action plans presented to FSIS on September 5, 2012, October 11, 2012, and March 20, 2013. FSIS evaluated the corrective action plans and, based on the information Poland submitted, determined that Poland had addressed FSIS's findings.

    In July 2014, FSIS conducted a follow-up initial equivalence on-site audit. During the follow-up audit, the FSIS auditor reviewed the inspection operations at two chicken slaughter and three chicken processing establishments intending to export raw, ready-to-eat (RTE), and thermally processed commercially sterile (canned) products to the United States. Based on the results of the follow-up audit, FSIS concluded that Poland had satisfactorily addressed all initial audit findings and was able to meet FSIS requirements and equivalence criteria related to all six components. The final audit report on Poland's poultry inspection system (slaughter and processing) can be found on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/33c2d71a-6d5c-4224-b64d-fd7725b8282f/Poland-FAR-2011-2014.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

    In summary, FSIS has completed the document review, on-site audits, and verification of corrective actions as part of the equivalence process, and all outstanding issues have been resolved. FSIS has tentatively determined that, as implemented, Poland's poultry inspection system (slaughter and processing) is equivalent to the United States poultry inspection system pending issuance of a final rule.

    Following the FSIS audit of Poland's poultry inspection system, on August 21, 2014, FSIS published a final rule to modernize poultry slaughter inspection (79 FR 49566). The rule implemented new U.S. regulatory requirements including (1) the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS), an optional post-mortem inspection system, and (2) regulatory changes that apply to all poultry slaughter establishments. FSIS expects Poland to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate how the Polish poultry inspection system achieves an equivalent outcome to the revised U.S. regulations. Before issuing a final rule to add Poland to the list of equivalent countries, and before any product is shipped to the United States, FSIS must verify whether the Polish poultry inspection system is equivalent with the new U.S. regulatory requirements in the August 21, 2014 final rule.

    Should this rule become final, Poland will be eligible to export raw, RTE, and thermally processed commercially sterile (canned) poultry products to the United States. The government of Poland must certify to FSIS those establishments that wish to export poultry products to the United States are operating in accordance with requirements equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS will verify that the establishments certified by Poland's government meet the U.S. requirements through periodic and regularly scheduled audits of Poland's poultry inspection system.

    Although a foreign country may be listed in FSIS regulations as eligible to export poultry to the United States, the exporting country's products must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United States. These requirements include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulations, which also regulate the importation of poultry products from foreign countries into the United States. APHIS has recognized Poland as part of the EU Poultry Trade Region and considers them not affected with either HPAI or Newcastle disease. There are specific certification statements required for poultry product imports to address the animal health issues, and these are defined under 9 CFR 94.28. Any poultry product imports from Poland would be required to meet these requirements.

    If this proposed rule is adopted, all slaughtered poultry, or parts and products thereof, exported to the United States from Poland will be subject to re-inspection at the U.S. ports-of-entry for, but not limited to, transportation damage, product and container defects, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count. In addition, FSIS will conduct other types of re-inspection activities, such as incubation of canned products to ensure product safety and taking product samples for laboratory analysis for the detection of drug and chemical residues, pathogens, species, and product composition. Products that pass re-inspection will be stamped with the official U.S. mark of inspection and allowed to enter U.S. commerce. If they do not meet U.S. requirements, they will be refused entry and within 45 days must be exported to the country of origin, destroyed, or converted to animal food (subject to approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), depending on the violation. The import re-inspection activities can be found on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/port-of-ventry-procedures/fsis-import-reinspection.

    FSIS has found Poland eligible to export all poultry and poultry products to the United States. Currently, Poland has elected to only certify chicken establishments for export to the United States. In order to export turkey or goose product, Poland will need to notify FSIS and certify any new establishments. FSIS will review information provided by Poland and may decide to audit based on additional product. Poland would not be allowed to export additional products to the United States until FSIS determines that the country's requirements and inspection program for the products are equivalent to FSIS's system.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.

    Expected Cost of the Proposed Rule

    Poland intends to certify seven establishments that would export chicken to the United States. Within the European Union (EU), Poland is a major poultry producer. According to a 2014 report, the EU listed Poland as the top poultry producer.1 Over the past 10 years, Poland has doubled its poultry production (2.2 million metric tons in 2014). Poland's poultry production consists of 81% chicken broilers, 14% turkey broilers, and 5% other poultry broilers such as duck and geese. Poland's poultry production uses mostly locally produced grain.2 Lower feed costs and continuing export demand has helped Poland double its poultry exports within the last five years (741 thousand metric tons in 2014.).3 Currently, Poland's primary export markets are Germany, the United Kingdom, and France.

    1http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/poultry/index_en.htm Accessed: September 18, 2015.

    2 Correspondence with the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), USDA, May 2015.

    3 Ibid.

    Poland exports chicken, turkey, duck and geese products to other countries. Table 1 provides unit values for Poland's poultry product exports and shows Poland's price competitiveness in the poultry export market. Poland is price competitive for most poultry products that the United States imports from other countries, primarily Canada and Chile.

    Table 1—Poland Export Poultry Products Price Competitiveness Commodity description Poland export unit price
  • U.S.$/MT
  • 2014 3-Year
  • average
  • U.S. Import price
  • U.S.$/MT
  • 2014 3-Year
  • average
  • Meat & Edible Offal Of Poultry, Fresh, Chill Or Frozen $2,713 $2,701 $3,207 $3,188 Chicken Cuts And Edible Offal (Including Livers), Frozen 1,892 1,885 3,021 3,022 Turkey Cuts And Edible Offal (Including Liver) Frozen 2,744 2,616 3,015 2,475 Chicken Cuts & Edible Offal (Including Liver) Fresh/Chilled 3,184 3,144 4,331 4,158 Meat & Offal Of Chickens, Not Cut Fresh Or Chilled 1,979 1,992 3,588 3,511 Cuts And Offal Of Ducks, Frozen 2,924 2,677 3,834 4,320 Turkey Cuts & Edible Offal (Including Liver) Fresh/Chilled 4,500 4,326 2,897 4,729 Meat Of Ducks, Frozen, Not Cut In Pieces 2,870 3,041 4,277 4,185 Meat & Offal Of Chickens, Not Cut In Pieces, Frozen 1,818 1,870 4,133 4,483 Cuts And Offal Of Ducks, Excluding Livers, Fresh/Chilled 5,057 5,480 13,628 12,764 Turkeys, Not Cut In Pieces, Fresh Or Chilled 3,217 3,154 3,820 4,015 Fatty Livers Of Ducks, Fresh Or Chilled 20,324 8,493 54,021 54,157 Turkeys, Not Cut In Pieces, Frozen 3,187 3,159 2,123 4,052 Meat, Offal Of Guinea Fowls, Fresh, Chilled Frozen 2,154 2,039 2,270 2,495 Meat Of Ducks, Fresh Or Chilled, Not Cut In Pieces 3,278 2,908 9,715 7,411 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, and Global Trade Atlas at http://www.gtis.com/gta/secure/gateway.cfm.

    Both the low cost of poultry production and low export unit price are why the United States is a top poultry exporter.

    In total, poultry imports account for only 0.3% of the U.S. poultry supply.4 In 2014, the United States produced 17.3 million Metric Tons (MT) of poultry, exported 3.3 million MT of poultry, consumed 14 million MT of poultry, and imported only 0.053 million MT of poultry.5 U.S. poultry imports have remained relatively unchanged in recent years,6 and there is no reason to believe the amount will change substantially in the future. For Poland to export poultry to the United States, it must be export-eligible, export-capable, and price-competitive. After comparing Poland's price competitiveness with the United States, Chile, and Canada, FSIS estimates that the maximum potential Polish poultry products exports to the United States is expected to be between 29,500 MT and 44,300 MT. This means that the total U.S. poultry supply will increase only between 0.15% and 0.22% due to Poland's projected export volume to the United States, leaving the total U.S. poultry supply almost unchanged. Thus, Poland's projected poultry export volume to the United States would only minimally change U.S. poultry prices, not enough to alter the U.S. poultry market. Currently, however, Poland only intends to certify as eligible seven establishments to export raw, RTE, and thermally processed commercially sterile (canned) chicken products to the United States. The total processing capacity of these seven establishments is less than Poland's total poultry export capacity. With minimal price change expected in the U.S. poultry markets, adopting this proposed rule would not have a negative effect on U.S. consumers.

    4 USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx.

    5 Ibid.

    6 Ibid

    Companies that export products from Poland to the United States will incur the standard costs associated with exporting products to the United States, such as export fees and freight or insurance costs. They will be willing to bear these costs, however, because of the anticipated financial benefits associated with marketing their products in the United States.

    Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule

    Adoption of this proposed rule will increase trade between the United States and Poland. The volume of trade stimulated by the proposed rule is likely to be small and is expected to have little or no effect on U.S. poultry supplies or poultry prices. U.S. consumers, however, are expected to enjoy more choices when purchasing poultry products. The proposed rule would, therefore, expand choices for U.S. consumers and promote economic competition.

    Effect on Small Entities

    The FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). The expected trade volume will be small, with little or no effect on U.S. establishments, regardless of size.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    No new paperwork requirements are associated with this proposed rule. Foreign countries wanting to export poultry and poultry products to the United States are required to provide information to FSIS certifying that their inspection systems provide standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the system and their implementing regulations are equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS provided Poland with questionnaires asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures to assist that country in organizing its materials. This information collection was approved under OMB control number 0583-0094. The proposed rule contains no other paperwork requirements.

    E-Government Act

    FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things, promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    Additional Public Notification

    FSIS will officially notify the World Trade Organization's Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO/SPS Committee) in Geneva, Switzerland, of this proposal and will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/vregulations/federal-register/proposed-rules. FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

    Fax: (202) 690-7442.

    Email: [email protected]

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

    List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 381

    Imported products.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 381 as follows:

    PART 381—POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 138f, 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53.

    § 381.196 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 381.196(b) by adding “Poland” in alphabetical order to the list of countries. Done at Washington, DC, on: April 15, 2016. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09185 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket Number EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004] RIN 1904-AD61 Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meetings for the Circulator Pumps Working Group To Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) announces public meetings and webinars for the Circulator Pumps Working Group. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor SW., Washington, DC, unless otherwise stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Individuals will also have the opportunity to participate by webinar. To register for the webinars and receive call-in information, please register at DOE's Web site: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=41&action=viewlive.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joe Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. Email: [email protected]

    Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 20, 2016, ASRAC met and unanimously passed the recommendation to form a Circulator Pumps Working Group. The purpose of the working group is to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus regarding definitions, test procedures, and energy conservation standards, to form the basis of proposed energy conservation standards and test procedures. The Working Group consists of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards, and will consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues. Per the ASRAC Charter, the Working Group is expected to make a concerted effort to negotiate a final term sheet by September 30, 2016. This document announces the next series of meetings for this working group.

    DOE will host public meetings and webinars on the below dates.

    • Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST at 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 8037B, SW., Washington, DC • Thursday, May 5, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST at 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 8037B, SW., Washington, DC • Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST at Navigant Offices, 1200 19th St NW., #700, Washington, DC • Friday, June 17, 2016 at 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST at 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 8037B, SW., Washington, DC • Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST at 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 8037B, SW., Washington, DC • Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST at 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 8037B, SW., Washington, DC • Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST at 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 8037B, SW., Washington, DC • Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST at 950 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 6097, SW., Washington, DC • Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST at 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 8037B, SW., Washington, DC • Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST at 950 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 6097, SW., Washington, DC • Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST at 950 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 6097, SW., Washington, DC • Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST at 950 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 6097, SW., Washington, DC

    Members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the meeting and, if time allows, may make oral statements during the specified period for public comment. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, email [email protected] In the email, please indicate your name, organization (if appropriate), citizenship, and contact information. Please note that foreign nationals participating in the public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If you are a foreign national, and wish to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary procedures can be completed. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present a government photo identification, such as a passport, driver's license, or government identification. Due to the required security screening upon entry, individuals attending should arrive early to allow for the extra time needed.

    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recent changes have been made regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.

    DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, Louisiana, New York, American Samoa, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Minnesota.

    Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); A military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09126 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5591; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-193-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-15-07, for certain Airbus Model A320-111 airplanes and Model A320-200 series airplanes. AD 2005-15-07 currently requires installing insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas. Since we issued AD 2005-15-07, we have received reports of wire chafing in the left-hand wing trailing edge. This proposed AD would require additional modifications in the trailing edges of both wings. This proposed AD would also remove airplanes from the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent wire chafing in the trailing edge of the wings, which could result in a short circuit in the vicinity of the fuel tanks, consequently resulting in a potential source of ignition in a fuel tank vapor space and consequent fuel tank explosion.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5591; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5591; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-193-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On July 13, 2005, we issued AD 2005-15-07, Amendment 39-14196 (70 FR 43024, July 26, 2005) (“AD 2005-15-07”). AD 2005-15-07 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A320-111 airplanes and Model A320-200 series airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 2005-15-07, we have received reports of wire chafing in the left-hand wing trailing edge.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0198, dated September 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident * * *, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88 [(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001)], and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.

    Prompted by that regulation, the results of an Airbus review of the A320 type design identified, on certain aeroplanes, a possible ignition source in fuel tank vapour space(s). That condition, if not corrected, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    It was, therefore, decided to modify the cable routes of the wing trailing edge, aft of the rear spar and wing tip of those aeroplanes, to be applied in service in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-24-1062 Revision 05. Following that decision, DGAC France issued AD F-2004-173 (EASA approval number 2004-10570) to require that modification.

    After that AD was issued, it was found that additional work, introduced by Airbus SB A320-24-1062 Revision 05, was not included as part of the normal accomplishment instructions, which meant that the additional work might not be accomplished. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2008-0051, retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD F-2004-173 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2005-15-07, Amendment 39-14196 (70 FR 43024, July 26, 2005)], which was superseded, and required the accomplishment of the additional work in accordance with the instructions of Airbus SB A320-24-1062 Revision 06. EASA AD 2008-0051 was revised to reduce the Applicability and to add a clarification to paragraph (2).

    After EASA AD 2008-0051R1 was issued, some operators reported wire chafing in the left hand wing trailing edge. Investigation established that the wire chafing, initiated at raceway gaps, was either due to maintenance action(s), or to structure vibrations.

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus developed two modifications to prevent any further wire chafing by introducing an additional protection at raceway gaps and a new cable standard in the trailing edges of both wings. Airbus published SB A320-92-1049 and SB A320-92-1052 to make these modifications available for in-service application. At the time of incorporation of Airbus SB A320-24-1062, these two modifications were considered recommended only.

    EASA recently determined that this condition, if not corrected, could lead to a short circuit on 115 volts in the vicinity of fuel tanks, consequently creating another risk of ignition source in a fuel tank vapour space.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2008-0051R1, which is superseded, and requires modifications to install the additional anti-chafing protection and the new cable standard.

    This proposed AD also removes Model A320-214, -232, and -233 airplanes from the applicability because those airplane models have been modified in production or in service. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5591.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A320-92-1049, Revision 01, dated November 28, 2011; A320-92-1052, dated December 5, 2007; and A320-24-1062, Revision 07, dated November 28, 2011.

    Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1049, Revision 01, dated November 28, 2011, describes procedures to install the additional anti-chafing protection.

    Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1052, dated December 5, 2007, describes procedures to replace the current electrical cable with the new standard one.

    Airbus A320-24-1062, Revision 07, dated November 28, 2011, describes procedures to install insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Difference Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI specifies a compliance time of 72 months for modifying the trailing edges of both wings. However, this proposed AD would require a compliance time of 60 months to be consistent with the 60-month compliance time for installing the insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas specified in AD 2005-15-07. This difference has been coordinated with EASA.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2005-15-07, and retained in this proposed AD take about 35 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2005-15-07 is $2,975 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 76 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $13,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $914,620, or $19,460 per product.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-15-07, Amendment 39-14196 (70 FR 43024, July 26, 2005), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-5591; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-193-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2005-15-07, Amendment 39-14196 (70 FR 43024, July 26, 2005) (“AD 2005-15-07”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers except those on which Airbus Modification 22626 has been embodied in production.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical Power; and Code 92.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of wire chafing in the left-hand wing trailing edge. We are issuing this AD to prevent wire chafing in the trailing edge of the wings, which could result in a short circuit in the vicinity of the fuel tanks, consequently resulting in a potential source of ignition in a fuel tank vapor space and consequent fuel tank explosion.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Modification

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2005-15-07, with revised service information. Within 60 months after August 30, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-15-07), install insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 05, dated June 27, 2002; or the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 07, dated November 28, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 07, dated November 28, 2011, may be used.

    (h) New Requirement of This AD: Modification of Trailing Edges

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the trailing edges of both wings by accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Install the additional anti-chafing protection in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1049, Revision 01, dated November 28, 2011.

    (2) Replace the current electrical cable with the new standard one in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1052, dated December 5, 2007. During the replacement, ensure that the anti-chafing protection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1049, as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, remains in place.

    (i) Additional Modification

    For airplanes on which the installation specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 05, dated June 27, 2002, has been done: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install insulators and cable ties, in accordance with “Modification—Additional Work (Introduced at Revision No. 06)” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 07, dated November 28, 2011.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 06, dated June 26, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1049, dated July 23, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) 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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0198, dated September 5, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5591.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 4, 2016. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08953 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5593; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-184-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-23, for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes. AD 2015-02-23 currently requires repetitive inspections for fractured or incorrectly oriented fasteners on the inboard flap hinge-box forward fittings on both wings, and replacement of all fasteners if necessary. The preamble to AD 2015-02-23 explains that we consider the requirements interim action and are considering further rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and that replacement of the fasteners is necessary. This proposed AD would require terminating action to replace the fasteners on the inboard flap hinge-box forward fittings on both wings. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly oriented or fractured fasteners, which could result in detachment of the flap hinge-box and the flap surface, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5593; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5593; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-184-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On January 20, 2015, we issued AD 2015-02-23, Amendment 39-18092 (80 FR 5670, February 3, 2015) (“AD 2015-02-23”). AD 2015-02-23 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes. AD 2015-02-23 corresponds to Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-39R2, dated December 12, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”). The MCAI was issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada.

    The preamble to AD 2015-02-23 explains that we consider the requirements interim action and are considering further rulemaking. We have now determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary and that, instead of continuing repetitive inspections, replacement of the incorrectly oriented fasteners is necessary. This proposed AD follows from that determination. This proposed AD would require terminating action to replace the fasteners on the inboard flap hinge-box forward fittings on affected wings.

    The repetitive inspections can only detect if a fastener head has fractured and sheared off. For incorrectly oriented fasteners, it is not possible to detect whether a crack has already initiated and propagated. The fastener fracture speed is unpredictable due to the variability in the quality of the hole preparation prior to fastener installation and whether there was any misalignment in the installation of the fasteners. The failure of two fasteners could result in the loss of the flap attachment, causing flap asymmetry and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    We are proposing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly oriented or fractured fasteners, which could result in detachment of the flap hinge-box and the flap surface, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletins A600-0763, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; and A601-0627, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the fasteners on the inboard flap hinge-box forward fittings on both wings, and replacement of fasteners. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Clarification of Intent of the MCAI

    Paragraph C. of Canadian Emergency AD CF-2013-39R2, dated December 12, 2014, specifies to do the replacement on “both” wings. We have clarified with TCCA that the intent of paragraph C. of Canadian Emergency AD CF-2013-39R2, dated December 12, 2014, is that for airplanes on which any incorrectly oriented fastener, and no fractured or missing fastener, was detected, the replacement only needs to be done on the affected wing on which incorrectly oriented fasteners were found but none were found to be fractured.

    The replacement of all forward and aft fasteners, regardless of condition or orientation, at wing station (WS) 76.50 and WS 127.25, on the affected wings, constitutes terminating action. Fasteners that have cracks or fractures were already addressed by the requirements of AD 2015-02-13, which is restated in this proposed AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2015-02-23, and retained in this proposed AD, take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2015-02-23 is $85 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 59 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the parts cost. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $601,800, or $5,015 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 58 work-hours and require parts costing $753, for a cost of $5,683 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-23, Amendment 39-18092 (80 FR 5670, February 3, 2015), and adding the following new AD: Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-5593; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-184-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-02-23, Amendment 39-18092 (80 FR 5670, February 3, 2015) (“AD 2015-02-23”). This AD affects AD 2014-03-17, Amendment 39-17754 (79 FR 9389, February 19, 2014) (“AD 2014-03-17”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes, having serial numbers (S/Ns) 1004 through 1085 inclusive.

    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes, having S/Ns 3001 through 3066 inclusive.

    (3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes, having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of incorrectly oriented fasteners. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrectly oriented or fractured fasteners, which could result in detachment of the flap hinge-box and the flap surface, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Inspection on Airplanes Not Previously Inspected, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2015-02-23, with no changes. For airplanes that have not been inspected as required by paragraph (g) of AD 2014-03-17, as of February 18, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-02-23): Within 10 flight cycles after February 18, 2015, or 100 flight cycles after March 6, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-17), whichever occurs first, do a detailed visual inspection for incorrect orientation and any fractured or missing fastener heads of each inboard flap fastener of the hinge-box forward fitting at wing station (WS) 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. Accomplishing the inspection required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-03-17 for the inspected airplane only.

    (1) For Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes having S/Ns 1004 through 1085 inclusive: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0763, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (2) For Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes having S/Ns 3001 through 3066 inclusive, and Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601-0627, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (h) Retained Corrective Actions for Paragraph (g) of This AD, With Revised Paragraph (h)(2) of This AD

    (1) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of AD 2015-02-23, with no changes. If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, all fasteners are found correctly oriented and not fractured, and no fastener heads are missing (fasteners found intact): No further action is required by this AD.

    (2) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h)(2) of AD 2015-02-23, with revised references to replacement paragraphs. If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any fastener is found incorrectly oriented but no fasteners are fractured or are missing a fastener head (fasteners found intact), repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 flight cycles until the replacements specified in paragraph (h)(3), (k), or (n) of this AD is accomplished.

    (3) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h)(3) of AD 2015-02-23, with no changes. If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any fastener is found fractured or has a missing fastener head: Before further flight, remove and replace all forward and aft fasteners (regardless of orientation or condition) at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD. After accomplishing the replacements required by this paragraph, no further action is required by this AD.

    (i) For Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes having S/Ns 1004 through 1085 inclusive: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0763, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (ii) For Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes having S/Ns 3001 through 3066 inclusive, and Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601-0627, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (i) Retained Inspection for Airplanes Previously Inspected and Found To Have Incorrectly Oriented Fastener(s), With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2015-02-23, with no changes. For airplanes on which an inspection required by paragraph (g) or (j) of AD 2014-03-17, has been done as of the effective date of this AD, and on which any incorrectly oriented fastener was found but no fasteners were fractured (fasteners found intact): Except as provided by paragraph (l) of this AD, within 10 flight cycles after February 18, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-02-23), or within 100 flight cycles after accomplishing the most recent inspection required by AD 2014-03-17, whichever occurs first, do a detailed visual inspection for any fractured or missing fastener heads of each inboard flap fastener of the hinge-box forward fitting at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings. Do the inspection in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD. Accomplishing the inspection required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (j) of AD 2014-03-17 for the inspected airplane only.

    (1) For Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes having S/Ns 1004 through 1085 inclusive: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0763, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (2) For Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes having S/Ns 3001 through 3066 inclusive, and Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601-0627, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (j) Retained Corrective Actions for Paragraph (i) of This AD, With Revised Reference to Additional, New Requirements

    (1) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of AD 2015-02-23, with revised reference to additional, new requirements. If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no fasteners are found fractured or have missing fastener heads (fasteners are intact), repeat the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 flight cycles until the replacement specified in paragraph (j)(2), (k), or (n) of this AD is accomplished.

    (2) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j)(2) of AD 2015-02-23, with no changes. If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any fastener is found fractured or has a missing fastener head: Before further flight, remove and replace all forward and aft fasteners (regardless of orientation or condition) at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD. After accomplishing the replacements required by this paragraph, no further action is required by this AD.

    (i) For Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes having S/Ns 1004 through 1085 inclusive: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0763, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (ii) For Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes having S/Ns 3001 through 3066 inclusive, and Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601-0627, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (k) Retained Optional Terminating Action for Incorrectly Oriented Fasteners, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (k) of AD 2015-02-23, with no changes. Replacement of all forward and aft fasteners (regardless of orientation or condition) at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, terminates the requirements of this AD. The replacement must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD. Doing the replacements specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (j) of AD 2014-03-17, only for the airplane on which the replacement was done.

    (1) For Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes having S/Ns 1004 through 1085 inclusive: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0763, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (2) For Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes having S/Ns 3001 through 3066 inclusive, and Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601-0627, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.

    (l) Retained Exception for Previously Replaced Fasteners, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (l) of AD 2015-02-23, with no changes. Replacement of all fractured and incorrectly oriented forward and aft fasteners, as specified in paragraph (i) or (k) of AD 2014-03-17, if done before the effective date of this AD, is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.

    (m) Retained Exception to the Service Information, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2015-02-23, with no changes. Where Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0763, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; and Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601-0627, Revision 02, dated December 9, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; specify to contact Bombardier for repair instructions, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    (n) New Requirement of This AD: Terminating Action

    For airplanes on which any incorrectly oriented fastener, and no fractured or missing fastener, was detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h)(2), (i), and (j)(1) of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all forward and aft fasteners, regardless of condition or orientation, at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on affected wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD. Doing the replacements specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of this AD. Doing the replacements specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (j) of AD 2014-03-17, only for the airplane on which the replacement was done.

    (o) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (n) of AD 2015-02-23, with new credit for paragraph (n) of this AD. This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(4) of this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0763, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, which was previously incorporated by reference on March 6, 2014 (79 FR 9389, February 19, 2014).

    (2) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A600-0763, Revision 01, dated February 26, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (3) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601-0627, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, which was previously incorporated by reference on March 6, 2014 (79 FR 9389, February 19, 2014).

    (4) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601-0627, Revision 01, dated February 26, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-39R2, dated December 12, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5593.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 8, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08960 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-097-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-10-01, for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. AD 2011-10-01 currently requires repetitive functional tests of the ram air turbine (RAT) heater and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2011-10-01, we received a revision of an airworthiness limitations items (ALI) document, which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced control of these airplanes due to the failure of system components.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet: http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5464; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-097-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On April 20, 2011, we issued AD 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011). AD 2011-10-01 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. Since we issued AD 2011-10-01, we received a revision of an ALI document, Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Maintenance Manual, which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive AD 2015-0095, dated May 29, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for the FALCON 7X type design are included in Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by EASA. To ensure accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X AMM chapter 5-40 original issue, including temporary revision (TR) TR-01, EASA issued AD 2008-0221 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2008-0221].

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault Aviation issued revision 4 of the FALCON 7X AMM chapter 5-40, which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.

    Dassault Aviation AMM chapter 5-40 revision 4 contains, among others, the following changes:

    —Fatigue and Damage tolerance airworthiness limitations, —Miscellaneous Certification Maintenance Requirements and Airworthiness Limitation Items, —Periodic restoration of the DC generators (this action was required by EASA AD 2009-0254) [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2009-0254], —Functional test of the Ram Air Turbine heater (this action was required by EASA AD 2010-0033) [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2010-0233] [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011)], —Special detailed fatigue inspection of fastener holes at front spar/wing lower panel connections at RIB 26, —Operational test of the IRS3 power supply weight-on- wheel logic, —Inspection of the interface between wheel keys and brake inboard rotor, —Operational test of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) electrical motor reversion, —Operational test of the HSTA trim emergency command, —Detailed inspection of the brake heat sink.

    The maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in the FALCON 7X AMM chapter 5-40, have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness of the FALCON 7X type design. Failure to accomplish the actions specified in AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 4 may result in an unsafe condition.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2009-0254 and EASA AD 2010-0033, which are superseded, and requires accomplishment of the maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 4.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5464.

    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with these actions and/or CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before accomplishing the revision of the airplane maintenance or inspection program specified in this proposed AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program or airworthiness limitations section (ALS) has been revised as required by this proposed AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation issued Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Maintenance Manual, which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 45 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011), and retained in this proposed AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2011-10-01 is $85 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour 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 this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,825, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011), and adding the following new AD: Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2016-5464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-097-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011). This AD affects AD 2014-16-23, Amendment 39-17947 (79 FR 52545, September 4, 2014).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of an airworthiness limitations items (ALI) document, which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced control of these airplanes due to the failure of system components.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Functional Test of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) Heater With New Terminating Action and With Specific Delegation Approval Language

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011), with new terminating action and with specific delegation approval language. At the applicable times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a functional test of the RAT heater using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Repeat the functional test of the RAT heater thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD until the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD is done. If any functional test fails, before further flight, repair using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA DOA.

    (1) For FALCON 7X airplanes on which modification M0305 has not been done and on which Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-018, dated March 6, 2009, has not been done: Within 650 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a functional test of the RAT heater and repeat the functional test of the RAT heater thereafter at intervals not to exceed 650 flight hours.

    (2) For FALCON 7X airplanes on which modification M0305 has been done or on which Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-018, dated March 6, 2009, has been done: Within 1,900 flight hours after June 9, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011)) or after modification M0305 or Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-018, dated March 6, 2009, has been done, whichever occurs later, do a functional test of the RAT heater. Repeat the functional test of the RAT heater thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,900 flight hours.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    Additional guidance for doing the functional test of the RAT heater required by paragraph (g) of this AD can be found in Task 24-50-25-720-801, Functional Test of the RAT Heater, dated January 16, 2009, of the Dassault FALCON 7X Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM).

    (h) New Requirement of This AD: Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the information specified in Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Maintenance Manual (MM). The initial compliance times for the tasks specified in Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X MM are at the applicable compliance times specified in Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X MM, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (i) Terminating Actions

    (1) Accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) Accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (q) of AD 2014-16-23, Amendment 39-17947 (79 FR 52545, September 4, 2014).

    (j) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (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 EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0095, dated May 29, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5464.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet: http://www.dassaultfalcon.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 April 13, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09005 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5465; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-041-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-10-13, for all BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146 series airplanes. AD 2010-10-13 currently requires repetitive inspections of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure for corrosion and cracking, and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2010-10-13, the Design Approval Holder (DAH) has issued revised inspection procedures that eliminate a previously approved inspection procedure. This proposed AD would require revised inspection procedures. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and cracking of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5465; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5465; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-041-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On April 30, 2010, we issued AD 2010-10-13, Amendment 39-16292 (75 FR 27419, May 17, 2010) (“AD 2010-10-13”). AD 2010-10-13 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146 series airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 2010-10-13, the DAH has issued revised inspection procedures that eliminates a previously approved inspection procedure.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0047, correction dated February 26, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

    Corrosion of the wing fixed leading edge structure was detected on a BAe 146 aeroplane during removal of wing removable edge for a repair. The review of available scheduled tasks intended to detect environmental and fatigue deteriorations of the wing revealed that they may not have been sufficient to identify corrosion or fatigue damage in the affected structural area.

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

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2009-0014 (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2009_0014_superseded.pdf/AD_2009-0014_1) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2010-10-13] to require repetitive inspections of fixed wing leading edge and front spar structure [for cracking and corrosion] [and repair if necessary] in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Inspection Service Bulletin (ISB) ISB.57-072 which incorporated two possible inspection procedures, either method 1, a combination of a detailed visual inspection (DVI) and a visual inspection (VI) after removal of the outer fixed leading edge only, or method 2, a DVI only, after removal of the inner, centre and outer fixed leading edges.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued ISB.57-072 Revision 1 to correct a material reference number, Revision 2, which removed method 1 as an available inspection procedure to detect fatigue and environmental damage of the wing structure and Revision 3 to delete the requirement to install weights if the engines were removed when the leading edges were removed.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2009-0014, which is superseded, but requires accomplishment of the [repetitive] inspections in accordance with updated inspection procedures, i.e. method 2 only.

    This [EASA] AD is re-published to correct a typographical error in Table 1, restoring a compliance time as previously required by EASA AD 2009-0014.

    The repetitive inspection interval for the detailed visual inspection for cracking and corrosion of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure is:

    • 12 years or 36,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier, for airplanes on which the enhanced corrosion protection has not been accomplished.

    • 6 years or 36,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier, for airplanes on which the enhanced corrosion protection has been accomplished.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5465.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited has issued Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 3, dated August 31, 2010. The service information describes procedures for inspection and repair for cracking and corrosion of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

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

    The actions required by AD 2010-10-13, and retained in this proposed AD take about 12 work-hours per product, and 1 work-hour per product for reporting, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2010-10-13 is $1,105 per product.

    The new requirements of this proposed AD add no additional economic burden.

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

    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 AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this 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 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-10-13, Amendment 39-16292 (75 FR 27419, May 17, 2010), and adding the following new AD: BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited: Docket No. FAA-2016-5465; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-041-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2010-10-13, Amendment 39-16292 (75 FR 27419, May 17, 2010) (“AD 2010-10-13”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A series airplanes; and Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by revised inspection procedures issued by the Design Approval Holder. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and cracking of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Actions and Compliance, With Added Provision for Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2010-10-13, with an added provision for terminating action. Accomplishing the initial inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) At the applicable time identified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD: Perform a detailed visual inspection and visual inspection (Method 1) or a detailed visual inspection (Method 2) for cracking and corrosion of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure, in accordance with paragraph 2.C. or 2.D., as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008.

    (i) For airplanes with less than 9 years since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective date of this AD: Within 18 months after June 21, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-13).

    (ii) For airplanes with 9 years or more, but less than 15 years, since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of June 21, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-13): Within 18 months after June 21, 2010, or within 16 years since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first.

    (iii) For airplanes with 15 years or more since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of June 21, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-13): Within 6 months after June 21, 2010.

    (2) After doing the initial inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, accomplish the repetitive inspections of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure for cracking and corrosion in the “area of inspection” specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.D., “Compliance,” of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008. Do the inspections in accordance with paragraph 2.C. (Method 1) or paragraph 2.D. (Method 2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008. Where previously applied, enhanced corrosion protection may then be re-applied, as an option, in accordance with paragraph 2.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008. Perform the repetitive inspections at the times specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) For airplanes having enhanced corrosion protection that was applied during the previous inspection: Inspect at intervals not to exceed 144 months.

    (ii) For airplanes not having enhanced corrosion protection that was applied during the previous inspection: Inspect at intervals not to exceed 72 months.

    (3) After doing the initial inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, at intervals not to exceed 36,000 flight cycles, accomplish fatigue inspections in accordance with paragraph 2.C. (Method 1) or paragraph 2.D. (Method 2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008.

    (4) If any cracking or corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008.

    (5) No repair terminates the inspection requirements of this AD.

    (6) Actions done before June 21, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-13), in accordance with BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, dated February 22, 2008, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD.

    (7) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to Customer Liaison, Customer Support (Building 37), BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland; fax +44 (0) 1292 675432; email [email protected], at the applicable time specified in paragraphs (g)(7)(i) and (g)(7)(ii) of this AD. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane.

    (i) If the inspection was done on or after June 21, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-13): Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.

    (ii) If the inspection was done before June 21, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-13): Submit the report within 30 days after June 21, 2010.

    (h) Retained Corrosion Protection Information, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the corrosion protection information in Note 2 of AD 2010-10-13, with no changes. At the discretion of the airplane owner/operator, corrosion protection may be embodied on those areas subject to a detailed visual inspection, in accordance with paragraph 2.E. or paragraph 2.F. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008. Embodiment of enhanced corrosion protection in accordance with paragraph 2.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008, allows the interval of the repetitive inspection (as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD) to be extended in the area(s) of application in accordance with paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) Retained Inspection Information, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the inspection information in Note 3 of AD 2010-10-13, with no changes. The inspections required by this AD prevail over the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), Maintenance Planning Document (MPD), Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP), and Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID) inspections defined in paragraph 1.C.(3) of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008.

    (j) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspection

    At the applicable time identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD; or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later: Perform a detailed visual inspection for cracking and corrosion of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure, in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 3, dated August 31, 2010. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.D.2. of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 3, dated August 31, 2010. Accomplishing the initial inspection required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes with less than 9 years since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of June 21, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-13): Within 18 months after June 21, 2010, or within 9 years since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later.

    (2) For airplanes with 9 years or more, but less than 15 years, since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of June 21, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-13): Within 18 months after June 21, 2010, or within 16 years since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first.

    (3) For airplanes with 15 years or more since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of the June 21, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-10-13): Within 6 months after June 21, 2010.

    (k) New Requirement of This AD: Repair

    If any crack or corrosion are found during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD: 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 BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (l) No Provisions for Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of any repair, as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for inspections required by this AD.

    (m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, dated February 22, 2008; or BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008.

    (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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; 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 BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited'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.

    (o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0047, correction dated February 26, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5465.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. 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 March 26, 2016. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08957 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5595; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-087-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Zodiac Seats California LLC Seating Systems AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Zodiac Seats California LLC seating systems. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the affected seating systems may cause serious injury to the occupant during forward impacts when subjected to certain inertia forces. This proposed AD would require removing affected seating systems. We are proposing this AD to prevent serious injury to the occupant during forward impacts in emergency landing conditions.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    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-2016-5595; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5344; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5595; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-087-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We determined that occupants of certain Zodiac Seats California LLC seating systems having model numbers 4157, 4170, and 4184, may experience serious injury during forward impacts when subjected to inertia forces as defined by 14 CFR 25.561 and 14 CFR 25.562 (and thus are noncompliant with 14 CFR 25.785). The affected seating systems are installed on, but not limited to, various transport category airplanes.

    The impact of the head onto a typical transport passenger seat back during seat qualification testing normally results in an initial contact followed by an unimpeded sliding motion down the back of the seat. That type of interaction does not typically result in excessive neck loading or direct concentrated loading on the neck. The design of the affected seating systems introduce new injury mechanisms such that the chin can catch on the seat, causing high neck bending loads and direct concentrated loading on the neck. This interaction between the head and the seat during forward impacts can result in serious injury to the occupant.

    14 CFR 25.785 states that seat designs cannot cause a serious injury to the occupant when making proper use of the seat and restraint and subjected to the inertia forces specified in 14 CFR 25.561 and 14 CFR 25.562. Specifically, 14 CFR 25.785(b) states:

    Each seat, berth, safety belt, harness, and adjacent part of the airplane at each station designated as occupiable during takeoff and landing must be designed so that a person making proper use of these facilities will not suffer serious injury in an emergency landing as a result of the inertia forces specified in sections 25.561 and 25.562.

    Use of the affected seating systems could result in serious injury to the occupant during forward impacts in emergency landing conditions.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removing affected seating systems.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 10,482 seating systems installed on but not limited to various transport category airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Removal 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $890,970
    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): Zodiac Seats California LLC: Docket No. FAA-2016-5595; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-087-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Zodiac Seats California LLC seating systems, having model numbers and part numbers identified in table 1 to paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j) and (k) of this AD, installed on, but not limited to, the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(9) of this AD, all type certificated models in any category.

    (1)The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes.

    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes.

    (3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.

    (4) Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes.

    (5) Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-145XR airplanes.

    (6) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-100 LR airplanes.

    (7) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-200 LR, and -200 STD airplanes.

    (8) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW airplanes.

    (9) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-200 LR airplanes.

    Table 1 to Paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j) and (k) of This AD—Affected Seating Systems Model No. Part No. Description 4157 4157( )-( )-( ) Double Seat Assembly System. 4157 4158( )-( )-( ) Double Seat Assembly System. 4157 4175( )-( )-( ) Double Seat Assembly System. 4157 4176( )-( )-( ) Double Seat Assembly System. 4157 4177( )-( )-( ) Double Seat Assembly System. 4157 4178( )-( )-( ) Double Seat Assembly System. 4170 4170( )-( ) Triple Seat Assembly System. 4170 4169( )-( ) Double Seat Assembly System. 4170 4171( )-( ) Single Seat Assembly System Exit Row. 4170 4172( )-( ) Double Seat Assembly System Exit Row. 4184 4184( )-( )-( ) Double Seat Assembly System. (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2520, Passenger Compartment Equipment.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the affected seating systems may cause serious injury to the occupant during forward impacts when subjected to certain inertia forces. We are issuing this AD to prevent serious injury to the occupant during forward impacts in emergency landing conditions.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Seating System Removal

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, remove all seating systems having a model number and part number identified in table 1 to paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD.

    (h) Definition of a Direct Spare

    For the purposes of this AD, a “direct” spare has the same part number as the part it replaces.

    (i) Parts Installation Limitations: Seating Systems

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane any Zodiac Seats California LLC seating systems having any model number and part number identified in table 1 to paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD that are approved under TSO-C127a; except as specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Seating systems may be removed from service for the purpose of performing maintenance activities and reinstalled on airplanes operated by the same operator but only until the operator complies with the removal of affected seating systems required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) New seating systems may be installed as direct spares for the same part number seating systems but only until the operator complies with the removal of affected seating systems required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Seating systems installed as direct spares are subject to the applicable requirements and compliance times specified in this AD.

    (j) Parts Installation Provisions: Installation and Rearrangement

    Installation of a seating system having any model number and part number identified in table 1 to paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD, other than those installed as direct spares, is considered a new installation that needs approval; except re-arrangement of the existing installed seating systems on an airplane is acceptable until the operator complies with the removal of affected seating systems required by paragraph (g) of this AD, provided the re-arrangement follows the same installation instructions and limitations as the original certification (e.g., if the original limitations allowed 32″ to 34″ pitch, the new layout must be pitched within that range).

    (k) Parts Installation Prohibition: Components of Seating Systems

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane any component of any seating system having any model number identified in table 1 to paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD that is approved under TSO-C127a; except as specified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Components of seating systems specified in paragraph (g) of this AD may be removed from service and re-installed on airplanes operated by the same operator but only until the operator complies with the removal of affected seating systems required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) New components of seating systems may be installed as direct spares for the same part number components but only until the operator complies with the removal of affected seating systems required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (3) Components of seating systems specified in paragraph (g) of this AD that are installed as direct spares are subject to the applicable requirements and compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5344; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 11, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09004 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5594; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-169-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a review that identified a nonconformity between the torque value applied to the screw-nuts of aileron servo actuators, and the torque value specified by the type design. This proposed AD would require replacing certain aileron servo actuators with serviceable servo actuators. We are proposing this AD to prevent desynchronization between two servo actuator barrels, which could lead to reduced control of the airplane during roll maneuvers at low altitude.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5594; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1139.

    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-2016-5594; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-169-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0184, dated August 7, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A quality review of recently delivered aeroplanes identified a non-conformity concerning the torque value applied to screw-nuts of aileron servo actuators, which was inconsistent with the value specified by the type design.

    The subsequent investigation demonstrated that the washer which is bent on nut and rod ensures the affected selector synchronisation between two servo actuator barrels for a minimum of 2,000 flight hours (FH). After this period, a possible de-synchronization of the affected selector assembly may occur.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to reduced control of the aeroplane during roll manoeuvers at low altitude.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation issued Service Bulletin (SB) F900EX-476 Revision 1 and SB F2000EX-350 to provide replacement instructions for the affected aileron servo actuators, as applicable to aeroplane type.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement of affected aileron servo actuators with serviceable parts. This [EASA] AD also identifies that the affected aileron servo actuators can be re-qualified as serviceable parts only after a refurbishment accomplished by an approved maintenance organization.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5594.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletins F900EX-476, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2014; and F2000EX-350, dated April 9, 2014. This service information describes procedures for removing the aileron servo actuator. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 284 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 14 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $43,460 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $12,680,600, or $44,650 per product.

    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): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2016-5594; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-169-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a review that identified a nonconformity between the torque value applied to the screw-nuts of aileron servo actuators, and the torque value specified by the type design. We are issuing this AD to prevent desynchronization between two servo actuator barrels, which could lead to reduced control of the airplane during roll maneuvers at low altitude.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement of Aileron Servo Actuator

    At the later of the applicable time specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Replace each affected aileron servo actuator, as identified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD (for Model FALCON 900EX airplanes) or figure 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD (for Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes), with a serviceable part in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-476, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2014; or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-350, dated April 9, 2014; except where Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-476, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2014; or F2000EX-350, dated April 9, 2014; specify to “remove” the applicable aileron servo actuator, this AD requires replacement of the applicable aileron servo actuator. A serviceable part is one that is specified in the “New P/N” column in the table of paragraph 3., “Material Information,” of Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-476, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2014; or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-350, dated April 9, 2014.

    (1) For airplanes on which the aileron servo actuator was not replaced during maintenance: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Within 25 months or 1,640 flight hours, whichever occurs first, since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or date of issuance for the original export certificate of airworthiness.

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

    (2) For airplanes on which the aileron servo actuator was replaced during maintenance: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Within 1,640 flight hours after replacement of the aileron servo actuator during maintenance.

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

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    The affected aileron servo actuators are known to be installed on the following airplanes: Prior to airplane delivery, on Model FALCON 900EX airplanes having serial number (S/N) 265 through 270 inclusive, S/N 272 and S/N 273, and on Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes having S/N 243, S/N 246 through 258 inclusive, S/N 260 through 263 inclusive, S/N 702 through 710 inclusive and S/N 714; and after airplane delivery, during a maintenance operation on Model FALCON 900EX airplane having S/N 177.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Affected Actuators on Model FALCON 900EX Airplanes Model
  • FALCON 900EX
  • airplane having
  • S/N—
  • With actuator part no.
  • (P/N)—
  • And actuator S/N—
    177 103117-06 5003 265 103117-06 5002 266 103117-05 5000 103117-06 5007 267 103117-05 5001 268 103117-05 5004 269 103117-05 5005 103117-06 5011 270 103117-06 5012 103117-13 5017 272 103117-05 5010 103117-14 5016 273 103117-13 5014 103117-14 5020
    Figure 2 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Affected Actuators on Model FALCON 2000EX Airplanes Model
  • FALCON 2000EX
  • airplane having
  • S/N—
  • With actuator P/N— And actuator S/N—
    243 103151-08 5002 246 103151-07 5000 103151-08 5003 247 103151-07 5001 103151-08 5006 248 103151-07 5004 103151-08 5007 249 103151-07 5005 103151-08 5012 250 103151-07 5008 103151-08 5013 251 103151-07 5009 103151-08 5014 252 103151-07 5011 103151-08 5016 253 103151-07 5010 103151-08 5015 254 103151-08 5017 103151-07 5018 255 103151-07 5019 103151-08 5022 256 103151-07 5021 103151-08 5023 257 103151-08 5024 103151-07 5026 258 103151-07 5027 103151-08 5033 260 103151-08 5032 103151-07 5035 261 103151-08 5037 103151-07 5041 262 103151-08 5039 103151-07 5047 263 103151-08 5044 103151-09 5064 702 103151-07 5029 703 103151-07 5034 103151-08 5042 704 103151-08 5036 103151-07 5040 705 103151-08 5038 103151-07 5046 706 103151-08 5043 103151-07 5048 707 103151-07 5054 103151-08 5057 708 103151-08 5045 103151-07 5050 709 103151-08 5074 710 103151-07 5051 103151-08 5053 714 103151-09 5065 103151-10 5067
    (h) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no aileron servo actuator having a P/N and S/N listed in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD or figure 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD is allowed to be installed on any airplane, unless the mark “D1” is included on the actuator repair placard.

    Note 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD:

    The mark “D1” on an aileron servo actuator repair placard indicates that the affected part has been refurbished by an approved maintenance organization and is qualified as a serviceable part.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, 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: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1139. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0184, dated August 7, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5594.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.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 April 8, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09003 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5423; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-09-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164, PW4164-1D, PW4168, PW4168-1D, PW4168A, PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by several instances of fuel leaks on PW engines installed with the Talon IIB combustion chamber configuration. This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive inspections of the affected fuel nozzles and their replacement with parts eligible for installation. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel nozzles, which could lead to engine fire and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-8770; fax: 860-565-4503. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5423; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Besian Luga, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7750; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5423; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-09-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    PW reported nine occurrences of fuel leaks on PW engines with the Talon IIB combustion chamber configuration. The subsequent investigation of these fuel leaks determined that the leak occurs at the brazed joint interface on the fuel injector support (fuel nozzle) between the inlet fitting and the nozzle support pad. Cracks are the result of thermal mechanical fatigue due to high thermal gradients on engines equipped with the Talon IIB combustor. The cracking may be aggravated by a laser tack weld that holds the nozzle fitting in place during the braze process. This process change, which adds this laser weld, was introduced to fuel nozzle, part number 51J345, in December 2008.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-100-A73-45, dated February 16, 2016. The ASB describes procedures for inspecting and replacing the fuel nozzles. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive inspections and replacement of the affected fuel nozzles.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 72 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate 2.2 hours per engine to comply with this proposed inspection and 48 hours to replace the fuel nozzle when it is replaced. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate that parts cost would be $15,780 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,443,384.

    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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    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): Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. FAA-2016-5423; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-09-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 20, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW):

    (1) PW4164, PW4168, and PW4168A model engines that have incorporated PW Service Bulletin (SB) PW4G-100-72-214, dated December 15, 2011, or PW SB PW4G-100-72-219, Revision No. 1, dated October 5, 2011, or original issue, and have fuel nozzles, part number (P/N) 51J345, installed;

    (2) PW4168A model engines with Talon IIA outer combustion chamber assembly, P/N 51J100, and fuel nozzles, P/N 51J345, with serial numbers CGGUA19703 through CGGUA19718 or CGGUA22996 and higher, installed;

    (3) PW4168A-1D and PW4170 model engines with engine serial numbers P735001 thru P735190 and fuel nozzles, P/N 51J345, installed; and

    (4) PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 model engines that have incorporated PW SB PW4G-100-72-220, Revision No. 4, dated September 30, 2011, or earlier revision, and have fuel nozzles, P/N 51J345, installed.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by nine instances of fuel leaks on PW engines with the Talon IIB combustion chamber configuration installed. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel nozzles, which could lead to engine fire and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

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

    (1) Within 800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter within every 800 flight hours accumulated on the fuel nozzles, do the following:

    (i) Inspect all fuel nozzles, P/N 51J345. Use Part A of PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-100-A73-45, dated February 16, 2016, to do the inspection.

    (ii) For any fuel nozzle that fails the inspection, before further flight, remove and replace it with a part that is eligible for installation.

    (2) At the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at each engine shop visit, remove all fuel nozzles, P/N 51J345, unless fuel nozzles were replaced within the last 100 flight hours. Use Part B of PW ASB PW4G-100-A73-45, dated February 16, 2016, to replace the fuel nozzles with parts eligible for installation.

    (f) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” means the induction of an engine into the shop for any maintenance.

    (2) For the purpose of this AD, a part that is “eligible for installation” is a fuel nozzle, with a P/N other than 51J345, that is FAA-approved for installation or a fuel nozzle, P/N 51J345, that meets the requirements of Part A, paragraph 4.B., or Part B, paragraph 1.B. of PW ASB PW4G-100-A73-45, dated February 16, 2016.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

    (h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Besian Luga, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7750; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) PW ASB PW4G-100-A73-45, dated February 16, 2016, can be obtained from PW using the contact information in paragraph (h)(3) of this proposed rule.

    (3) For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-8770; fax: 860-565-4503.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 13, 2016. Carlos Pestana, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09122 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 304 RIN 3084-AB34 Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its regular review of all its rules and guides, and in response to Congressional amendments to the Hobby Protection Act (“Hobby Act” or “Act”), the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) proposes to amend its Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act (“Rules”), and seeks comment on its proposals.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Hobby Protection Rules Review” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/hobbyprotectionrules by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) summarizes the Hobby Act, the Rules, and the recent amendments to the Hobby Act. It also summarizes the comments the Commission received in response to its 2014 request for comment and explains why the Commission proposes amendments. Additionally, it poses questions soliciting further comment. It asks, in particular, whether the proposed amendments appropriately implement Congressional changes to the Act, and what regulatory burden the proposed amendments may impose. Finally, the NPRM sets forth the Commission's regulatory analyses under the Regulatory Flexibility and Paperwork Reduction Acts, as well as the text of the proposed amendments.

    II. Background

    On November 29, 1973, President Nixon signed the Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2101-2106. The Hobby Act requires manufacturers and importers of “imitation political items” 1 to “plainly and permanently” mark them with the “calendar year” the items were manufactured. Id. 2101(a). The Hobby Act also requires manufacturers and importers of “imitation numismatic items” 2 to “plainly and permanently” mark these items with the word “copy.” Id. 2101(b). The Hobby Act further directed the Commission to promulgate regulations for determining the “manner and form” that imitation political items and imitation numismatic items are to be permanently marked with the calendar year of manufacture or the word “copy.” Id. 2101(c).

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

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

    In 1975, the Commission issued Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act, 16 CFR part 304.3 The Rules track the definitions used in the Hobby Act and implement that Act's “plain and permanent” marking requirements by establishing where the item should be marked, the sizes and dimensions of the letters and numerals to be used, and how to mark incusable and nonincusable items.4 In 1988, the Commission amended the Rules to provide additional guidance on the minimum size of letters for the word “copy” as a proportion of the diameter of coin reproductions.5 53 FR 38942 (Oct. 4, 1988).

    3 40 FR 5459 (Feb. 6, 1975).

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

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

    The Commission reviewed the Rules in 2004. That review yielded many comments proposing that the Commission expand coverage to products beyond the scope of the Hobby Act and address problems involving the selling (or passing off) as originals of reproductions of antiques and other items not covered by the Act. However, the Commission retained the Rules without change, noting that it did not have authority under the Hobby Act to expand the Rules as requested. 69 FR 9943 (Mar. 3, 2004).

    In 2014, the Commission again requested public comment on the Rules' costs, benefits, and overall impact.6 That comment period closed on September 22, 2014.

    6 79 FR 40691 (July 14, 2014).

    On December 19, 2014, President Obama signed into law H.R. 2754, the Collectible Coin Protection Act (“CCPA”), a short set of amendments to the Hobby Act. The CCPA amends the Act's scope to address not only the distribution by manufacturers and importers of imitation numismatic items, but also “the sale in commerce” of such items. CCPA, Public Law 113-288, § 2(1)(A) (2014). Additionally, the CCPA makes it a violation of the Hobby Act “for a person to provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller if that person knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is engaged in any act or practice” violating the marking requirements of the Act. Public Law 113-288, § 2(1)(B).7

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

    III. Summary of Comments and Analysis

    The Commission received six comments in response to its 2014 FRN.8 Members of the general public submitted four comments; a self-identified professional coin and paper money dealer offered a comment; and an attorney with asserted experience pertaining to coins and other collectibles submitted a comment in his personal capacity. As discussed below, commenters who addressed the issue agreed that the Commission should retain the Rules. Some suggested modifying the Rules to expand their scope or to clarify their applicability to certain kinds of collectible coins.

    8 The comments are available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-577. By comparison, the Commission received 350 comments in its 2004 regulatory review of the Rules, but the vast majority of those were form letters from individual collectors. 69 FR at 9943.

    A. Support for the Rules

    All of the commenters who addressed the issue supported the Rules; none advocated rescinding them. For example, one commenter stated, “there [is] a continuing need for the Rules as currently promulgated because . . . they do protect consumers.” 9 Another described the Act as “a boon to collectors of legitimate numismatic and political items,” and stated: “Over the years the presence of the law and supporting regulations has provided guidance for makers of replicas.” 10 A dealer stated that the Act “is a brilliant effort to help protect the consumer from fraud, and . . . is well thought of across all [l]egitimate [d]ealers.” 11

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

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

    11 Comment of Kenneth Tireman, supra.

    B. Suggested Rules Modifications

    Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.12 Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,13 expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,14 or ban such items altogether.15 Several commenters also reported an increase in imports of unmarked replica coins from Asia, and urged that the Rules cover such sales.16 One commenter specifically suggested expanding the Rules' scope to incorporate the provisions of the CCPA before Congress adopted it and sent it to the President for his signature.17

    12See Comment of Luke Burgess, supra (offering example of Roosevelt dime altered to read “1945,” noting that Roosevelt dime was not introduced until 1946, and noting that such coins are not intended to be used as currency).

    13See id.

    14See Comment of Daniel Carr, available at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/17/comment-00010; Comment of Armen Vartian, available at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011.

    15See Comment of Luke Burgess, supra.

    16See, e.g., Comments of Daniel Carr, Roger Burdette, supra.

    17See Comment of Armen Vartian, supra.

    C. Analysis

    In light of the record, the Commission concludes there is a continuing need for the Rules, and the costs they impose on businesses are reasonable. Commenters who addressed the subject supported the Rules, and no dealer or business expressed the view that the Rules should be rescinded or revised to reduce costs. Moreover, Congress' recent expansion of the Hobby Act's scope (addressing, among others, persons who substantially assist or support manufacturers, importers, or sellers that violate the Act's marking requirements) also appears to evince Congressional sentiment that the Rules have not imposed undue costs upon businesses or the public. Hence, both the record and recent Congressional action support retaining the Rules.

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

    However, the Commission does not propose amending its Rules to incorporate the CCPA's provisions regarding the proper location for lawsuits or the protection of the trademark rights of collectible certification services, summarized supra note 6, as the existing Rules do not address, relate to, or conflict with those provisions.

    Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `or[i]ginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).18

    18See also 92 F.T.C. at 217-18 (providing further guidance on scope of Act, defining Act's reference to “coinage or issue which has been used in exchange” to mean coins that have been “actively traded in the marketplace and used as a means of payment”) (ellipsis omitted).

    Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223. By contrast, the federal statute prohibiting the alteration of U.S. coins requires fraudulent intent. 18 U.S.C. 331. Accordingly, the Commission finds no grounds to adopt a rule banning fantasy coins.

    IV. Proposed Amendments

    As the CCPA's amendments appear to require conforming changes, the Commission proposes modifying the Rules' “Applicability” section, set forth at 16 CFR 304.3. The specific text of these proposed modifications is set forth at the end of this NPRM.

    V. Request for Comment

    The Commission solicits comment on the following specific questions:

    (A) What costs or burdens would the proposed Rules amendments impose and on whom? How many retailers, manufacturers, and importers are subject to the Rules? The Commission in particular seeks information on any burden each amendment would impose on small businesses and entities. How many small entities are affected by the Rules, what are their annual revenues, and what is their size in terms of number of employees?

    (B) What evidence supports your answers?

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with a proposed rule unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603-605.

    FTC staff estimates that approximately 5,000 retailers, manufacturers, and importers of imitation numismatic items are subject to the Rules.19 FTC staff further estimates that there are fewer manufacturers and importers of imitation political items, from 500 to 2,500.20 These are general estimates, and recognizing them as such, the Commission invites public input regarding how many retailers, manufacturers, and importers are subject to the Rules. Commission staff understands from a prominent political memorabilia membership organization, the American Political Items Collectors, that a disclosure that an item is an imitation is built into the manufacturing process. Entities compliant with the Rules mark replica coins with “COPY,” and replica political items with the date of manufacture, when those items are made. The entities subject to these burdens will be classified as small businesses if they satisfy the Small Business Administration's relevant size standards, as determined by the Small Business Size Standards component of the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”).21 Potentially relevant NAICS size standards, which are either minimum annual receipts or number of employees, are as follows:

    19 This estimate rests on an industry publication's assessment of the general rare coin industry; comparable statistics are not as readily available regarding the size of the imitation numismatic item industry, which offers and sells replicas of rare and other coins. See generally Numismatic Guaranty Corp., “Coin Collecting: How Large is the Rare Coin Market?,” Coin Week (Dec. 19, 2013), http://www.coinweek.com/education/coin-collecting-large-rare-coin-market.

    20 This estimate reflects FTC staff's assessment that the political memorabilia industry is comparatively smaller than that for coins, with fewer public membership or trade organizations.

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

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

    The Commission is unable to conclude how many of the above-listed entities qualify as small businesses. The record in this proceeding does not contain information regarding the size of the entities subject to the Rules. Moreover, the relevant NAICS categories include many entities that do not engage in activities covered by the Rules. Therefore, estimates of the percentage of small businesses in those categories would not necessarily reflect the percentage of small businesses subject to the Rules in those categories. Accordingly, the Commission invites comments regarding the number of entities in each NAICS category that are subject to the Rules, and revenue and employee data for those entities.

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

    (1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered.

    As explained above, the proposed amendment is intended to harmonize the Rules with the Hobby Act, as amended by the CCPA.

    (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule.

    See above. The proposed amendment, to 16 CFR 304.3, would extend the Rules' coverage to persons engaged in the sale in commerce of imitation numismatic items, and persons or entities that provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller of covered items under certain circumstances. The legal basis for this amendment is the CCPA, which expanded the scope of the Hobby Act.

    (3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply.

    As noted earlier, staff estimates that approximately 5,000 retailers, manufacturers, and importers of imitation numismatic items are subject to the Rules, and from 500 to 2,500 manufacturers and importers of imitation political items are subject to the Rules. Commission staff seek further comments and data on this general estimate.

    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

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

    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.

    Although the Hobby Act expressly does not preempt other Federal or state law, see 15 U.S.C. 2105, Commission staff is not aware of any other relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the Rules or the proposed amendments to the Rules. See 16 CFR 340.4 (noting that the Rules do not substitute for or limit other statutes and laws that, inter alia, prohibit the reproduction of genuine currency, i.e., counterfeiting). Commission staff invite further comment or information, if any, on this issue.

    (6) Any significant alternatives to the proposed rule, to the extent they would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, such as different compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small entities, clarification, consolidation, or simplification of such requirements, or the use of performance rather than design standards, or a small entity exemption.

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

    VIII. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their Advisors

    Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications respecting the merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor will be placed on the public record. See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).

    IX. Instructions for Submitting Comments

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 1, 2016. Write “Hobby Protection Rules Review” on the comment. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information.

    In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you must follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comments to be withheld from the public record. Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comment online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/hobbyprotectionrules, by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Hobby Protection Rules Review” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier, or overnight service. If you prefer to deliver your comment, deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all responsive public comments that it receives on or before July 1, 2016. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    X. Proposed Rule Language List of Subjects in 16 CFR 304

    Hobbies, Labeling, Trade practices.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR part 304 as follows:

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

    15 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.

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

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

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09103 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0276] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Lake of the Ozarks, Lakeside, MO AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation for certain waters of the Lake of the Ozarks. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Lakeside, MO, during a powerboat race on June 4, 2016. This proposed rulemaking would designate prohibited areas for the race course and associated safety buffer, spectator areas, and location for vessels to transit during the race at no wake speeds. Deviation from the established special local regulation must be authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0276 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2332, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On March 16, 2016, the Lake Race Steering Committee notified the Coast Guard that it will be hosting a powerboat race from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. on June 4, 2016. This is the third year for this event and the sponsor has indicated the intent to host this event annually. The Coast Guard will work with the sponsor for future occurrences and may propose to add this event and special local regulation to the list of permanently recurring events for future years to eliminate the need for a separate rulemaking each year. For this year, on June 4, several heats are planned to occur throughout the day in the four-mile race course located on the Lake of the Ozarks Osage Branch. Hazards from the powerboat race include capsizing of participating vessels and loss of control of participating vessels. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Upper Mississippi River has determined that potential hazards associated with the powerboat race would be a safety concern.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the powerboat race. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. on June 4, 2016, designating the race course and location of spectator areas. Vessels transiting near the course would be restricted to transiting at the slowest safe speed. This special local regulation would cover navigable waters on the Lake of the Ozarks Osage Branch between miles 0 and 4. The Coast Guard has also posted a map depicting the location and restricted areas for this special local regulation in the docket. Six anchorage areas for spectators will be designated and are also shown on the map and labeled as A through F. This map may be viewed as indicated under the ADDRESSESS section. The duration of the regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the power boat race, scheduled from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. No vessel or person would be permitted to deviate from the special local regulation without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around the race course and spectators will have designated locations to view the race. Moreover, the Coast Guard would include event information in the Local Notice to Mariners, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to deviate from the regulation.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation designating the race course, location of spectator area, and location for vessels to transit during the race at slowest safe speed. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.T08-0276 to read as follows:
    § 100.T08-0276 Special Local Regulation; Lake of the Ozarks; Lakeside, MO.

    (a) Location. The following areas are regulated areas: (1) Lake of the Ozarks Osage Branch between miles 0 and 4; the Bagnell Dam and Birdsong Hollow Cove, covering the entire width of the branch. Access to the race course and associated safety buffer area will be prohibited to authorized vessels only. The safety buffer area for the course will be marked with blue buoy markers. Vessels transiting outside of the safety buffer area shall proceed at no wake speed. See attached map for additional information on location.

    (2) Six designated areas will be available for spectators for the duration of the races. The designated anchorage areas will be marked with blue and yellow buoy marker. They are labeled A-F on the attached map. The anchorage areas are located a minimum of 100 feet outside the race course safety buffer area marked with blue buoy markers. The six anchorages are located in the following areas: Branch Rd Point; Emerald Ln Point; Lotell Hollow Cove; McCoy Branch Cove; west of Duck Head Point; and Jennings Branch Cove. In addition to the listed designated anchorages, vessels may also anchor inside the protective coves.

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

    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in § 100.35 of this part, deviation from the regulations described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Upper Mississippi River or designated representative.

    (2) To seek permission to deviate from the regulation, contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative via VHF-FM ch 16 or by calling Sector Upper Mississippi River at 314-269-2332.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 4, 2016.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. M.L. Malloy, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09096 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. USCG-2014-0142] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Special Anchorage Areas, Marina del Rey Harbor, California AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; request for comments and change in comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces a public meeting to receive comments on a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the special anchorage in Marina del Rey Harbor, California. Based on the comments received in response to the NPRM that was published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2014, we published a supplemental NPRM proposing to amend the shape and reduce the size of the special anchorage in Marina del Rey Harbor, California. Additionally, we propose to clarify the language in the note section of the existing regulation.

    DATES:

    A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, from 6 to 7:30 p.m. to provide an opportunity for oral comments. Written comments and related material may also be submitted to Coast Guard personnel specified at that meeting. The comment period for the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking will close April 30, 2016. All comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 30, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at Burton W. Chace Park Community Room, 13650 Midanao Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292, telephone 310-305-9595.

    You may submit written comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-0142 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions concerning the meeting or the proposed rule, please call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Colleen Patton Waterways Management Branch, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone 510-437-5984, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background and Purpose

    We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on May 28, 2014 (79 FR 30509), entitled “Anchorage Regulations: Subpart A—Special Anchorage Areas, Marina del Rey Harbor, California.” That NPRM proposed to disestablish the special anchorage area. In response to comments received, we published a supplemental NPRM (81 FR 10156, February 29, 2016) to retain the special anchorage, but amend the shape and reduce the size of the anchorage to remove the anchorage area from a location where it could endanger vessel traffic. We have concluded that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking. Therefore, we are publishing this document announcing a public meeting and changing the end of the comment period from April 14, 2016, to April 30, 2016.

    You may view the supplemental NPRM in our online docket, in addition to supporting documents prepared by the Coast Guard and comments submitted thus far by going to http://www.regulations.gov. Once there, insert “USCG-2014-0142” in the “Keyword” box and click “Search.”

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments either orally at the meeting or in writing. If you bring written comments to the meeting, you may submit them to Coast Guard personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    Comments submitted after the meeting must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 30, 2016. 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.

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Information on Service for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact Lieutenant Junior Grade Colleen Patton at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard will hold a public meeting regarding its “Anchorage Regulations: Subpart A—Special Anchorage Areas, Marina del Rey Harbor, California” proposed rule on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., at Burton W. Chace Park Community Room, 13650 Mindanao Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292, telephone 310-305-9595. Public parking lots are available on a pay basis. For Public transit information to the Community Room, contact the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) at 323-466-3876 or search at http://www.metro.net for additional information. We will provide a written summary of the meeting and additional comments received at the meeting in the docket. The meeting may conclude before the allotted time if all who have come to submit oral comments have done so before 7:30 p.m.

    Dated: March 24, 2016. J.A. Servidio, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09171 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0242] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Minneapolis, MN AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the Upper Mississippi River between miles 853.2 and 854.2. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Minneapolis, MN, during a fireworks display on July 23, 2016. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0242 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2332, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On March 18, 2016, Marketing Minneapolis notified the Coast Guard that they will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 23, 2016, for the official civic celebration of the City of Minneapolis. The sponsor has indicated the intent to host this event and related fireworks display annually. The Coast Guard will work with the sponsor for future occurrences and may propose to add this safety zone to the list of permanently recurring safety zones for future years to eliminate the need for a separate rulemaking each year. For this year, on July 23, the fireworks are to be launch from the Third Avenue Highway Bridge over the Mississippi River. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone between miles 853.2 and 854.2 as the fireworks being shot from the southern side of the Third Avenue Highway Bridge toward the south. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters between miles 853.2 and 854.2 before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 23, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters between miles 853.2 and 854.2 on the Upper Mississippi River in Minneapolis, MN. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. During the evening vessel traffic is normally low in this area. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Safety Marine Information Broadcast via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T08-0242 to read as follows:
    § 165.08-0242 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River between miles 853.2 and 854.2; Minneapolis, MN.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Upper Mississippi River between miles 853.2 and 854.2, from surface to bottom, Minneapolis, MN.

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

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

    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River at 314-269-2332. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 23, 2016.

    (e) Informational Broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. M.L. Malloy, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09097 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 3 RIN 2900-AP48 Extra-Schedular Evaluations for Individual Disabilities AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its adjudication regulation pertaining to extra-schedular consideration of a service-connected disability in exceptional compensation cases. In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that VA's regulation, as written, requires VA to consider the combined effect of two or more service-connected disabilities when determining whether to refer a disability evaluation for extra-schedular consideration. VA, however, has long interpreted its regulation to provide an extra-schedular evaluation for a single disability, not the combined effect of two or more disabilities. This proposed amendment will clarify VA's regulation pertaining to exceptional compensation claims such that an extra-schedular evaluation is available only for an individual service-connected disability but not for the combined effect of more than one service-connected disability.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted through www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP48—Extra-schedular evaluations for individual disabilities.” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1068, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment (This is not a toll-free number). In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Li, Chief, Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700 (This is not a toll-free telephone number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United State Court of Appeals noted in Menegassi v. Shinseki that Congress has given VA the authority to interpret its own regulations under its general rulemaking authority, citing 38 U.S.C. 501. 638 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Currently, 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) provides that, “[t]o accord justice . . . to the exceptional case where the schedular evaluations are found to be inadequate,” the Under Secretary for Benefits (USB) or the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service is authorized “to approve . . . an extra-schedular evaluation commensurate with the average earning capacity impairment due exclusively to the service-connected disability or disabilities. The governing norm in these exceptional cases is: A finding that the case presents such an exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards.”

    In Johnson v. McDonald, the Court explained that the plain language of § 3.321(b)(1) using the plural forms of the “schedular evaluations” and “disabilities” is unambiguous and requires that VA consider the need for extra-schedular review by evaluating the collective impact of two or more service-connected disabilities, in addition to evaluating the effect of a single service-connected disability. 762 F.3d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2014)., that Id. at 1365-66.

    The history of 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) reveals that Federal Circuit's interpretation does not accurately reflect VA's intent in issuing the regulation. Since 1936, VA has interpreted § 3.321(b)(1) to provide for an extra-schedular evaluation for each service-connected disability for which the schedular rating is inadequate based upon the regulatory criteria. Section 3.321(b)(1) was originally promulgated as R & PR 1307, instructing that correspondence from a field office to the Director of the Compensation Service alleging that the rating schedule provides inadequate or excessive ratings in an individual case will contain a statement of facts indicating as clearly as possible the extent to which the reduction in actual earnings is due to the service-connected disability and the extent to which this reduction would probably affect the average worker, in occupations similar to the claimant's preenlistment occupation, suffering a similar disability. R & PR 1307(B) and (C)(1930).

    In 1936, R & PR 1307 was recodified as R & PR 1142, requiring a submitting agency to provide a recommendation concerning service connection and evaluation of every disability, under the applicable schedules as interpreted by the submitting agency. Then in 1954, this sentence was deleted from the regulation but later incorporated in the Department of Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Manual 8-5 Revised, para. 47.j. (Jan. 6, 1958). Thus, for 28 years following promulgating R & PR 1307(B) and (C), the VA predecessor regulations to § 3.321(b)(1) and the Manual provided for an extra-schedular evaluation based upon the effects of a single “disability,” not “disabilities”.

    In 1961, VA recodified R & PR 1307(B) and (C) as 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) and added a sentence authorizing an extra-schedular evaluation commensurate with the average earning capacity impairment due exclusively to the service-connected disability or disabilities. The VBA Manual provision regarding extra-schedular evaluations remained virtually the same from 1992 through June 30, 2015, when it was revised to implement Johnson. In 1992, the Manual was revised by adding the word “individual” before the word “disability(ies)” in paragraph 3.09, Submission For Extra-Schedular Consideration. M21-1, Part VI, para. 3.09 (Mar. 17, 1992). As amended, paragraph 3.09 required preparation of a memorandum to be submitted to Central Office whenever the schedular evaluations are considered to be inadequate for an individual disability(ies).

    VBA Manual M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, chpt. 6, § B, para. 4 (Aug. 3, 2011), stated in pertinent part:

    a. Extra-Schedular Evaluations in Compensation Claims

    Consider the issue of entitlement to an extra-schedular evaluation in compensation claims under

    • 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) only where — there is evidence of exception or unusual circumstances indicating that the rating schedule may be inadequate to compensate for the average impairment of earning capacity due to disability (for example, marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization) c. Submitting Compensation Claims for Extra-Schedular Consideration

    Submit compensation claims to C&P Service for extra-schedular consideration under 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) or 38 CFR 4.16(b) if

    • the schedular evaluations are considered to be inadequate for an individual disability
    See Thun v. Shinseki, 572 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (referring to this Manual provision as VA's interpretation of 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1)), aff'd 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008). Thus, VA's interpretation of section 3.321(b)(1) as manifested by the VBA Manual was consistent for 22 years, until the Johnson decision.

    In addition, a 1996 General Counsel precedent opinion regarding the applicability of the regulation reads that “[s]ection 3.321(b)(1) applies when the rating schedule is inadequate to compensate for the average impairment of earning capacity from a particular disability.” VAOPGCPREC 6-96, para. 7, Add. 7. The opinion instructs that “when a claimant submits evidence that his or her service-connected disability affects employability in ways not contemplated by the rating schedule, the Board should consider the applicability of section 3.321(b)(1).” Id.

    In 2013, VA published a proposed revision to 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) as part of its Regulation Rewrite Project. 78 FR 71042, 71217 (Nov. 27, 2013). Consistent with VA's long-standing interpretation, that revision proposes to clarify that extra-schedular evaluations may be assigned for a specific service-connected disability, as distinguished from the combined effects of multiple disabilities. Id. However, that proposed rule was published before the Johnson decision. We are therefore proposing a version of § 3.321(b)(1) in this rulemaking that differs from the 2013 proposed rule in order to respond specifically to the Federal Circuit's analysis of the plain language of the current regulation. VA proposes to amend § 3.321(b)(1) to clarify that § 3.321(b)(1) provides an extra-schedular evaluation for an individual service-connected disability that is so exceptional or unusual due to factors such as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization as to render evaluation under the rating schedule impractical.

    VA proposes to retain the first sentence of current § 3.321(b)(1), which states that ratings will be based on the average impairments of earning capacity and that the Secretary shall periodically readjust the rating schedule, because it explains the limited scope of section 3.321(b)(1). Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1155, VA is authorized to “adopt and apply a schedule of rating of reductions in earning capacity from specific injuries or combination of injuries. The ratings shall be based, as far as practicable, upon the average impairments of earning capacity in civil occupations,” rather than consideration of a veteran's actual wages or income. Based upon section 1155, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) rejected the argument that an inadequacy in the rating schedule for purposes of 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) can be established solely by showing an asserted gap between a veteran's income and the income of similarly qualified workers in the same field. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111, 116 (2008). The Veterans Court explained that extra-schedular consideration cannot be used to undo the approximate nature that results from the rating system based on average impairment of earning capacity authorized by Congress. Id. Consistent with section 1155 and Thun, VA's proposed rule is not intended to authorize personalized ratings as a routine matter but only to provide for limited discretion in cases where the schedule is inadequate to compensate for average impairment of earning capacity.

    VA proposes to revise the second sentence of 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) to specify that extra-schedular consideration is available if “the schedular evaluation is inadequate to rate a single service-connected disability.” We have added this language to explain that section 3.321(b)(1) would apply only to a single disability rather than upon consideration of multiple service-connected disabilities as the Federal Circuit held in Johnson. We have also deleted the phrase “or disabilities” at the end of the second sentence for the same purpose. VA also proposes to revise the last sentence of the regulation to clarify that the governing norm is a finding that “application of the regular schedular standards is impractical because the referred disability is so exceptional or unusual due to such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization.”

    Other parts of the current § 3.321(b)(1) have been rewritten for clarity, including the heading of § 3.321(b), but the concepts remain unchanged. VA proposes to delete the reference to the Under Secretary for Benefits (USB) in current § 3.321(b)(1). Although the regulation has long allowed for referral for USB extra-schedular consideration, in practice VA service centers refer these claims to the Director of the Compensation Service. This revision brings authority in line with actual practice. The Director of the Compensation Service may delegate to other Compensation Service personnel the authority to approve extra-schedular ratings and, currently, such authority has been given to certain personnel in the Policy Staff of the Compensation Service. This is consistent with the established principle that VBA personnel are authorized to carry out such functions as may be assigned to them for purposes of administering VA benefits. See 38 CFR 2.6(b)(1), 3.100(a).

    VA's proposed rule is logical and consistent with the regulatory scheme for evaluating disabilities. Individual disabilities are evaluated under criteria in VA's rating schedule describing the effects of specific diseases and injuries. See 38 CFR 4.71-4.150. The ratings assigned for individual conditions are combined into a single “combined evaluation” under a uniform formula set forth in a table. 38 CFR 3.323(a), 4.25. There is plainly a difference between the application of the diverse schedular criteria relating to specific conditions, and the application of a uniform formula for combining individual disability ratings. VA's proposed revision to § 3.321(b)(1), clarifying that that the regulation pertains to a single disability, is consistent with this distinction.

    With respect to evaluation of individual conditions, the rating schedule criteria identify the predominant disabling features of the condition. For example, if VA determines that the condition produces significant disabling effects that are not contemplated by the rating-schedule criteria for that condition, VA may find that the rating-schedule criteria are inadequate in that case. In contrast, no criteria in the rating schedule provide for determining the “adequacy” of an overall combined evaluation that derives from several disabilities and their associated symptoms.

    When VA assigns disability ratings for two or more individual disabilities, those ratings are combined by applying a standard formula provided in 38 CFR 4.25. There are no provisions in the rating schedule describing impairments that would be associated with a particular combination of disabilities determined by using this formula. Accordingly, there are no applicable standards to determine whether the combined rating is adequate to compensate for the combined effects of those disabilities. Indeed, in view of the vast number of potential combinations of disabilities that could arise, it is not feasible to formulate standards. In the absence of any applicable objective standards for evaluating the “adequacy” of an overall combined rating for multiple disabilities, requiring adjudicators to consider the adequacy of combined ratings would lead to inconsistent and highly subjective determinations. Accordingly, consistent with our long-standing interpretation, VA has determined that consideration of extra-schedular ratings is most logically done only at the level of individual disabilities. Any extra-schedular ratings assigned for individual disabilities may then be combined under the standard formula for combining ratings. The proposed language for section 3.321(b)(1) requiring consideration of the adequacy of the schedular evaluations in VA's rating schedule is consistent with the evaluation of individual conditions.

    In addition, statutes and VA's implementing regulations provide additional compensation for the combined effect of more than one service-connected disability. Under 38 U.S.C. 1114(k)-(s), a veteran is entitled to special monthly compensation, in addition to the compensation payable under the VA rating schedule, for certain combinations of disabilities, e.g., anatomical loss or loss of use of both buttocks, both feet, or one hand and one foot, deafness in both ears or blindness in both eyes. See 38 CFR 3.350. In addition, 38 U.S.C. 1160(a) provides that if a veteran has suffered loss of certain paired organs or extremities as a result of service-connected disabilities and non-service-connected disabilities, VA must assign and pay the veteran the applicable rate of compensation as if the combination of disabilities were the result of service-connected disability. See 38 CFR 3.383. Accordingly, in cases where Congress or VA has determined that special rating consideration is warranted based on the combined effects of multiple disabilities, they have expressly specified the manner of considering these combined effects.

    Finally, VA regulations authorize a rating of total disability based on individual unemployability for veterans whose disabilities meet certain criteria. Under 38 CFR 4.16(a), an adjudicator may assign a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability rating for compensation purposes, without referral to any other official, if, in cases of multiple service-connected disabilities, a veteran has one service-connected disability rated at least 40-percent disabling and a combined rating of at least 70 percent and is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as the result of such disability or disabilities. Under 38 CFR 4.16(b), if a veteran's service-connected disabilities do not meet the percentage requirements of section 4.16(a), but the veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of such service-connected disability, the rating board must submit the case to the Director of the Compensation Service for consideration of entitlement to a total disability based on individual unemployability rating. VA has thus prescribed a uniform standard for considering whether the combined effects of multiple disabilities produce total impairment of earning capacity. However, in instances where the inability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation is not shown, VA believes that, to ensure fair and consistent application of rating standards, consideration of extra-schedular ratings should be conducted with respect to individual disabilities rather than the combined effects of multiple disabilities.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of this rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This proposed rule would directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert D. Snyder, Chief of Staff, approved this document on April 11, 2016, for publication.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Veterans.

    Dated: April 13, 2016. Jeffrey Martin, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 3 as follows:

    PART 3—ADJUDICATION Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 3.321 by revising the heading of paragraph (b)., revising paragraph (b)(1), and adding an authority citation at the end of paragraph (b).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 3.321 General rating considerations.

    (b) Extra-schedular ratings in unusual cases. (1) Disability compensation. Ratings shall be based, as far as practicable, upon the average impairments of earning capacity with the additional proviso that the Secretary shall from time to time readjust this schedule of ratings in accordance with experience. To accord justice to the exceptional case where the schedular evaluation is inadequate to rate a single service-connected disability, the Director of the Compensation Service or his or her delegatee, upon field station submission, is authorized to approve on the basis of the criteria set forth in this paragraph (b), an extra-schedular evaluation commensurate with the actual impairment of earning capacity due exclusively to the referred disability. The governing norm in these exceptional cases is a finding by the Director of the Compensation Service or delegatee that application of the regular schedular standards is impractical because the referred disability is so exceptional or unusual due to such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 1155)
    [FR Doc. 2016-08937 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0243; A-1-FRL-9945-11-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Stage I Vapor Recovery Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Vermont. This revision includes regulatory amendments that clarify Stage I vapor recovery requirements at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs). The intended effect of this action is to approve Vermont's revised Stage I vapor recovery regulations. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0243 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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:

    Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1660, fax number (617) 918-0660, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09067 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0821; FRL-9945-10-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Air Permit Procedure Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of portions of ten revisions to the Louisiana New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). These revisions to the Louisiana SIP provide updates to the minor NSR and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit programs in Louisiana contained within the Chapter 5 Permit Procedures and Chapter 6 Regulations on Control of Emissions through the Use of Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) Banking rules as initially submitted on November 15, 1993, and the subsequent rule amendments for Air Permit Procedure revisions submitted through November 3, 2014. The EPA's final action will incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP. The rules generally enhance the SIP and were evaluated in accordance with CAA guidelines for the EPA action on SIP submittals and general rulemaking authority. This proposed action is consistent with the requirements of section 110 of the CAA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0821, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] 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, please contact Stephanie Kordzi, 214-665-7520, [email protected] For 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.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Kordzi, telephone (214) 665-7520, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Stephanie Kordzi at 214-665-7520 or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Summary of State SIP Submittals for Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 Air Permit Program A. November 15, 1993, Submittal B. November 10, 1994, Submittal C. July 25, 1997, Submittal D. June 22, 1998, Submittal E. June 27, 2003, Submittal F. May 5, 2006, Submittal G. November 9, 2007, Submittal H. August 14, 2009, Submittal I. August 29, 2013, Submittal J. November 3, 2014, Submittal II. Evaluation A. Revisions to the NSR Air Permit Procedures B. Does the proposed approval of the Louisiana minor and nonattainment NSR Air Permit procedure revisions interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act? III. Proposed Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary of State SIP Submittals for Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 Air Permit Program

    The EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revisions submitted by the State of Louisiana. The proposed revisions modify Louisiana's minor NSR and NNSR Chapters 5 Permit Procedure and Chapter 6 Regulations on Control of Emissions through the Use of Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) Banking rules enacted at Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.501, 502, 503, 504, 511, 513.A.2., 513.A.3, 513.A.4., 513.A.5., 513.A.6., 513.B., 513.C., 515, 517, 519.A., 519.B., 521, 523, 525, 527, 529, 601, 603, 605, 607, 615, and 619. The revisions provide clarity to the rules, correct contradictory language, update permit application and fee requirements, revise the rules to conform to the latest Louisiana laws, and add to the “Insignificant Activities List”.

    A. November 15, 1993, Submittal

    On November 15, 1993, the LDEQ submitted revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) during the year 1993. It includes final revised regulation enacted at LAC 33:III, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 507, 511, 513, 515, 517, 519, 521, 523, 525, 527, 529, and 533. The EPA is proposing to take action on sections 501, 502, 503, 511, 513, 515, 517, 519, 523, 525, 527, and 529. The EPA already approved section 504 (NNSR Procedures) into the SIP on October 10, 1997, 62 FR 52948. The 504 rules were then subsumed into later SIP approval revisions. The EPA returned sections 505, 507, and 533 due to their association with the Title V operating permit program requirements to the LDEQ on August 4, 2015. The EPA is not taking action and severing section 513.A.1 (which references section 531), section 519.C. (which references section 531), and section 531 regarding public notice. Those specific sections will be addressed in a separate action. The EPA is not taking action and is severing section 501.B.1.d. at this time.

    B. November 10, 1994, Submittal

    On November 10, 1994, the LDEQ submitted revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC published in the Louisiana Register on November 20, 1994. It includes final revised regulations enacted at LAC 33:III, sections 501, 507, 517, 521, 527, and 533. The EPA is proposing to take action on sections 501, 517, 521, and 527. The EPA returned sections 507 and 533 due to their association with the title V operating permit program requirements to LDEQ on August 4, 2015.

    C. July 25, 1997, Submittal

    On July 25, 1997, the LDEQ submitted the 1996 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to LAC 33:III, sections 501, 504, 509, and 517 adopted during 1996. The EPA is proposing action on section 517. The EPA already approved sections 501, 504 and 509 on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451). Section 504 was approved in 1997 as noted above and revisions have been subsumed into the SIP since the EPA's last action approving changes to the 504 rules on September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61260).

    D. June 22, 1998, Submittal

    On June 22, 1998, the LDEQ submitted the 1997 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the year 1997 and revisions to the LAC not previously federally approved. It includes final revised regulation at LAC 33:III, sections 501, 509, and 517. The EPA is proposing action on sections 501 and 517. The EPA already approved section 509 on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451).

    E. June 27, 2003, Submittal

    On June 27, 2003, the LDEQ submitted the 2002 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the year 2002. It includes final revised regulation LAC 33:III, section 501 covering the insignificant activities list. The EPA is proposing action on section 501.

    F. May 5, 2006, Submittal

    On May 5, 2006, the LDEQ submitted the 2005 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the year 2005 and revisions to the LAC not previously federally approved. It includes final revised regulation sections LAC 33:III.501, 504, 505, 507, 509, 517, and 521. The EPA is proposing action on sections 501, 517, and 521. Since the last approval of section 504 in 2002, the EPA approved changes to section 504 as well as section 509 on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451). The EPA returned to LDEQ sections 505 and 507.C.3. due to their association with the title V operating permit program requirements on August 4, 2015. The EPA returned to LDEQ sections 507.H.4 and 507.H.5.d. due to their association with the title V operating permit program requirements on February 2, 2016.

    G. November 9, 2007, Submittal

    On November 9, 2007, the LDEQ submitted the 2006 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the year 2006 and revisions to the LAC not previously federally approved. It includes final revised regulation sections at LAC 33:III.501, 504, 509, 513, 531, and 607. The EPA is proposing action on sections 513.A.2. and 513.A.6. The EPA already approved sections 501, 504, 509, and 607 on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451). The EPA is not taking action and severing section 513.A.1. (which references section 531) and section 531 regarding public notice. Those specific sections will be addressed in a separate action.

    H. August 14, 2009, Submittal

    On August 14, 2009, the LDEQ submitted the 2007 General revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the year 2007 and includes revisions to the LAC not previously federally approved. It includes final revised regulation sections LAC 33:III.501, 504, 505, 506, and 507 contained in Chapter 5. It also includes final revised regulation sections LAC 33:III.603, 605, 607, 613, and 615 contained in Chapter 6. The EPA is proposing action on section 501. The EPA already approved sections 504, 603, 605, 607, 613, and 615 on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451). The EPA already approved section 506 on April 17, 2014, (79 FR 21631). The EPA returned section 505 to LDEQ on February 2, 2016, because it addresses the Acid Rain Program Permitting Requirements, which are implemented in the title V program rather than the SIP. The EPA returned section 507 to LDEQ on February 2, 2016, because it concerns the title V program which is not part of a SIP.

    I. August 29, 2013, Submittal

    On August 29, 2013, the LDEQ submitted the 2008-2010 Volatile Organic Compounds Rule SIP Revision. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the years 2008-2010 and includes revisions to final revised regulation section LAC 33:III.523. The EPA is proposing action on section 523.

    J. November 3, 2014, Submittal

    On November 3, 2014, the LDEQ submitted the 2011-2013 Permit Rule revisions to the SIP. This SIP submittal incorporated revisions to the LAC during the years 2011-2012. It includes final revised regulation sections LAC 33:III.211, 223, 317, 319, 501, 502, 503, 504, 523, 537, 601, 603, 605, 607, 615, 619, and 2132. The EPA is proposing action on sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 523, 601, 603, 605, 607, 615, and 619. The LDEQ withdrew sections 211 and 223 from SIP consideration by letter on December 2, 2015. The EPA is not acting on sections 317, 319, and 2132 because this action only addresses Chapters 5 and 6. The EPA is not taking action on section 537 (AQ286) and revised citation 501.B.2.d.i.(a) (AQ270) because the original 2008-2010 rule revision containing these sections was never submitted to the EPA. The EPA is not taking action and is severing section 501.B.1.d. at this time.

    Table 1 below summarizes the changes that are in the SIP revision submittals. A summary of the EPA's evaluation of each section and the basis for our proposed approval is included in this rulemaking. The accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) includes a detailed evaluation of the submittals and our rationale. The TSD may be accessed online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0821.

    Table 1—Summary of Each NSR SIP Submittal Affected by This Action Title of SIP submittal Date
  • submitted
  • to EPA
  • Date of
  • state
  • adoption
  • Regulations affected
    Air Permit Procedure Revisions 11/15/1993 1993 Sections 501, 502, 503, 511, 513, 515, 517, 519.A., 519.B., 521, 523, 525, 527, and 529. Air Permit Procedure Revisions 11/10/1994 11/20/1994 Sections 501, 517, 521, and 527. Air Permit Procedure Revisions 7/25/1997 1996 Section 517. Air Permit Procedure Revisions 6/22/1998 1997 Sections 501 and 517. Air Permit Procedure Revisions 6/27/2003 2002 Section 501. Air Permit Procedure and ERC Banking Revisions 5/5/2006 2005 Sections 501, 517, and 521. Air Permit Procedure and ERC Banking Revisions 11/9/2007 2006 Section 513. Air Permit Procedure Revisions 8/14/2009 2007 Section 501. 2008-2010 Volatile Organic Compounds Rule 8/29/2013 9/20/2008 Section 523. 2011-2013 Permit Rule SIP Revision 11/3/2014 2011 Sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 523, 601, 603, 605, 615, and 619.
    II. Evaluation A. Revisions to the NSR Air Permit Procedures

    We evaluated the SIP submissions and are proposing approval of the Louisiana Permit Procedures Revisions and ERC Banking Provisions, as identified, beginning with the November 15, 1993, through the November 3, 2014, submissions. The Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and submit to the EPA for approval into the SIP, preconstruction review programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications, collectively referred to as the NSR SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), i.e., “attainment areas”, as well as areas where there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS, i.e., “unclassifiable areas.” The NNSR SIP program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS, i.e., “nonattainment areas.” The Minor NSR SIP program addresses construction or modification activities that do not emit, or have the potential to emit, beyond certain major source thresholds and thus do not qualify as “major” and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is located. This particular SIP action will address the minor NSR and NNSR permitting programs.

    The EPA regulations governing the criteria that states must satisfy for the EPA approval of the NSR programs as part of the SIP are contained in 40 CFR 51.160-51.166. However, the PSD rules are not being evaluated in this action and therefore 40 CFR 51.166 does not provide a basis for a decision in this proposal. In addition, there are several provisions in 40 CFR part 51 that apply generally to all SIP revisions. As stated above, 40 CFR 51.160 establishes the enforceable procedures that all NSR programs must include. 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 require that a SIP revision demonstrate that the adopted rules will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Based upon our evaluation of the submittals, the EPA has concluded that the submittals as ultimately revised meet the requirements of the CAA section 110(a).

    Our evaluation found that May 20, 2012 and November 20, 2012 adopted revisions to the NNSR program, submitted on November 3, 2014 revised the program to address all nonattainment area pollutants and was necessary to ensure the Louisiana NNSR offset bank is able to be used in future instances where the State is designated nonattainment for other criteria pollutants. Prior to this action, the EPA proposed full approval of the major PSD and NNSR permitting program update, (80 FR 50240), specifically those NNSR requirements submitted prior to November 3, 2014. That action was finalized on November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68451).

    Our evaluation of the proposed minor NSR revisions found the proposed revisions address requirements that enhance the SIP. These changes (1) define insignificant activities that will not require permitting; (2) correct contradictory language in the insignificant activities list; (3) provide edits to the Permit Procedure Rule as requested by the EPA; (4) include procedures for incorporating test results; (5) unify and streamline name and ownership changes for all media; and (6) revise references to various LDEQ divisions. All of these changes will help to ensure that the LA Minor NSR rules to meet the CAA requirements.

    B. Does the proposed approval of the Louisiana minor and nonattainment NSR Air Permit procedure revisions interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act?

    We have determined that the regulations submitted to the EPA for approval as SIP revisions meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l). The EPA's conclusion is based upon a line-by-line comparison of the proposed revisions with the federal requirements. The goal is to demonstrate that the proposed revisions will not interfere with the attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of Progress, RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    The EPA prepared a CAA section 110(l) analysis in its review of the proposed list to serve as a basis for demonstrating noninterference for the affected pollutants for any applicable requirement for attainment and reasonable further progress such as: (1) Turning a maintenance area back into a nonattainment area; (2) turning an attainment/unclassifiable area into a nonattainment area; (3) leading to a PSD increment exceedance; (4) causing the nonattainment area to have higher violations; or (5) causing a nonattainment area to have a greater number of NAAQS standard exceedances. This evaluation is contained in the individual tables for each regulatory section and is found in Section IV Conclusion of the TSD. The TSD can be found in the docket for this action. The comparison demonstrates that the changes made to the Louisiana rules reflect either the same regulatory language, or are consistent with the requirements found in the federal rules. Further, the Additional Comments to the table contained in section IV for the proposed revisions to section 501 in the TSD contain supporting technical documentation establishing in detail a CAA section 110(l) analysis regarding the tables of Insignificant Activities defined in section 501. Specifically, the Section 501.B.3, Insignificant Activities list, submitted on 5/5/2006, revised the former submittal 11/10/1994, which was then subsumed by the 6/27/2003 submittal.

    Our finding is based in part on the historic trends of ambient air quality for the NAAQS pollutants, including ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO2), since those pollutants have caused past air quality issues.1 The EPA took into consideration the following factors when making the decision to propose approval into the SIP of the permit exemptions listed in the Insignificant Activities tables in section 501:

    1 Supporting documentation is contained in the monitoring data of ambient air quality for NAAQS criteria for cities located throughout Louisiana. See http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/DIVISIONS/Assessment/AirFieldServices/AmbientAirMonitoringProgram/AmbientAirMonitoringDataandReports.aspx.

    • Compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard has improved state-wide with ozone pollutant concentrations trending downward with an average 23% decrease in ozone since the late 1980's. This average decrease represents air monitoring values in the Louisiana cities of Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, Monroe, New Orleans, and Point Coupee Parish. 8-Hour ozone trends are listed in the table below:

    LA cities 8-Hour ozone (ppb)
  • 1986
  • 8-Hour ozone (ppb)
  • 2015
  • Reduction
  • (%)
  • Baton Rouge 98 71 28 Lake Charles (Calcasieu Parish) 92 67 27 Monroe 73 61 16 New Orleans 89 70 22 Pointe Coupe Parish 85 67 21

    • The Baton Rouge marginal ozone nonattainment area is currently monitoring attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 8-Hour ozone values have dropped from 83 ppb in 2006-2008 down to 71 ppb design value for 2015 in Baton Rouge.

    • Compliance with the SO2 standard has improved significantly state-wide with SO2 pollutant concentrations trending downward with an average 55% decrease in SO2 since the mid 2000's. This average value represents the Louisiana air monitoring locations of Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, Chalmette, Port Allen, Shreveport, and Meraux. SO2 trends are listed in the table below:

    LA cities SO2 (ppb)
  • 2007
  • SO2 (ppb)
  • 2013
  • Reduction
  • (%)
  • Shreveport 21 12 43 Lake Charles 42 32 24 Baton Rouge 65 19 71 Meraux 32 19 41 Chalmette 331 112 66 Port Allen 143 23 84

    • The EPA determined the St. Bernard 2010 SO2 NAAQS nonattainment area was caused primarily by one large source of SO2 emissions, the Rain CII Carbon LLC—Chalmette Coke Plant. The LDEQ is currently preparing a proposed SIP attainment demonstration, “St. Bernard Parish SO 2 Nonattainment Area Louisiana SIP Revision,” which was submitted to the EPA on April 1, 2015, for review. The EPA provided comments and is working with the LDEQ to ensure the SIP revision contains the appropriate emission limits to bring the area into attainment status. The St. Bernard SO2 nonattainment area has documented SO2 pollutant concentrations decreasing from a 331 ppm SO2 design value in 2009 down to a 159 ppm SO2 design value in 2014.

    • Compliance with the Particulate Matter (PM10) standard is maintained and is below regulatory NAAQS levels. PM10 emission concentrations have trended downward an average 25% statewide since the mid 2000's. The average statewide 24-hour PM10 concentration is 28 ug/m3 which is 19% of the NAAQS level for PM10. The average value represents the Louisiana air monitoring locations of Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Chalmette, Shreveport, and Lafayette.

    • Compliance with the average statewide annual PM2.5 standards is maintained with an average annual maximum concentration of 10.8 ug/m3, which is below the average annual primary standard for PM2.5 of 12 ug/m3.

    • The Baton Rouge Capitol air monitor is the only monitor collecting samples and analyzing for Carbon Monoxide (CO). The 2014 annual average CO value was 0.26 ppm and the maximum monitored value was 5.34 ppm which is below the 9 ppm standard (8 hour averaging time).

    Since the list of exempted sources included in the proposed revisions have historically operated without coverage by an air permit and there are no anticipated increases in emissions or in the number of these type of sources resulting from the approval of the exempted list into the SIP, the EPA has determined the possibility of a low level of potential impacts on ambient air quality as a result of the emission sources and activities included in the proposed LAC 33:III section 501 exemptions list and this conclusion is supported by ambient air monitoring trends in the State of Louisiana.

    Our determination is consistent with our assessment of the environmental insignificance of these emissions. In addition, the LDEQ has been carrying out the minor NSR air permitting program based on the codification of their permitting policy without any indication that these permit exempted sources have interfered with attainment or reasonable further progress or increased PSD increment. Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve the exemptions lists in section 501 into the Louisiana SIP.

    Based on supporting air quality monitoring data documenting air quality improvements throughout the State, the EPA proposes to approve Section 501 containing the list of the exempted sources into the Louisiana SIP since it meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and since state agencies are provided the latitude to define the types and sizes of facilities, buildings, structures, or installations subject to review in accordance with 40 CFR 51.160(e). We believe the implementation of this rule will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, maintaining PSD increment, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    III. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes approval of the identified sections of the revisions to the air permitting procedures as submitted as revisions to the Louisiana NSR SIP Permit program on November 15, 1993, November 10, 1994, July 25, 1997, June 22, 1998, June 27, 2003, May 5, 2006, November 9, 2007, August 14, 2009, August 29, 2013, and November 3, 2014, submittals. The EPA has made the determination in accordance with the CAA and the EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.165. Therefore, under section 110 and part C of the Act, and for the reasons presented above and in our accompanying TSD, the EPA proposes approval of the revisions to the Louisiana SIP identified in Table 2 below which summarizes each regulatory citation that is affected by this action.

    Table 2—Summary of Each Regulation That Is Affected by This Action Section Date
  • submitted to
  • EPA as SIP
  • amendment
  • Affected regulation
    Section 501—Scope and Applicability Section 501.A 11/15/1993 Sections 501.A.1. and A.2. Section 501.B 11/15/1993 Sections 501.B.1.a., B.1.b., B.1.c., B.2., B.3., B.4., B.5., B.6., and B.7. 11/10/1994 Sections 501.B.5.A and 501.B.5.B. 6/22/1998 Sections 501.B.3.c. and 501.B.3.d. 6/27/2003 Section 501.B.5. 5/5/2006 Sections 501.B.5, 501.B.32, and 501.D.a.-d. 11/3/2014 Sections 501.B.1.c., 501.B.1.e., 501.B.4.a.i., 501.B.5. Table 1, and 501.B.8. Section 501.C 11/15/1993 Sections 501.C.1., C.2., C.3., C.4., C.5., C.6., C.7., C.8., and C.9. 5/5/2006 Section 501.C.1. 11/9/2007 Sections 501.C.11., C.12., and C.13. 8/14/2009 Section 501.C.1. Section 502—Definitions Section 502 11/15/1993 Section 502 Definitions—Clean Air Act, EPA, Final Permit, Fugitive Emissions, Permit Revision, Permit Renewal, Permitting Authority, Potential to Emit, Proposed Permit, Stationary Source.
  • Portions of definitions as outlined in Technical Support Document for: Emissions Unit, Regulated Air Pollutant, Responsible Official, and title I Modification.
  • 11/3/2014 Section 502.A. Definitions—Nonroad Engine. Section 503—Minor Source Permit Requirements Section 503.A 11/15/1993 Section 503.A. Section 503.B 11/15/1993 Sections 503.B., 503.B.1., 503.B.2., and 503.B.3. 11/3/2014 Section 503.B.2. Section 504—Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Procedures and Offset Requirements in Specified Parishes 504.A 11/3/2014 Sections 504.A.2., 504.A.3., and 504.A.4. 504.D 11/3/2014 Section 504.D.5. 504.F 11/3/2014 Sections 504.F.1., 504.F.2. 504.M 11/3/2014 Sections 504.M.., 504.M.1, 504.M.2.a.-c., 504.M.3., and 504.M.4. Section 511—Emission Reductions Section 511 11/15/1993 Section 511. Section 513—General Permits, Temporary Sources, and Relocation of Portable Facilities Section 513.A 11/15/1993 Sections 513.A.2., 513.A.3., 513.A.4., and 513.A.5. 11/9/2007 Sections 513.A.2., 513.A.6. Section 513.B 11/15/1993 Sections 513.B.1., B.2., B.3., and B.4. Section 513.C 11/15/1993 Sections 513.C.1., 513.C.2., and 513.C.3. Section 515—Oil and Gas Wells and Pipelines Permitting Provisions Section 515 11/15/1993 Section 515. Section 515.A 11/15/1993 Sections 515.A.1., 515.A.2, 515.A.3., 515.A.4., 515.A.5. Section 515.B 11/15/1993 Sections 515.B.1., 515.B.2. Section 517—Permit Applications and Submittal of Information Section 517.A 11/15/1993 Sections 517.A., 517.A.1., 517.A.2., 517.A.3. 6/22/1998 Section 517.A.3. Section 517.B 11/15/1993 Sections 517.B., 517.B.1., 517.B.2., and 517.B.3. Section 517.C 11/15/1993 Section 517.C. Section 517.D 11/15/1993 Sections 517.D., 517.D.1, 517.D.2., 517.D.3., 517.D.4., 517.D.5., 517.D.6., 517.D.7., 517.D.8., 517.D.9., 517.D.10., 517.D.11., 517.D.12., 517.D.13., 517.D.14., 517.D.15., 517.D.16., 517.D.17., and 517.D.18. Section 517.E 11/15/1993 Sections 517.E., 517.E.1., 517.E.2., 517.E.3., 517.E.4., 517.E.5., 517.E.6., 517.E.7., and 517.E.8. Section 517.F 11/15/1993 Sections 517.F., 517.F.1., 517.F.2., 517.F.3., 517.F.4., 517.F.5., 517.F.6., 517.F.7., and 517.F.8. 11/10/1994 Section 517.F.1. 7/25/1997 Section 517.F. Section 517.G 11/15/1993 Section 517.G. 5/5/06 Section 517.G. Section 519—Permit Issuance Procedures for New Facilities, Initial Permits, Renewals and Significant Modifications Section 519.A 11/15/1993 Sections 519.A., 519.A.1., 519.A.2., 519.A.3., and 519.A.4. Section 519.B 11/15/1993 Sections 519.B., 519.B.1., and 519.B.2. Section 521—Administrative Amendments Section 521.A 5/5/06 Section 521.A.3. 11/10/1994 Section 521.A.6. Section 523—Procedures for Incorporating Test Results Section 523.A 11/15/1993 Sections 523.A.1. and A.2. 11/3/2014 Section 523.A.1.b. Section 523.B 11/15/1993 Sections 523.B.1., B.2., B.3., and B.4. 8/29/2013 Sections 523.B.3., 523.B.4., and 523.B.5. Section 525—Minor Modifications Section 525.A 11/15/1993 Sections 525.A., 525.A.1., 525.A.2., and 525.A.3. Section 525.B 11/15/1993 Sections 525.B., 525.B.1., and 525.B.2. Section 527—Significant Modifications Section 527.A 11/15/1993 Sections 527.A., 527.A.1., 527.A.2., and 527.A.3. 11/10/1994 Sections 527.A.2., 527.A.2.c. Section 527.B 11/15/1993 Sections 527.B., 527.B.1., 527.B.2., 527.B.3., 527.B.4., and 527.B.5. 11/10/1994 Section 527.B. Section 529—Reopenings for Cause Section 529.A 11/15/1993 Sections 529.A., 529.A.1., and 529.A.2. Section 529.B 11/15/1993 Sections 529.B., 529.B.1., 529.B.2., 529.B.3., and 529.B.4. Section 601—Purpose Section 601.A 11/3/2014 Section 601.A. Section 603—Applicability Section 603.A 11/3/2014 Section 603.A. Section 603.B 11/3/2014 Section 603.B. Section 605—Definitions Section 605.A 11/3/2014 Section 605.A. Definitions—Bankable Emission Reductions and Offset,
  • Repealed Definitions—Base Case Inventory, Base Line Inventory, Current Total Point-Source Emissions Inventory, Modeled Parishes.
  • Section 607—Determination of Creditable Emission Reductions Section 607.C 11/3/2014 Sections 607.C., 607.C.1., and 607.C.4. Section 615—Schedule for Submitting Applications Section 615.B 11/3/2014 Section 615.B. Section 619—Emission Reduction Credit Bank Section 619.A 11/3/2014 Section 619.A.
    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 7, 2016. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08927 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 131 [EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0804; FRL-9945-03-OW] RIN 2040-AF59 Proposal of Certain Federal Water Quality Standards Applicable to Maine AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes federal Clean Water Act (CWA) water quality standards (WQS) that would apply to certain waters under the state of Maine's jurisdiction. EPA proposes human health criteria (HHC) to protect the sustenance fishing use in those waters in Indian lands and for waters subject to sustenance fishing rights under the Maine Implementing Act (MIA) based on a fish consumption rate that represents an unsuppressed level of fish consumption by the four federally recognized tribes. EPA proposes six additional WQS for waters in Indian lands in Maine, two WQS for all waters in Maine including waters in Indian lands, and one WQS for waters in Maine outside of Indian lands. These proposed WQS take into account the best available science, including local and regional information, as well as applicable EPA policies, guidance, and legal requirements, to protect human health and aquatic life. EPA proposes these WQS to address various disapprovals of Maine's standards that EPA issued in February, March, and June 2015, and to address the Administrator's determination that Maine's disapproved HHC are not adequate to protect the designated use of sustenance fishing for certain waters.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0804 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. EPA is offering two virtual public hearings so that interested parties may also provide oral comments on this proposed rule. The first hearing will be on Tuesday, June 7, 2016 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The second hearing will be on Thursday, June 9, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. For more details on the public hearings and a link to register, please visit http://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/proposed-rule-maine-water-quality-standards.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Brundage, Office of Water, Standards and Health Protection Division (4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1265; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule is organized as follows:

    I. General Information Does this action apply to me? II. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory Background B. EPA's Disapprovals of Portions of Maine's Water Quality Standards C. Scope of Waters D. Applicability of EPA Promulgated Water Quality Standards When Final III. CWA 303(c)(4)(B) Determination of Necessity for Human Health Criteria That Protect Sustenance Fishing IV. Proposed Water Quality Standards A. Proposed WQS for Waters in Indian Lands in Maine and for Waters Outside of Indian Lands in Maine Where the Sustenance Fishing Designated Use Established by 30 M.R.S. 6207(4) and (9) Applies B. Proposed WQS for Waters in Indian Lands in Maine C. Proposed WQS for All Waters in Maine D. Proposed WQS for Waters in Maine Outside of Indian Lands V. Economic Analysis A. Identifying Affected Entities B. Method for Estimating Costs C. Results 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 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 and Advancement Act of 1995 J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) I. General Information Does this action apply to me?

    Entities such as industries, stormwater management districts, or publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States in Maine could be indirectly affected by this rulemaking, because federal WQS promulgated by EPA are applicable to CWA regulatory programs, such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. Citizens concerned with water quality in Maine, including members of the federally recognized Indian tribes in Maine, could also be interested in this rulemaking. Dischargers that could potentially be affected include the following:

    Table 1—Dischargers Potentially Affected by This Rulemaking Category Examples of potentially affected entities Industry Industries discharging pollutants to waters of the United States in Maine. Municipalities Publicly owned treatment works or other facilities discharging pollutants to waters of the United States in Maine. Stormwater Management Districts Entities responsible for managing stormwater runoff in the state of Maine.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities that could be indirectly affected by this action. Any parties or entities who depend upon or contribute to the water quality of Maine's waters could be affected by this proposed rule. To determine whether your facility or activities could be affected by this action, you should carefully examine this proposed rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    II. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory Background 1. Clean Water Act (CWA)

    CWA section 101(a)(2) establishes as a national goal “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, wherever attainable.” These are commonly referred to as the “fishable/swimmable” goals of the CWA. EPA interprets “fishable” uses to include, at a minimum, designated uses providing for the protection of aquatic communities and human health related to consumption of fish and shellfish.1

    1 USEPA. 2000. Memorandum #WQSP-00-03. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2000_10_31_standards_shellfish.pdf.

    CWA section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) directs states to adopt water quality standards (WQS) for waters under their jurisdiction subject to the CWA. CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131 require, among other things, that a state's WQS specify appropriate designated uses of the waters, and water quality criteria to protect those uses that are based on sound scientific rationale. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(1) provide that such criteria “must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.” In addition, 40 CFR 131.10(b) provides that “[i]n designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the state shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters.”

    States are required to review applicable WQS at least once every three years and, if appropriate, revise or adopt new standards (CWA section 303(c)(1)). Any new or revised WQS must be submitted to EPA for review, to determine whether it meets the CWA's requirements, and for approval or disapproval (CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) and (c)(3)). If EPA disapproves a state's new or revised WQS, the CWA provides the state ninety days to adopt a revised WQS that meets CWA requirements, and if it fails to do so, EPA shall promptly propose and then promulgate such standard unless EPA approves a state replacement WQS first (CWA section 303(c)(3) and (c)(4)(A)). If the state adopts and EPA approves a state replacement WQS after EPA promulgates a standard, EPA then withdraws its promulgation. CWA section 303(c)(4)(B) authorizes the Administrator to determine, even in the absence of a state submission, that a new or revised standard is necessary to meet CWA requirements. Upon making such a determination, EPA shall promptly propose, and then within ninety days promulgate, any such new or revised standard unless prior to such promulgation, the state has adopted a revised or new WQS which EPA determines to be in accordance with the CWA.

    Under CWA section 304(a), EPA periodically publishes water quality criteria recommendations for states to consider when adopting water quality criteria for particular pollutants to protect the CWA section 101(a)(2) goal uses. For example, in 2015, EPA updated its 304(a) recommended criteria for human health for 94 pollutants (the 2015 criteria update).2 Where EPA has published recommended criteria, states should consider adopting water quality criteria based on EPA's CWA section 304(a) criteria, section 304(a) criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods (40 CFR 131.11(b)(1)). CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) requires states to adopt numeric criteria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to CWA section 307(a)(1) for which EPA has published 304(a) criteria, as necessary, to support the states' designated uses.

    2 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.

    2. Maine Indian Settlement Acts

    There are four federally recognized Indian tribes in Maine represented by five governing bodies. The Penobscot Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe have reservations and trust land holdings in central and coastal Maine. The Passamaquoddy Tribe has two governing bodies, one on the Pleasant Point Reservation and another on the Indian Township Reservation. The Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Aroostook Band of Micmacs have trust lands further north in the state. To simplify the discussion of the legal framework that applies to each Tribe's territory, EPA will refer to the Penobscot Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe together as the “Southern Tribes” and the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and Aroostook Band of Micmacs as the “Northern Tribes.” EPA acknowledges that these are collective appellations the tribes themselves have not adopted, and the Agency uses them solely to simplify this discussion.

    In 1980, Congress passed the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA) that resolved litigation in which the Southern Tribes asserted land claims to a large portion of the state of Maine. 25 U.S.C. 1721, et seq. MICSA ratified a state statute passed in 1979, the Maine Implementing Act (MIA, 30 M.R.S. 6201, et seq.), which was designed to embody the agreement reached between the state and the Southern Tribes. In 1981, MIA was amended to include provisions for land to be taken into trust for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, as provided for in MICSA. 30 M.R.S. 6205-A; 25 U.S.C. 1724(d)(1). Since it is Congress that has plenary authority as to federally recognized Indian tribes, MIA's provisions concerning jurisdiction and the status of the tribes are effective as a result of, and consistent with, the Congressional ratification in MICSA.

    In 1989, the Maine legislature passed the Micmac Settlement Act (MSA) to embody an agreement as to the status of the Aroostook Band of Micmacs. 30 M.R.S. 7201, et seq. In 1991, Congress passed the Aroostook Band of Micmacs Settlement Act (ABMSA), which ratified the MSA. 25 U.S.C. 1721, Act Nov. 26, 1991, Public Law 102-171, 105 Stat. 1143. One principal purpose of both statutes was to give the Micmacs the same settlement that had been provided to the Maliseets in MICSA. See ABMSA 2(a)(4) and (5). In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit confirmed that the Micmacs and Maliseets are subject to the same jurisdictional provisions in MICSA. Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, 484 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2007). Where appropriate, this preamble discussion will refer to the combination of MICSA, MIA, ABMSA, and MSA as the “settlement acts.”

    As discussed in greater detail in EPA's February 2, 2015, decision disapproving certain Maine WQS in waters in Indian lands, a key purpose of the settlement acts was to confirm and expand the Tribes' land base, in the form of both reservations and trust lands, so that the Tribes may preserve their culture and sustenance practices, including sustenance fishing. For the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation, the settlement acts expressly confirmed an aboriginal right to sustenance fishing in their reservations. See 30 M.R.S. 6207(4).

    The legislative record of the settlement acts makes clear that Congress also intended to ensure the tribes' continuing ability to practice their traditional sustenance lifeways, including fishing, from their trust lands. With regard to the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot trust lands, legislative intent to provide for tribal sustenance fishing practices is, for example, reflected in MIA provisions which grant tribal control of fishing in certain trust waters and require the consideration of tribal sustenance practices in the setting of fishing regulations for the remaining trust waters. See 30 M.R.S. 6207(1), (3). As for the Micmacs and Maliseets, the settlement acts similarly provide for the opportunity to continue their sustenance fishing practices, though subject to more direct state regulation than that of the Passamaquoddy or Penobscot. In its February 2, 2015, decision, EPA concluded that MICSA directly provides the state with jurisdiction to set WQS in the Northern Tribes' trust lands and that MICSA also ratifies provisions of MIA that provide the state with such authority in the Southern Tribes' territories. That decision provided a detailed explanation of the legal basis for the state's jurisdiction to set WQS in waters in Indian lands in Maine. Because of the unique jurisdictional formula Congress ratified in the settlement acts, EPA is in the unusual position of reviewing state WQS in waters in Indian lands.3

    3 Generally, the norm elsewhere in the country is that EPA has authority to set WQS for Indian country waters, with tribes that have obtained treatment in a manner similar to a state under CWA section 518 gaining authority to set WQS for their reservations.

    Having disapproved certain state WQS longer than ninety days ago, as explained in section II.B., EPA is required by the CWA to promptly propose and then promulgate federal standards unless, in the meantime, the state adopts and EPA approves state replacement WQS that address EPA's disapproval.

    B. EPA's Disapprovals of Portions of Maine Water Quality Standards

    On February 2, March 16, and June 5, 2015, EPA disapproved a number of Maine's new and revised WQS. These disapproval letters are available in the docket for this rulemaking. These decisions were prompted by an on-going lawsuit initiated by Maine against EPA. As discussed further below, some of the disapprovals applied only to waters in Indian lands in Maine, while others applied to waters throughout the state or to waters in the state outside of Indian lands.4 EPA concluded that the disapproved WQS did not adequately protect designated uses related to the protection of human health and/or aquatic life. EPA requested that the state revise its WQS to address the issues identified in the disapprovals. The statutory 90-day timeframe provided to the state to revise its WQS has passed with respect to all of the disapproved WQS. The state has filed an amended complaint as part of an ongoing lawsuit challenging EPA's February 2, 2015 disapprovals. Discussed below are those disapprovals for which EPA today proposes new and revised WQS.5

    4 As discussed above, unlike in other states, Maine has the authority to promulgate WQS for waters in Indian lands in Maine, as a result of state and federal statutes that resolved the land claims of tribes in Maine.

    5 EPA's March and June decisions included several disapprovals for which no promulgation is necessary, and therefore those disapprovals are not discussed herein. Those disapprovals related to certain pesticide and chemical discharge provisions, certain exceptions to prohibitions on discharges to Class AA and SA waters, and the reclassification of a 0.3 mile segment of Long Creek that flows through Westbrook, Maine. In addition, EPA is not promulgating WQS related to certain HHC that EPA disapproved for the reasons discussed in section IV.A.1.c.

    1. Disapprovals That Apply Only to Waters in Indian Lands in Maine

    In its February 2015 decision, EPA concluded that MICSA granted the state authority to set WQS in waters in Indian lands. EPA also concluded that in assessing whether the state's WQS were approvable for waters in Indian lands, EPA must effectuate the CWA requirement that WQS must protect applicable designated uses and be based on sound science in consideration of the fundamental purpose for which land was set aside for the tribes under the Indian settlement acts in Maine. EPA found that those settlement acts, which include MICSA and other state and federal statutes that resolved Indian land claims in the state, provide for land to be set aside as a permanent land base for the Indian tribes in Maine, in order for the tribes to be able to continue their unique cultures, including the ability to exercise sustenance fishing practices. Accordingly, EPA interprets the state's “fishing” designated use, as applied to waters in Indian lands, to mean “sustenance fishing” and approved it as such; and EPA approved a specific sustenance fishing right reserved in one of the settlement acts as a designated use for certain tribal reservation waters. Against this backdrop, EPA approved or disapproved all of Maine's WQS as applied to waters in Indian lands after evaluating whether they satisfied CWA requirements as informed by the settlement acts.6 EPA's disapprovals of WQS for waters in Indian lands in Maine were based on two distinct rationales, depending on the WQS.

    6 Because EPA had never previously acted on any Maine WQS for waters in Indian lands, they remained “new or revised” WQS as to those waters, even though EPA had approved many of them for other state waters. They were therefore subject to EPA review and approval or disapproval pursuant to CWA section 303(c).

    First, EPA disapproved Maine's HHC for toxic pollutants based on EPA's conclusion that they do not adequately protect the health of tribal sustenance fishers in waters in Indian lands, because they are not based on the higher fish consumption rates that reflect the tribes' sustenance fishing practices, and, in the case of one HHC, because the cancer risk level was not adequately protective of the sustenance fishing use. These disapprovals, discussed in EPA's February and March decisions, are specifically related to unique aspects of the tribes' use of waters in Indian lands. EPA proposes to promulgate WQS related to the HHC disapprovals as explained in section IV.A.

    Second, EPA, in its March and June decisions, disapproved a number of WQS as applied to waters in Indian lands because those standards, although approved for other waters in Maine many years ago, no longer satisfy CWA requirements (i.e., they do not protect designated uses and/or are not based on sound scientific rationale). EPA proposes to promulgate six WQS related to those disapprovals, which include: (1) Narrative and numeric bacteria criteria for the protection of primary contact recreation and shellfishing; (2) ammonia criteria for protection of aquatic life in fresh waters; (3) a statutory exception for naturally occurring toxic substances from the requirement to regulate toxic substances at the levels recommended by EPA, as it applies to HHC, and a natural conditions clause, as it applies to HHC; (4) the mixing zone policy; (5) the pH criterion for fresh waters; and (6) tidal temperature criteria. Because EPA had previously approved these provisions for other waters in Maine, the disapprovals and corresponding proposed WQS apply to only waters in Indian lands.

    2. Disapprovals That Apply to All Waters in Maine, Including Waters in Indian Lands

    In its March and June 2015 decisions, EPA disapproved a number of new and revised WQS as applied to all waters throughout Maine, including waters in Indian lands. These are WQS that EPA had not previously acted upon for any waters. EPA proposes two WQS for all waters in Maine related to the disapprovals of (1) a statute allowing the waiver or modification of protection and improvement laws, as it pertains to WQS; and (2) the numeric criteria for dissolved oxygen in Class A waters. EPA proposes one WQS for waters in Maine outside of Indian lands related to the disapproval of the phenol criterion for water plus organisms.7

    7 EPA proposes a separate phenol criterion for water plus organisms for the waters in Indian lands.

    C. Scope of Waters

    To address the disapprovals discussed in section II.B.1, EPA proposes HHC for toxic pollutants as well as six other WQS that apply only to waters in Indian lands. For the purpose of this rulemaking, “waters in Indian lands” are those waters in the tribes' reservations and trust lands as provided for in the settlement acts.

    In addition, as described below in section III, EPA proposes the same HHC for toxic pollutants pursuant to a determination of necessity under CWA 303(c)(4)(B) for the following waters: (1) Waters in Indian lands in the event that a court determines that EPA's disapprovals of HHC for such waters were unauthorized and that Maine's existing HHC are in effect; and (2) waters where there is a sustenance fishing designated use outside of waters in Indian lands.8

    8 EPA has included in the docket for this rulemaking a Technical Support Document, entitled “Scope of Waters,” which provides further information regarding, for purposes of this proposed rulemaking, the waters that are included in the term “waters in Indian lands” and the waters where the designated use of sustenance fishing applies.

    D. Applicability of EPA Promulgated Water Quality Standards When Final

    Once finalized, EPA's water quality standards would apply to the relevant waters for CWA purposes. Although EPA proposes WQS to address the standards that it disapproved or for which it has made a determination, Maine continues to have the option to adopt and submit to EPA new or revised WQS that remedy the issues identified in the disapprovals and determination, consistent with CWA section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA encourages Maine to expeditiously adopt protective WQS that address the changes EPA identified in its disapprovals and determination, discussed in section III, as being necessary to meet CWA requirements. Consistent with CWA section 303(c)(4), if Maine adopts and submits new or revised WQS and EPA approves them before finalizing this proposed rule, EPA would not proceed with the final rulemaking for those waters and/or pollutants for which EPA approves Maine's new or revised standards.

    If EPA finalizes this proposed rule, and Maine subsequently adopts and submits new or revised WQS that EPA finds meet CWA requirements, EPA proposes that once EPA approves Maine's WQS, they would become effective for CWA purposes, and EPA's corresponding promulgated WQS would no longer apply. EPA would still undertake a rulemaking to withdraw the federal WQS for those pollutants, but any delay in that process would not delay Maine's approved WQS from becoming the sole applicable WQS for CWA purposes. EPA solicits comment on this approach.

    III. CWA 303(c)(4)(B) Determination of Necessity for HHC That Protect Sustenance Fishing

    Per EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a), water quality criteria must be sufficient to protect the designated uses. As discussed in section II.A.2. and in EPA's February 2015 disapproval, the settlement acts reflect Congress's intent that the tribes in Maine must be able to engage in sustenance fishing to preserve their culture and lifeways. In waters where the settlement acts provide for the tribes to engage in sustenance fishing, EPA interprets Maine's designated use of “fishing” to include sustenance fishing, and EPA has further approved section 6207(4) and (9) of MIA as the establishment of a sustenance fishing designated use for fresh waters in the Southern Tribes' reservations.

    For the reasons discussed in EPA's February and March 2015 disapproval decisions and summarized below in section IV.A.1.b., most of Maine's HHC for toxic pollutants are not adequate to protect the sustenance fishing designated use because they are based on a fish consumption rate that does not reflect the tribes' unsuppressed sustenance fishing level of consumption. Accordingly, for the waters in Maine where there is a sustenance fishing designated use and Maine's existing HHC are in effect, EPA hereby determines under CWA section 303(c)(4)(B) that new or revised WQS for the protection of human health are necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA for such waters. EPA therefore proposes HHC for such waters in this rule in accordance with this section 303(c)(4)(B) determination. The specific HHC to which this determination and corresponding proposal apply are set forth in Table 3. This determination also applies to Maine's HHC for arsenic (including, specifically, Maine's cancer risk level of 10-4 for arsenic), thallium, and dioxin. As discussed in section IV.A.1.c., EPA is reserving its proposal for criteria for these three HHC until a later date, pending the outcome of additional scientific assessments.

    This determination applies to two groups of waters in Maine:

    1. Any waters in Indian lands in Maine for which a court in the future determines that EPA's 2015 disapprovals of HHC for such waters were unauthorized and that Maine's existing HHC are in effect. Maine has challenged EPA's disapprovals in federal district court, asserting that EPA did not have the authority to disapprove the HHC in waters in Indian lands. While EPA's position is that the disapprovals were authorized and Maine's existing HHC are not in effect, this determination ensures that EPA has the authority to promulgate the proposed HHC, and that the tribes' sustenance fishing use would be protected, even if Maine's challenge to EPA's disapproval authority were to prevail.

    2. Any water in Maine where sustenance fishing is a designated use but such water is determined not to be a “water in Indian lands.” 9 EPA notes that there may be one or more waters where the sustenance fishing designated use based on MIA section 6207(4) and (9) extends beyond “waters in Indian lands.” See “Scope of Waters” Technical Support Document in the docket for this rulemaking. This determination and corresponding rulemaking apply to any water to which the sustenance fishing designated use based on MIA section 6207(4) and (9) applies that is beyond the scope of “waters in Indian lands.”

    9 In its February 2015 Decision, EPA concluded that section 6207(4) and (9) of MIA constituted a new or revised water quality standard and approved the provision as a designated use of sustenance fishing applicable to all inland waters of the Southern Tribes' reservations in which populations of fish are or may be found. Accordingly, EPA's approval of MIA section 6207(4) and (9) as a designated use of sustenance fishing applies to all waters where the Southern Tribes have a right to sustenance fish, irrespective of whether such waters are determined to be outside of the scope of their reservation for purposes other than sustenance fishing.

    EPA's determination is not itself a final action, nor part of a final action, at this time. After consideration of comments on the proposed rule, EPA will take final agency action on this rulemaking. It is at that time that any challenge to the determination and/or water quality standards applicable to Maine based on such determination may occur.

    IV. Proposed Water Quality Standards A. Proposed WQS for Waters in Indian Lands in Maine and for Waters Outside of Indian Lands in Maine Where the Sustenance Fishing Designated Use Established by 30 M.R.S. 6207(4) and (9) Applies 1. Human Health Criteria for Toxic Pollutants

    a. General Recommended Approach for Deriving HHC. HHC for toxic pollutants are designed to minimize the risk of adverse cancer and non-cancer effects occurring from lifetime exposure to pollutants through the ingestion of drinking water and consumption of fish/shellfish obtained from inland and nearshore waters. EPA's practice is to establish 304(a) HHC for the combined activities of drinking water and consuming fish/shellfish obtained from inland and nearshore waters, and separate HHC for consuming only fish/shellfish originating from inland and nearshore waters. The latter criteria apply in cases where the designated uses of a waterbody include supporting fish/shellfish for human consumption but not drinking water supply sources (e.g., in non-potable estuarine waters). The criteria are based on two types of biological endpoints: (1) Carcinogenicity and (2) systemic toxicity (i.e., all adverse effects other than cancer). EPA takes an integrated approach and considers both cancer and non-cancer effects when deriving HHC. Where sufficient data are available, EPA derives criteria using both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity endpoints and recommends the lower value. HHC for carcinogenic effects are typically calculated using the following input parameters: cancer slope factor, excess lifetime cancer risk level, body weight, drinking water intake rate, fish consumption rate(s), and bioaccumulation factor(s). HHC for non-carcinogenic and nonlinear carcinogenic effects are typically calculated using reference dose, relative source contribution (RSC), body weight, drinking water intake rate, fish consumption rate(s) and bioaccumulation factor(s). Each of these inputs is discussed in more detail below, in EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology (the “2000 Methodology”),10 and in the 2015 criteria update.11

    10 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA- 822-B-00-004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.

    11 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, 80 FR 36986 (June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.

    i. Cancer Risk Level. For cancer-causing pollutants where the carcinogenic effects have a linear relationship to exposure, EPA's 304(a) HHC generally assume that carcinogenicity is a “non-threshold phenomenon,” which means that there are no “safe” or “no-effect” levels of exposure because even extremely low levels of exposure to most known and suspect carcinogenic compounds are assumed to cause a finite increase in the risk of developing cancer over the course of a lifetime. As a matter of policy, EPA calculates its 304(a) HHC at concentrations corresponding to a 10−6 cancer risk level (CRL), meaning that if exposure were to occur as set forth in the 304(a) methodology at the prescribed concentration over the course of one's lifetime, then the risk of developing cancer from the exposure as described would be one in a million on top of the background risk of developing cancer from all other exposures. EPA recommends cancer risk levels of 10−6 (one in a million) or 10−5 (one in one hundred thousand) for the general population and notes that states and authorized tribes can also choose a more protective risk level, such as 10−7 (one in ten million), when deriving HHC.

    ii. Cancer Slope Factor and Reference Dose. For noncarcinogenic toxicological effects, EPA uses a chronic-duration oral reference dose (RfD) to derive HHC. An RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure of the human population to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. An RfD is typically derived from a laboratory animal dosing study in which a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL), lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL), or benchmark dose can be obtained. Uncertainty factors are applied to reflect the limitations of the data.12 For carcinogenic toxicological effects, EPA uses an oral cancer slope factor (CSF) to derive HHC. The oral CSF is an upper bound, approximating a 95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime oral exposure to a stressor.

    12 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA- 822-B-00-004.

    iii. Exposure Assumptions. In EPA's 2015 criteria update, EPA used a default drinking water intake rate of 2.4 liters per day (L/day) and a default rate of 22.0 g/day for total consumption of fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters. Additionally, pollutant-specific bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or bioconcentration factors (BCFs) were used to relate aqueous pollutant concentrations to predicted pollutant concentrations in the edible portions of ingested species.

    EPA's national default drinking water intake rate of 2.4 L/day represents the per capita estimate of combined direct and indirect community water ingestion at the 90th percentile for adults ages 21 and older.13 EPA's national default FCR of 22.0 g/day represents the 90th percentile consumption rate of fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters for the U.S. adult population 21 years of age and older, based on National Health and Nutrient Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 2003 to 2010.14 EPA calculates HHC using a default body weight of 80.0 kilograms (kg), the average weight of a U.S. adult age 21 and older, based on NHANES data from 1999 to 2006.15

    13 USEPA. 2011. EPA Exposure Factors Handbook. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC EPA 600/R-090/052F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252.

    14 USEPA. 2014. Estimated Fish Consumption Rates for the U.S. Population and Selected Subpopulations (NHANES 2003-2010). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. EPA 820-R-14-002.

    15 USEPA. 2011. EPA Exposure Factors Handbook. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC EPA 600/R-090/052F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252.

    Although EPA uses these default values to calculate national 304(a) HHC, EPA's 2000 Methodology notes a preference for the use of local data to calculate HHC (e.g., locally derived FCRs, drinking water intake rates and body weights, and waterbody-specific bioaccumulation rates) over national default values, where data are sufficient to do so.16 EPA also generally recommends, where sufficient data are available, selecting a FCR that reflects consumption that is not suppressed by concerns about the safety of available fish 17 or fish availability. Deriving HHC using an unsuppressed FCR furthers the restoration goals of the CWA, and ensures protection of human health as pollutant levels decrease, fish habitats are restored, and fish availability increases. While EPA encourages doing so in general, where sustenance fishing is a designated use of the waters (due to, for example, tribal treaty or other federal law that provides for a tribe to fish for its sustenance), in EPA's scientific and policy judgment, selecting a FCR that reasonably represents current unsuppressed fish consumption based on the best currently available information is necessary and appropriate to ensure that such sustenance fishing use is protected. Such FCR must consider suppression and where adequate data are available to clearly demonstrate what that value is for the relevant population, the FCR must reflect that value. If sufficient data regarding unsuppressed fish consumption levels are not readily available, consultation with tribes is important to ensure that all data and information relevant to this issue are considered.

    16 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.

    17 USEPA. January 2013. Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria and Fish Consumption Rates: Frequently Asked Questions. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/methodology/upload/hhfaqs.pdf.

    iv. Relative Source Contribution. EPA's 2000 Methodology describes different approaches for addressing water and non-water exposure pathways to derive human health criteria depending on the toxicological endpoint of concern, the toxicological effect (noncarcinogenic or carcinogenic), and whether toxicity is considered a linear or threshold effect. Water sources of exposure include both consuming drinking water and eating fish or shellfish from inland and nearshore waters that have been exposed to pollutants in the water body. For pollutants that exhibit a threshold of exposure before deleterious effects occur, as is the case for noncarcinogens and nonlinear carcinogens, EPA applies a relative source contribution (RSC) to account for other potential human exposures to the pollutant.18 Other sources of exposure might include, but are not limited to, exposure to a particular pollutant from ocean fish or shellfish consumption (which is not included in the FCR), non-fish food consumption (e.g., consumption of fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, or poultry), dermal exposure, and inhalation exposure.

    18 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA- 822-B-00-004.

    For substances for which the toxicity endpoint is carcinogenicity based on a linear low-dose extrapolation, only the exposures from drinking water and fish ingestion are reflected in HHC; that is, non-water sources are not explicitly included and no RSC is applied.19 In these situations, HHC are derived with respect to the incremental lifetime cancer risk posed by the presence of a substance in water, rather than an individual's total risk from all sources of exposure. EPA derived a RSC (ranging from 0.2 to 0.8) for each chemical included in the 2015 criteria update, by using the Exposure Decision Tree approach described in the 2000 Methodology.20

    19 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA- 822-B-00-004.

    20 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA- 822-B-00-004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.

    b. What did EPA disapprove? On February 2, 2015 and March 12, 2015, EPA disapproved Maine's HHC for toxic pollutants for waters in Indian lands because EPA found that they did not meet CWA requirements, i.e., they were not adequate to protect the designated use of sustenance fishing in those waters. EPA reached this conclusion by applying the CWA's requirements that water quality criteria protect designated uses and be based on a sound scientific rationale, in consideration of the purpose of the settlement acts discussed above to preserve the tribes' culture and sustenance practices. EPA determined that in order to protect the function of the waters in Indian lands to preserve the tribes' unique culture and to provide for the safe exercise of their sustenance practices, EPA must interpret Maine's designated use of “fishing” to include sustenance fishing.21

    21 In addition, for certain waters in the Southern Tribes' reservations, EPA also approved a sustenance fishing designated use specified in MIA.

    EPA's analysis of the settlement acts also led EPA to consider the tribes to be the general target population in their waters. Accordingly, EPA applied the 2000 Methodology's recommendations on exposure and cancer risk for the general target population in its evaluation of whether Maine's HHC protect the sustenance fishing use in waters in Indian lands. In other words, EPA considered whether the FCR reflected, as accurately as possible, the tribes' sustenance level FCR, and whether the CRL was protective of the sustenance fishers as a general population rather than as a highly exposed subpopulation. As explained in the February 2, 2015 disapproval decision, EPA concluded that the FCRs on which Maine's HHC are based 22 do not result in criteria that ensure protection of the sustenance designated use for waters in Indian lands. This is because Maine's FCRs do not reflect the best available information regarding the tribes' sustenance level of consumption unsuppressed by pollutant concerns, which EPA determined in its scientific and policy judgment was necessary and appropriate in developing criteria to protect the sustenance fishing designated use of waters in Indian lands as required by the CWA. EPA also concluded, as explained in the March 16, 2015 decision, that Maine's 10−4 CRL for arsenic does not adequately protect the general target population of tribal sustenance fishers in waters in Indian lands. (EPA approved a separate provision in Maine's regulations that requires that HHC be based on a CRL of 10−6, finding that it is consistent with EPA's 2000 Methodology and adequately protects tribal sustenance fishers as a general target population.)

    22 Maine's FCR for all toxic HHC except arsenic is 32.4 g/day, and for arsenic is 138 g/day.

    c. Criteria for Which EPA is Reserving Action. Although EPA disapproved Maine's criteria for arsenic, dioxin, and thallium for waters in Indian lands, there is some uncertainty regarding aspects of the science upon which EPA's 304(a) HHC are based such that EPA is deferring proposal of these criteria at this time. EPA did not update the 304(a) HHC for these three pollutants in 2015. For thallium, EPA's IRIS database does not currently contain a quantitative RfD assessment.23 For dioxin, IRIS does not currently contain a quantitative carcinogenicity assessment.24

    23http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm?fuseaction=iris.showQuickView&substance_nmbr=1012.

    24http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm?fuseaction=iris.showQuickView&substance_nmbr=1024.

    While EPA disapproved Maine's arsenic criteria for waters in Indian lands because the cancer risk level and fish consumption rate together did not provide a sufficient level of protection of the sustenance fishing use, EPA recognizes that there is substantial uncertainty surrounding the toxicological assessment of arsenic with respect to human health effects. EPA's current plan for addressing these issues is described in the Assessment Development Plan for the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic (EPA/630/R-14/101 November 2015). During a similar period of uncertainty surrounding the toxicological assessment of arsenic in 2000, EPA similarly did not promulgate arsenic HHC for the State of California.25

    25Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97, Thursday, May 18, 2000, Rules and Regulations.

    Without specific numeric criteria in place for arsenic, thallium, and dioxin in waters in Indian lands, Maine is in a position to rely on the latest science and policy as it becomes available to interpret the existing narrative water quality criteria for waters in Indian lands. For example, permitting authorities in Maine should rely on existing narrative water quality criteria to establish effluent limitations as necessary for arsenic, thallium, and dioxin. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vi) describe options available to the state for this purpose. Unless Maine submits and EPA approves these criteria, EPA plans to propose criteria for thallium, dioxin, and arsenic for waters in Indian lands and any waters that are covered by the determination set forth in section III once it has updated the 304(a) HHC.

    d. What is EPA Proposing? EPA proposes HHC for 96 26 of the toxic pollutants applicable to waters in Indian lands that EPA disapproved. Table 3 provides the criteria proposed for each pollutant as well as the HHC inputs used to derive each one, as discussed below. These proposed criteria also apply to any waters that are covered by the determination set forth in section III.

    26 After further consideration, by letter of January 19, 2016, EPA withdrew its February 2, 2015 disapprovals of Maine's HHC for six pollutants (copper, asbestos, barium, iron, manganese and nitrates) and instead approved them. EPA concluded that those criteria were not calculated using a fish consumption rate, and therefore the basis for EPA's disapprovals of the HHC in the February 2, 2015 decision letter did not apply. EPA approved them as being consistent with EPA's recommended 304(a) criteria. In addition, EPA has withdrawn its February 2, 2015 disapprovals of Maine's HHC for the following HHC and instead approved them: (1) For the consumption of water plus organisms for 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, dichlorobromomethane, chlorodibromomethane, chrysene, methylene chloride, chlorophenoxy herbicide (2, 4, 5-TP), chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4-D), and N-nitrosopyrrolidine; (2) for the consumption of organisms alone for acrolein and gamma-BHC (Lindane); and (3) for both the consumption of water plus organisms and for the consumption of organisms alone for 1,2-dichloroethane, acrylonitrile, benzidine, bis(chloromethyl) ether, chloroform, methyl bromide, and tetrachloroethylene. EPA calculated the HHC for these pollutants using the best science reflected in the 2015 criteria updates (which were finalized after the disapprovals), along with a FCR of 286 to protect the sustenance fishing use, and concluded that the resulting HHC were either the same or less stringent than Maine's HHC that EPA had disapproved. Accordingly, EPA withdrew the disapprovals and approved these HHC based on their being adequate to protect the sustenance fishing use.

    i. Maine-Specific HHC Inputs—1. Fish Consumption Rate. In EPA's February 2, 2015 decision and in this proposal, EPA treats the tribes as the target general population for waters in Indian lands. EPA proposes this approach because EPA has determined that sustenance fishing is the applicable designated use for waters in Indian lands based on EPA's interpretation of Maine's designated use of “fishing,” and, for fresh waters in the Southern Tribes' reservations, also based on EPA's approval of section 6207(4) and (9) of MIA as a sustenance fishing designated use. Therefore, the criteria must protect that use. As discussed at length in EPA's February 2015 decision on Maine's WQS, these Indian lands and their associated waters have been specifically set aside for the Maine tribes to exercise their sustenance practices. These waters are at the core of the resource base provided for under the settlement acts to support these tribes as sustenance cultures.27 Having found that sustenance fishing is a designated use in the waters in Indian lands, it is reasonable for EPA to target tribal sustenance fishers as the general population for the purpose of establishing criteria to protect that use. The same analysis applies to waters outside of Indian lands where the sustenance fishing designated use applies.

    27 EPA recognizes that the general public has the right to access some tribal waters and to fish there subject to conditions that do not discriminate between tribal members and non-members. See MIA § 6207(1).

    EPA derived the HHC to protect the sustenance fishing use based on a total fish consumption rate (FCR) of 286 g/day. EPA selected this consumption rate based on information contained in an historical/anthropological study, entitled the Wabanaki Cultural Lifeways Exposure Scenario 28 (“Wabanaki Study”), which was completed in 2009. EPA also consulted with the tribes in Maine about the Wabanaki Study and their sustenance fishing uses of the waters in Indian lands. There has been no contemporary local survey of current fish consumption, adjusted to account for suppression, that documents fish consumption rates for sustenance fishing in the waters in Indian lands in Maine. In the absence of such information, EPA concluded that the Wabanaki Study contains the best currently available information for the purpose of deriving an unsuppressed FCR for HHC adequate to protect sustenance fishing for such waters.

    28 Harper, B., Ranco, D., et al. 2009. Wabanaki Traditional Cultural Lifeways Exposure Scenario. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/ditca.pdf.

    The peer-reviewed Wabanaki Study was produced under a Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreement (DITCA) awarded by EPA to the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians on behalf of all of the Maine tribes. The purpose of the Study was to use available anthropological and ecological data to develop a description of Maine tribes' traditional cultural uses of natural resources, and to present the information in a format that could be used by EPA to evaluate whether or not tribal uses are protected when EPA reviews or develops WQS in Indian lands in Maine. It is relevant to contemporary water quality because another purpose of the Study “is to describe the lifestyle that was universal when resources were in better condition and that some tribal members practice today (and many more that are waiting to resume once restoration goals and protective standards are in place).” It provides a numerical representation of the environmental contact, diet, and exposure pathways of the traditional tribal lifestyle, including the use of water resources for food, medicine, cultural and traditional practices, and recreation. The report used anthropological and ecological data to identify major activities that contribute to environmental exposure and then to develop exposure factors related to traditional diet, drinking water, soil and sediment ingestion, inhalation rate and dermal exposure. Credible ethno-historical, ecological, nutritional, archaeological, and biomedical literature was reviewed through the lens of natural resource use and activities necessary to survive in the Maine environment and support tribal traditions. Along with single, best professional judgment estimates for direct exposures (inhalation, soil ingestion, water ingestion) as a reasonable representation (central tendency) of the traditional cultural lifeways, the Wabanaki Study provides an estimated range of diets that reflect three major habitat types.

    In developing the dietary component of the exposure scenario, the Wabanaki Study authors assembled information about general foraging, seasonal patterns, dietary breadth, abundance, and food storage. From these they evaluated the relative proportion of major food groups, including fish, as well as nutritional information, total calories and quantities of foods. This resulted in an estimate of a nutritionally complete diet for the area east of the Kennebec River, which is the area most heavily used by tribal members today and where farming is marginal due to climate. With regard to the consumption of fish, the Wabanaki Study identifies three traditional lifestyle models, each with its own diet:

    1. Permanent inland residence on a river with anadromous fish runs (“inland anadromous”),

    2. Permanent inland residence with resident fish only (“inland non-anadromous”), and

    3. Permanent coastal residence (“coastal”).

    The study provides estimates of average adult consumption of aquatic resources, game, fowl, and plant-based foods for each lifestyle model based on a 2,000 kcal/day diet. Aquatic resources were divided into two categories: “resident fish and other aquatic resources” and “anadromous and marine fish and shellfish.” Table 2 summarizes the consumption of aquatic resources for each lifestyle model.

    Table 2—Consumption of Aquatic Resources by Lifestyle Model 29 Lifestyle model Resident fish
  • & other
  • aquatic
  • resources
  • (g/day)
  • Anadromous &
  • marine fish,
  • shellfish
  • (g/day) 30
  • Total
    Inland Anadromous 114 400 514 Inland Non-anadromous 286 0 286 Coastal 57 457 514

    The Wabanaki Study provides a range of consumption rates specifically for Maine Indians using natural resources for sustenance living and reduces the uncertainties associated with a lack of knowledge about tribal exposure in Maine Indian waters.

    29 Id., pp. 61-66.

    30 Includes marine mammals for coastal lifestyle model only.

    In addition to evaluating the Wabanaki Study, EPA consulted with the four Maine tribes to gather additional information about current practices, present day circumstances related to the species composition of available fish, and any other information that the tribes thought was relevant to EPA's decision making. EPA also considered the Penobscot Nation's use of a FCR of 286 g/day in developing HHC in its 2014 tribal WQS. In its September 23, 2014 responses to comments on the final WQS, the Nation explained that it chose the inland non-anadromous total FCR of 286 g/day because, although the Penobscot lands are in areas that would have historically supported an inland anadromous diet (with a total FCR of 514 g/day), the contemporary populations of anadromous species in Penobscot waters are currently too low to be harvested in significant quantities. The Nation's representative reiterated this rationale in the September 9, 2015 tribal consultation with EPA. The representative of the Aroostook Band of Micmacs also stated during the consultation that the Wabanki Study's inland non-anadromous lifestyle diet reflects the current Micmac diet, although the tribe has a goal of the return and consumption of anadromous fish.

    EPA proposes to use a FCR of 286 g/day to represent present day sustenance-level fish consumption, unsuppressed by pollution concerns, in the waters covered by this action. This value reflects the Wabanaki Study's 286 g/day FCR for the inland non-anadromous lifestyle, which relied on resident fish species only. For tribes that followed the inland anadromous lifestyle, 286 g/day represents all of the resident species fish consumption rate (114 g/day) as well as approximately 43% of the 400 g/day consumption rate for anadromous and other non-resident species (172 g/day). For tribes that followed the coastal lifestyle, 286 g/day represents all of the resident species fish consumption rate (57 g/day) as well as approximately 50% of the 457 g/day consumption rate for anadromous and other non-resident species (229 g/day). It is reasonable to assume that the inland anadromous and coastal lifestyle tribes would have shifted a substantial percentage of the sustenance fishing diet from the formerly widely available but now less available anadromous species (such as salmon) or protected marine mammals to resident fish species, including introduced freshwater species, corresponding to the FCR for the inland non-anadromous lifestyle. That assumption is consistent with the Penobscot Nation's approach to deriving a current, unsuppressed FCR to protect sustenance fishing.

    Since the Wabanaki Study presented estimates of the total amount of fish and aquatic organisms consumed and not the amount consumed of each trophic level, for the purpose of developing HHC for the Maine tribes, EPA assumes that Maine tribes consume the same relative proportion of fish and aquatic organisms from the different trophic levels 2 through 4 as the general U.S. population, as identified in the 2015 criteria update (i.e., 36%, 40%, and 24% of the total amount consumed for trophic levels 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Accordingly, EPA proposes to use trophic-specific fish consumption rates of 103 g/day (trophic level 2), 114 g/day (trophic level 3), and 68.6 g/day (trophic level 4) for the HHC for those compounds which the 2015 criteria update included trophic level specific BAFs.

    2. Pollutant Bioaccumulation and Bioconcentration Factors. In order to prevent harmful exposures to waterborne chemicals through the consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish, HHC must address the process of chemical bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms. For the 2015 criteria update, EPA estimated chemical-specific BAFs for three different trophic levels of fish (levels 2 through 4), using a framework for deriving national BAFs described in EPA's 2000 Methodology.31 EPA proposes to use those BAFs to calculate the proposed HHC.

    31 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.

    Where EPA did not update BAFs for certain pollutants in the 2015 criteria update, and for cyanide, EPA proposes HHC using the BCFs (which are not trophic-level specific) that the Agency used the last time it updated its 304(a) HHC for those pollutants as the best available scientific information.

    3. Cancer Risk Level. Maine's water quality regulations, at Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Rule Chapter 584 section 4, specify that water quality criteria for carcinogens must be based on a CRL of 10−6 (except for a 10−4 CRL for arsenic, which EPA disapproved). On February 2, 2015, EPA approved the 10−6 CRL for waters in Indian lands, since it is consistent with the range of CRLs that EPA considers to be appropriate for the general population. This is also the risk level that EPA uses when publishing its 304(a) HHC and when promulgating federal criteria.32 As explained above, EPA considers the tribes to be the general target population for waters in Indian lands. For these reasons, EPA proposes to use a 10−6 CRL in its criteria for carcinogens for waters covered by this action.

    32 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. US Environmental Protection Agency. pp. 2-6.

    4. Relative Source Contribution. EPA recommends using a RSC for non-carcinogens and nonlinear carcinogens to account for sources of exposure other than drinking water and consumption of inland and nearshore fish and shellfish (see 2015 criteria update, section II.B.d).33 In 2015, after evaluating information on chemical uses, properties, occurrences, releases to the environment and regulatory restrictions, EPA developed chemical-specific RSCs for non-carcinogens and nonlinear carcinogens ranging from 0.2 (20%) to 0.8 (80%) following the Exposure Decision Tree approach described in EPA's 2000 Methodology and used them in the 2015 criteria updates.34 35 For these pollutants, EPA proposes to use the same RSCs to derive the HHC. For pollutants where EPA did not update the 304(a) HHC in 2015, EPA proposes to use a default RSC of 0.2 to derive HHC following the Exposure Decision Tree approach described in EPA's 2000 Methodology; a RSC of 0.2 is used as a default RSC when EPA has not developed a pollutant-specific RSC based on exposure/occurrence data. In the case of antimony (for which EPA did not update the 304(a) HHC in 2015), EPA proposes to use an RSC of 0.4 consistent with the RSC value used the last time the Agency updated this criterion.36

    33 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.

    34 USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.

    35 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.

    36 USEPA. 2002. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002 Human Health Criteria Calculation Matrix. EPA-822-R-02-012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2002_12_30_criteria_wqctable_hh_calc_matrix.pdf.

    5. Body Weight. EPA proposes to calculate HHC using a body weight of 80.0 kg, which represents the average weight of a U.S. adult. In 2015, EPA updated its recommended adult body weight to 80.0 kg based on national survey data (see 2015 criteria update, section II.B.c).37 EPA is not aware of any local body weight data applicable to Maine tribes that would suggest a different value.

    37 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.

    6. Drinking Water Intake. EPA proposes to calculate HHC using a drinking water intake rate of 2.4 L/day. In 2015, EPA updated its national default drinking water intake rate in the 304(a) HHC to 2.4 L/day (see 2015 criteria update, section II.B.c).38 This rate is based on the national survey data and represents the per capita estimate of combined direct and indirect community water ingestion at the 90th percentile for adults ages 21 and older. EPA is not aware of any local data applicable to Maine tribes that suggest a different rate.

    38 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.

    7. Pollutant-Specific Reference Doses and Cancer Slope Factors. As part of EPA's 2015 criteria update, EPA conducted a systematic search of eight peer-reviewed, publicly available sources to obtain the most current toxicity values for each pollutant (RfDs for non-carcinogenic effects and CSFs for carcinogenic effects).39 EPA proposes to calculate HHC using the same toxicity values that EPA used in its 2015 criteria update, to ensure that the resulting criteria are based on a sound scientific rationale. Where EPA did not update criteria for certain pollutants in 2015, EPA proposes to use the toxicity values that the Agency used the last time it updated its 304(a) HHC for those pollutants.

    39 Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, (80 FR 36986, June 29, 2015). See also: USEPA. 2015. Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal.cfm.

    ii. Proposed Criteria. EPA proposes HHC for 96 different pollutants (93 organism-only criteria, 88 water-plus-organism criteria) to protect the sustenance fishing designated use in the waters covered by this action (see Table 3). In accordance with Maine DEP Rule Chapter 584, paragraph 1, the proposed “Water & Organisms” criteria would apply to all waters except for marine waters, where the proposed “Organisms Only” criteria would apply.

    All of the proposed HHC criteria are proposed in units of micrograms per liter (µg/L) except for methylmercury,40 which is expressed as mg/kg in the edible portion of fish.

    40 EPA proposes a fish tissue-based methylmercury criterion rather than a fish tissue-based mercury criterion (which EPA disapproved in Indian waters) because methylmercury is the form of mercury found in fish and to which humans are exposed through eating fish. Human exposure to other forms of mercury is typically not associated with the aquatic environment.

    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EP20AP16.000 EP20AP16.001 EP20AP16.002 EP20AP16.003 EP20AP16.004 BILLING CODE 6560-50-C B. Proposed WQS for Waters in Indian Lands 1. Bacteria Criteria

    a. What did EPA disapprove? On March 16, 2015, EPA disapproved Maine's 1985 bacteria criteria for the protection of the designated use of “recreation in and on the water” (recreational criteria), as revised in 2005 and 2008, for Class B, C, GPA, SB and SC waters in Indian lands. This designated use and these criteria are set forth in 38 M.R.S. 465(3.B) and (4.B), 465-A(1.B), and 465-B(2.B) and (3.B), respectively. EPA's disapproval of Maine's recreational criteria for waters in Indian lands was based on a review of whether the criteria, as a whole, protect the applicable designated use. Because Maine's recreational criteria apply only to fecal sources of human and domestic origin and do not include an explicit duration and frequency of exceedance, EPA concluded that Maine's recreational criteria are not fully protective of the recreation designated use in waters in Indian lands.

    Maine's recreational bacteria criteria for Class B, C, GPA, SB and SC waters include only fecal sources of “human and domestic origin” and fail to include naturally occurring sources. In the case of bacteria, pathogens that pose human health risks can come from naturally occurring sources such as wildlife as well as from human and domestic sources. Therefore, a potential human health risk from recreational exposure to bacteria exists in wildlife-impacted waters (2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria, section 3.5.1-2). In addition, EPA published new recommended 304(a) recreational criteria in 2012, which include two numeric thresholds (geometric mean and statistical threshold value, or STV), an averaging duration, and a maximum frequency of exceedance. Maine's recreational criteria do not include an explicit duration and frequency of exceedance or an STV, all of which EPA finds are necessary to protect designated uses.

    On June 5, 2015, EPA disapproved the narrative bacteria criteria for Class AA, A and SA waters in Indian lands for the protection of recreation uses and, in the case of SA waters, also for shellfishing uses. These criteria are set forth in 38 M.R.S. 465(1.B and 2.B) and 465-B(1.B), respectively. These criteria specify that the bacteria content of these waters shall be “as naturally occurs.” Although the intent of these criteria is to reflect conditions unaffected by human activity, in the case of bacteria, pathogens that pose human health risks from recreational exposure or shellfish consumption can result from naturally occurring sources such as wildlife. Because these narrative bacteria criteria do not address bacteria from wildlife sources, EPA disapproved them as not adequately protecting recreation in and on the waters in Class AA, A and SA waters, and propagation and harvesting of shellfish in Class SA waters.

    b. What is EPA proposing? i. Recreational Bacteria Criteria. EPA is proposing recreational criteria for Class AA, A, B, C, GPA, SA, SB and SC waters in Indian lands based on EPA's 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (RWQC) recommendations (EPA Office of Water 820-F-12-058). The criterion magnitude is expressed in terms of Escherichia coli colony forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100 ml) for fresh waters and Enterococcus spp. colony forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100 ml) for marine waters, consistent with Maine's current criteria expression and EPA's 2012 recommendations.

    The 2012 RWQC recommendations offer two sets of numeric concentration thresholds, either of which would protect the designated use of primary contact recreation and, therefore, would protect the public from exposure to harmful levels of pathogens. The proposed criteria's magnitude, duration and frequency are based on EPA's illness rate of 32 NGI per 1,000 primary contact recreators, where NGI represents the gastrointestinal illnesses as measured by EPA's National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational Water (NEEAR) study.41 EPA chose the 32 NGI per 1,000 primary contact recreators illness rate because the resulting geometric mean components of the criteria most closely match the geometric means in Maine's criteria. EPA specifically invites comment on whether instead to base the criteria on EPA's alternative illness threshold of 36 NGI per 1,000 primary contact recreators set forth in the 2012 RWQC.

    41 USEPA. 2010. Report on 2009 National Epidemiologic and Environmental Assessment of Recreational Water Epidemiology Studies. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC EPA-600-R-10-168.

    In addition, for Class AA, A and SA waters in Indian lands, EPA is proposing to include Maine's narrative criteria expression that bacteria content of these waters be no greater than as “naturally occurs.” This maintains Maine's intention that the waters be free of human caused pathogens, while the specific numeric criteria EPA proposes also provide protection for designated recreational uses in the event there are wildlife sources.

    Finally, in accordance with the recommendation to Maine in EPA's March 16, 2015 letter, EPA is proposing that the criteria apply all year long in all waters in Indian lands. This differs from Maine's disapproved criteria, which do not apply from October 1 through May 14 in Classes B, C, GPA, SB, and SC waters. EPA does not have a record to support a conclusion that no recreation in and on these waters occurs between October 1 and May 14. On the contrary, EPA has found information indicating that white water rafting, paddling, and kayaking occur after October 1,42 and during consultation EPA learned from the Penobscot Nation that as long as there is no ice on the Penobscot River, recreators are on the river paddling and fishing. At the same time, EPA recognizes that there may be periods during which recreational activities do not occur in and on these waters. Therefore, EPA specifically invites comment on whether EPA should promulgate an alternative seasonal term during which the criteria would not apply that would adequately protect recreational uses, such as, for example, December through February.

    42http://www.penobscotadventures.com/online-booking/ (whitewater rafting on Penobscot River Oct. 2-4, 2015); http://www.paddleandchowder.org/ (paddling/kayaking in October)

    ii. Shellfishing Bacteria Criteria. EPA proposes shellfishing criteria for SA waters in Indian lands based on recommendations from the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). The criteria magnitude is expressed in terms of total coliform Most Probable Number (MPN)/100 ml.

    EPA last provided recommendations for bacteria to protect shellfish harvesting uses in its 1986 304(a) recommendations,43 which provided fecal coliform criteria for shellfish harvesting. As described in that document, the basis for the criteria was a study from the NSSP which related an accepted international standard of total coliforms to fecal coliforms. NSSP has published several versions of its guidance which provides recommendations for criteria expressed as fecal coliform or total coliform. EPA proposes to promulgate criteria as total coliform to be consistent with Maine's narrative criteria to protect shellfish harvesting in Class SB and SC waters, which say that the numbers of total coliform bacteria or other specified indicator organisms in samples representative of the waters in Class SB and SC shellfish harvesting areas may not exceed criteria recommended under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, United States Food and Drug Administration.

    43 USEPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-86-001.

    EPA proposes that in Class SA shellfish harvesting areas, the number of total coliform bacteria in samples representative of the waters in shellfish harvesting areas shall not exceed a geometric mean for each sampling station of 70 MPN (most probable number) per 100 ml, with not more than 10% of samples exceeding 230 MPN per 100 ml for the taking of shellfish. The proposal is consistent with the current NSSP recommendations for total coliform included in the “Standard for the Approved Growing Area Classification in the Remote Status.” 44 Therefore, the proposed criteria are protective of shellfish harvesting uses in Class SA waters.

    44 USDA. 2013. National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish: 2013 Revision. United States Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC page 210. posted at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FederalStateFoodPrograms/UCM415522.pdf

    2. Ammonia Criteria for Fresh Waters. a. What did EPA disapprove? On March 16, 2015, EPA disapproved the ammonia criteria for protection of aquatic life for fresh waters in Indian lands. The criteria are set forth in DEP Rule Chapter 584, Appendix A. EPA's disapproval was based on a review of whether the criteria protect the applicable designated uses and are based on sound scientific rationale. EPA revised its CWA Section 304(a) recommended ammonia criteria for fresh waters in August 2013 and incorporated the latest science for freshwater mussels and snails, which are sensitive to ammonia toxicity.45 This science was not included in EPA's 1999 ammonia criteria recommendations, on which Maine's criteria are based. Therefore, EPA concluded that Maine's criteria are not protective of the designated use because they are not protective of freshwater mussels and snails and, accordingly, disapproved the criteria.

    45 USEPA. 2013. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia—Freshwater 2013. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC EPA 822-R-13-001

    b. What is EPA proposing? Ammonia is a constituent of nitrogen pollution. Unlike other forms of nitrogen, which can cause eutrophication of a waterbody at elevated concentrations, the primary concern with ammonia is its direct toxic effects on aquatic life, which are exacerbated by elevated pH and temperature.

    EPA proposes ammonia criteria for fresh waters in Indian lands based on the 2013 updated 304(a) recommended ammonia criterion. The acute and chronic criteria concentrations in EPA's 2013 update are expressed as functions of temperature and pH, so the applicable criteria vary by waterbody, depending on the temperature and pH of those waters. The criteria document describes the relationship between ammonia and these water quality factors and provides tables showing how the criteria values change with varying pH and temperatures. EPA's proposed criteria include tables that contain Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMC) and Criterion Continuous Concentrations (CCC) that correspond to a range of temperatures and pH values, and require that the applicable CMCs and CCCs shall not be exceeded. In addition, consistent with EPA's recommended criteria, the proposed criteria include a requirement that the highest four-day average within the same 30-day period used to determine compliance with the CCC shall not exceed 2.5 times the CCC, more than once every three years. For the reasons explained in EPA's 304(a) criteria recommendations for ammonia, EPA's proposed criteria are protective of the designated aquatic life use and based on sound science.

    3. pH Criterion for Fresh Waters. a. What did EPA disapprove? Maine's freshwater pH criterion in 38 M.R.S. 464(4.A(5)) prohibits discharges from causing the pH of receiving waters to fall outside the range of 6.0 to 8.5. On June 5, 2015, EPA disapproved the pH criterion for fresh waters in Indian lands because the lower end of the range (6.0) is not protective of aquatic life uses.

    b. What is EPA proposing? EPA proposes a pH criterion with a range of 6.5 to 8.5. The proposal is based on the lower value of EPA's recommended pH criterion (6.5 to 9.0) 46 to protect freshwater fish and bottom-dwelling invertebrates that provide food for freshwater fish. In waters that are more acidic than 6.5, the likelihood of harm to aquatic species increases when periodic acidic inputs (either natural or anthropogenic in origin) liberate CO2 from bicarbonate in the water leading to direct lethality as a result of lack of oxygen, or causing a further drop in pH into potentially lethal ranges. Fish suffer adverse physiological effects increasing in severity as the degree of acidification increases, until lethal levels are reached. Therefore, EPA proposes that the pH of fresh waters in Indian lands in Maine shall not fall below 6.5. EPA includes in the proposal Maine's existing value of 8.5 for the upper end of the pH range because it is within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 that EPA recommends in order to protect aquatic species from extreme pH conditions.

    46 USEPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-86-001, pH section.

    4. Temperature Criteria for Tidal Waters. a. What did EPA disapprove? On June 5, 2015, EPA disapproved Maine's tidal temperature criteria in DEP Rule Chapter 582(5), for tidal waters in Indian lands (specifically, the intertidal zone at Pleasant Point), because they are not protective of aquatic life uses. The criteria allow a 4 °F monthly average rise in ambient temperatures from individual dischargers from September 2 to May 30, and a 1.5 °F monthly average rise from June 1 to September 1, as measured outside of any mixing zone; they also allow a maximum temperature of 85 °F as measured outside of any mixing zone. EPA disapproved the 4 °F temperature rise provision and the maximum temperature criterion of 85 °F as not protective of indigenous species that have been associated with tidal waters in the vicinity of Pleasant Point, where typical temperatures are in the 37 °-52 °F range based on the nearest NOAA monitoring station at Eastport, Maine.

    b. What is EPA proposing? In order to assure protection of the indigenous marine community characteristic of the intertidal zone at Pleasant Point, EPA proposes criteria consistent with EPA's 304(a) recommended criteria for tidal waters.47 EPA proposes a maximum increase in the weekly average baseline ambient temperature resulting from artificial sources of 1 °C (1.8 °F) during all seasons of the year, provided that the summer maximum of 18 °C (64.4 °F) is not exceeded. The proposal specifies that the weekly average baseline thermal condition must be calculated using the daily maxima averaged over a 7-day period, and must be measured at a reference site where there is no unnatural thermal addition from any source, that is in reasonable proximity to the thermal discharge (within five miles), and that has similar hydrography to that of the receiving waters at the discharge. Further, EPA proposes that daily temperature cycles characteristic of the waterbody shall not be altered in either amplitude or frequency.48

    47 USEPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-86-001. Temperature section.

    48 Id.

    The natural temperature fluctuation provision in the proposed rule is necessary to induce and protect the reproductive cycles of aquatic organisms and to regulate other life factors. Since aquatic organisms are essentially poikilotherms (cold blooded), the temperature of the water regulates their metabolism and ability to survive and reproduce effectively. In addition, natural temperature fluctuations are essential to maintain the existing community structure and the geographic distribution of species.49

    49 Id,

    In intertidal waters, elevated temperatures affect periphyton, benthic invertebrates, and fish, in addition to causing shifts in the dominant primary producers. Community balance can be influenced strongly by temperature-dependent factors, including: rates of reproduction, recruitment, and growth of each component population—all of which were considered in deriving all components of the temperature criteria in this rule. A few degrees elevation in average monthly temperature outside of the conditions described in this rule can appreciably alter a community through changes in interspecies relationships.50

    50 Id.

    The intertidal zone at Pleasant Point is home to indigenous species such as pollock, haddock, juvenile flounder, juvenile and adult shad, cod, alewife, blueback herring as well as various species of clams, crabs, urchins and lobsters found in the vicinity of these waters (personal communication Dr. Theo Willis, University of Southern Maine and Dr. Robert Stephenson, St. Andrews Biological Station, St. Andrews NB).

    Pollock are indigenous fish that inhabit the subtidal and intertidal zones of the Gulf of Maine.51 Within the subtidal and intertidal zones, pollock move to different locations depending on the temperature conditions.52 Pollock are abundant in the intertidal zone in the summer and fall months, and as such, are an appropriate sensitive, indigenous species by which to set a summer maximum temperature criterion.53 EPA proposes a summer weekly maximum of 18 °C (64.4 °F), which is consistent with EPA's Gold Book methodology and is the value identified in the scientific literature that is protective of juvenile pollock (Pollachius virens).54

    51 Id.

    52 Id.

    53 Id.

    54 Cargnelli et al. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-131. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Pollock, Pollachius virens, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. September 1999. Pages 1-38.

    The summer maximum of 18 °C (64.4 °F) is a weekly average value and is calculated using the daily maxima averaged over a 7-day period, similar to the calculation of the baseline ambient temperature. EPA uses a weekly average maximum temperature because, as explained in regional guidance, “it describes the maximum temperatures . . . but is not overly influenced by the maximum temperature of a single day. Thus it reflects an average of maximum temperatures that fish are exposed to over a week-long period.” 55

    55 Id.

    Collectively, the criteria that EPA proposes will protect aquatic life from the deleterious effects of increased mean water temperature and from alterations in the amplitude and frequency of mean-high and mean-low water temperatures. EPA's recommended 304(a) criteria, on which this proposal is based, are designed to protect aquatic species from short- and long-term temperature anomalies, resulting in the maintenance of reproductive, recruitment, and growth cycles.

    5. Natural Conditions Provisions. a. What did EPA disapprove? On June 5, 2015, EPA disapproved, for waters in Indian lands, two natural conditions provisions as they apply to water quality criteria to protect human health. Specifically, EPA disapproved 38 M.R.S. 420(2.A), which states “Except as naturally occurs or as provided in paragraphs B and C, the board shall regulate toxic substances in the surface waters of the State at the levels set forth in federal water quality criteria as established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92-500, Section 304(a), as amended”; and 38 M.R.S. 464(4.C), which states: “Where natural conditions, including, but not limited to, marshes, bogs and abnormal concentrations of wildlife cause the dissolved oxygen or other water quality criteria to fall below the minimum standards specified in sections 465, 465-A and 465-B, those waters shall not be considered to be failing to attain their classification because of those natural conditions.”

    EPA concluded that to the extent that these provisions would allow an exception from otherwise applicable HHC, they are not consistent with EPA's interpretation of the relationship between natural conditions and the protection of designated human health uses, which is articulated in EPA's November 5, 1997 guidance entitled “Establishing Site Specific Aquatic Life Criteria Equal to Natural Background.” 56 In contrast with aquatic life uses,57 a naturally occurring level of a pollutant does not necessarily protect designated human health uses. Naturally occurring levels of a pollutant are assumed to protect aquatic life species that have naturally developed in the affected waters. However, human health does not adapt to higher ambient pollutant levels, even if they are naturally caused. Consequently, the same assumptions of protectiveness cannot be made with regard to designated uses that affect human health (e.g., people eating fish or shellfish from Maine waters, and recreating in Maine waters). For this reason, EPA's 1997 guidance also states that where the natural background concentration exceeds the state-adopted human health criterion, at a minimum, states should re-evaluate the human health use designation.

    56 Davies, Tudor T., Establishing Site Specific Aquatic Life Criteria Equal to Natural Background, EPA Memorandum to Water Management Division Directors, Regions 1-10, State and Tribal Water Quality Management Program Directors, posted at: http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/naturalbackground-memo.pdf

    57 EPA approved these natural conditions provisions for waters in Indian lands as they relate to aquatic life, acknowledging that there may be naturally occurring concentrations of pollutants that exceed the national criteria published under section 304(a) of the CWA that are still protective of aquatic life.

    EPA disapproved the natural conditions clauses at 38 M.R.S 464(4.C) and 420(2.A) for waters in Indian lands as they apply to criteria that protect human health because the application of these provisions fails to protect designated human health uses as required by the CWA and federal WQS regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a).

    b. What is EPA proposing? For each of the disapproved naturally occurring or natural conditions exceptions, EPA proposes a regulation that states that such provision “does not apply to water quality criteria intended to protect human health.” Under this approach, Maine still could implement the natural conditions provisions for other criteria related to non-human health uses.

    6. Mixing Zone Policy. a. What did EPA disapprove? On June 5, 2015, EPA disapproved, for waters in Indian lands, Maine's mixing zone policy set forth in 38 M.R.S. 451. This provision allows the DEP to establish mixing zones that would allow the “reasonable” opportunity for dilution or mixture of pollutants before the receiving waters would be evaluated for WQS compliance.

    States are not required to adopt mixing zone policies into their WQS, but if they do, they are subject to EPA review and approval. 40 CFR 131.13. A mixing zone is a limited area or volume of water where initial dilution of a discharge takes place, and where certain numeric criteria may be exceeded, but the designated uses of the waterbody as a whole must still be protected. EPA's guidance includes specific recommendations to ensure that mixing zones do not impair the designated uses of the waterbody as a whole. Among other things, a state mixing zone policy must ensure that pollutant concentrations in the mixing zone are not lethal to organisms passing through and do not cause significant human health risks; and that mixing zones do not endanger critical areas such as breeding or spawning grounds, drinking water intakes and sources, shellfish beds, or endangered or threatened species habitat. Maine's mixing zone law does not contain any of these or other protective safeguards to ensure the protection of designated uses. The only specific limitation on mixing zones in Maine's mixing zone statute is that they be “reasonable.” There are also no state regulations that define the boundaries of a “reasonable” mixing zone. Therefore EPA disapproved Maine's law for waters in Indian lands as being inadequate to protect designated uses.

    b. What is EPA proposing? EPA proposes, for waters in Indian lands, a mixing zone policy that retains Maine's statutory mixing zone language and expands upon it by: 1. Including specific information that a request for a mixing zone must contain, and 2. including minimum requirements that any mixing zone must satisfy in order to qualify for approval by DEP.

    The proposed information requirements are intended to ensure that any discharger seeking DEP's approval of a mixing zone provides sufficient information for DEP to determine whether and to what extent a mixing zone may be authorized.

    The proposed mixing zone minimum requirements are intended to ensure that any mixing zone approved by DEP will not interfere with or impair the designated uses of the waterbody as a whole. They are consistent with recommendations in EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook (2014).58 The proposed rule clarifies the extent to which water quality criteria may be exceeded in a mixing zone: chronic water quality criteria for those parameters approved by DEP may be exceeded within the mixing zone; acute water quality criteria may be exceeded for such parameters, but only within the zone of initial dilution inside the mixing zone, and the acute criteria must be met as close to the point of discharge as practicably attainable; and no water quality criteria may be exceeded outside of the boundary of a mixing zone as a result of the discharge for which the mixing zone was authorized. The proposed rule also specifies that a mixing zone must be as small as necessary, and that pollutant concentrations must be minimized and reflect the best practicable engineering design of the outfall to maximize initial mixing.The proposal includes a requirement that mixing zones be established consistent with the methodologies in Section 4.3 and 4.4 of EPA's “Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control” EPA/505/2-90-001, dated March 1991. This requirement is consistent with EPA's recommendation that mixing zone policies describe the general procedures for defining and implementing mixing zones in terms of location, maximum size, shape, outfall design, and in-zone water quality, at a minimum.59 EPA also proposes a requirement that the mixing zone demonstration be based on the assumption that a pollutant does not degrade within the proposed mixing zone, unless a valid scientific study demonstrates otherwise. This assumption provides a conservative estimate of potential pollutant concentrations to be used when calculating allowable mixing zone discharges.

    58 USEPA. 2014. Water Quality Standards Handbook, Chapter 5. EPA-820-B-14-004.

    59 Id. at p. 4.

    EPA proposes to prohibit the use of a mixing zone for bioaccumulative pollutants and for bacteria, consistent with EPA's guidance that recommends that mixing zone policies not allow mixing zones for discharges of these pollutants in order to protect the designated uses.60 EPA adopted this approach for bioaccumulative pollutants in 2000 when it amended its 1995 Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System at 40 CFR part 132 to phase out mixing zones for existing discharges of bioaccumulative pollutants within the Great Lakes Basin and ban such mixing zones for new discharges within the Basin. Because fish tissue contamination tends to be a far-field problem affecting entire or downstream waterbodies rather than a near-field problem being confined to the area within a mixing zone, EPA has emphasized that it may be appropriate to restrict or eliminate mixing zones for bioaccumulative pollutants in certain situations such as where mixing zones may encroach on areas often used for fish harvesting, particularly for stationary species such as shellfish, and where there are uncertainties in the assimilative capacity of the waterbody.

    60 Id. at pp. 9-10.

    Similarly, because bacteria mixing zones may cause significant human health risks and endanger critical areas (e.g., recreational areas), EPA recommends that mixing zone policies not allow mixing zones for bacteria in waters designated for primary contact recreation. As explained in EPA's guidance, the presumption in waters designated for primary contact recreation is that primary contact recreation can safely occur throughout the waterbody and, therefore, that bacteria levels will not exceed criteria.61 People recreating in or through a bacteria mixing zone may be exposed to greater risk of illnesses than would otherwise be allowed by the criteria for protection of the recreation use. Primary contact recreation is a designated use for all waters in Maine, including in Indian lands. EPA is therefore proposing to prohibit mixing zones for bacteria for the waters in Indian lands because they could result in a significant human health risk.

    61 Id. at p. 10.

    EPA is not aware of instances where DEP has previously authorized mixing zones for bioaccumulative pollutants or bacteria, and therefore EPA does not expect that these prohibitions will pose hardship to existing dischargers.

    The proposed rule also establishes a number of restrictions to protect designated uses, such as requirements that the mixing zone be unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species listed under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of such species' critical habitat; not extend to drinking water intakes or sources; not cause significant human health risks; not endanger critical areas such as breeding and spawning grounds, habitat for state-listed threatened or endangered species, areas with sensitive biota, shellfish beds, fisheries, and recreational areas; not result in lethality to mobile, migrating, and drifting organisms passing through or within the mixing zone; not overlap with another mixing zone; not attract aquatic life; and not result in any objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity.

    C. Proposed WQS for All Waters in Maine 1. Dissolved Oxygen Criteria for Class A Waters

    a. What Did EPA Disapprove? On June 5, 2015, EPA disapproved Maine's dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria for Class A fresh waters, set forth in 38 M.R.S. 465(2.B), for all waters in Maine, including waters in Indian lands. Maine's criteria state that “The dissolved oxygen content of Class A waters shall be not less than 7 parts per million or 75% of saturation, whichever is higher.” Maine's DO criteria for Class A fresh waters are protective of all life stages of warmwater species and adult coldwater species, but are not high enough to protect the early life stages of coldwater species. Therefore, EPA disapproved the criteria because they do not protect early life stages of coldwater species and, therefore, do not protect the full aquatic life designated use.

    b. What Is EPA Proposing? EPA proposes year-round DO criteria for Class A waters that are identical to Maine's existing criteria (not less than 7 mg/L or 75% of saturation, whichever is higher).62

    62 Dissolved oxygen values expressed as mg/L are equivalent to the same values expressed as ppm.

    Maine's existing year-round criteria are higher, and more protective than, EPA's minimum DO recommendations for non-early life stages.63 EPA therefore proposes the same year-round criteria that Maine uses for these waters, in deference to Maine's determination of what is necessary to protect non-early life stages and to be consistent with Maine's criteria for Class B waters.

    63 EPA's recommended criteria for non-early life stages are expressed as 30 day mean (6.5 mg/L in cold water, 5.5 mg/L in warm water), 7 day mean minimum (5.0 mg/L in cold water, 4.0 mg/l in warm water), and 1 day minimum (4.0 mg/L in cold water, 3.0 mg/L in warm water). From USEPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-86-001. Dissolved Oxygen section.

    For fish spawning areas in Class A waters, for the period of October 1 through May 14, EPA proposes a 7-day mean DO concentration of ≥ 9.5 mg/L and a 1-day minimum of ≥ 8 mg/L. These proposed criteria to protect more sensitive early life stages of coldwater species are consistent with EPA's 304(a) criteria recommendations and will protect those stages against potentially damaging and lethal effects. EPA's proposed criteria for fish spawning areas for early life stages are also consistent with Maine's criteria for early life stages in Class B waters.

    2. Waiver or Modification of WQS

    a. What Did EPA Disapprove? On June 5, 2015, for all waters in Maine, EPA disapproved 38 M.R.S. 363-D as it relates to WQS. Under this law, the DEP Commissioner (or designee) may waive or modify any provision of Maine's Title 38, Chapter 3 (related to the protection and improvement of waters), which includes WQS, to assist in any oil spill response activity conducted in accordance with the national or state contingency plans, or as otherwise directed by the federal on-scene coordinator or the Commissioner (or designee).

    EPA disapproved this statute as it relates to WQS, because it is not consistent with the minimum federal requirements that must be satisfied in order for a state to modify or waive a WQS. Specifically, waivers or modifications of WQS that would have the effect of removing a designated use or creating a subcategory of use, including waiving or modifying criteria necessary to support the use, may occur under the CWA only in accordance with 40 CFR 131.10(g) (which, among other things, requires a use attainability analysis). Before taking such action, states must provide public notice and a public hearing, and revised WQS are subject to EPA review and approval. Because 38 M.R.S. 363-D does not contain any of these requirements, EPA disapproved it—for WQS purposes only—as being inconsistent with federal law.

    b. What Is EPA Proposing? EPA proposes a regulation that states that 38 M.R.S. 363-D does not apply to state or federal WQS applicable to waters in Maine, including designated uses, criteria to protect designated uses, and antidegradation requirements. The proposed regulation would not interfere with the Commissioner's authority to modify applicable WQS through the removal of a use or establishment of a subcategory of a use if justified by a use attainability analysis, consistent with 40 CFR 131.10(g), or to grant a WQS variance, consistent with 40 CFR 131.14. Before taking such actions, the Commissioner must provide for public notice and a public hearing; and revised WQS, including WQS variances, are subject to EPA review and approval. Maine can still get short-term relief from compliance with WQS during oil spills through its permitting program. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.3(d) provide a limited exception from the need to get an NPDES permit, and indirectly, to comply with WQS, for “any discharge in compliance with the instructions of an On-Scene Coordinator pursuant to 40 CFR part 300 (The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan) or 33 CFR 153.10(e) (Pollution by Oil and Hazardous Substances).” Maine has a similar permitting provision at 38 M.R.S. 413(2-G.B) that it can rely on in such circumstances.

    D. Proposed WQS for Waters in Maine Outside of Indian Lands 1. HHC for Phenol Consumption of Water Plus Organisms

    a. What Did EPA Disapprove? On March 16, 2015, EPA disapproved Maine's phenol criterion for the protection of human health consumption of water plus organisms, in DEP Rule Chapter 584, Appendix A, submitted to EPA on January 14, 2013, for waters throughout Maine. While DEP had based the criterion on EPA's then-current criterion recommendation, DEP made an inadvertent mathematical error that resulted in a less stringent criterion than EPA's recommendation (10,514 µg/L rather than the correctly computed result of 10,267 µg/L). In the absence of supporting scientific information to justify a finding that the less stringent criterion adequately protects the designated use, EPA disapproved the criterion for all waters in Maine as not being protective of the designated use and based on sound scientific rationale.

    b. What Is EPA Proposing? In June 2015, soon after EPA's March 2015 disapproval, EPA updated its section 304(a) recommended criterion for phenol as part of a broader package of 304(a) criteria and identified a recommended criterion of 4000 µg/L. When promulgating federal criteria, EPA bases the criteria on the most up-to-date scientific information. Consistent with the June 2015 recommendation, EPA accordingly proposes a phenol criterion for the protection of human health consumption of water plus organisms of 4000 µg/L for waters in Maine outside of Indian lands. This proposed phenol criterion is based on EPA's default inputs for relative source contribution, body weight, drinking water intake, and pollutant-specific reference doses and cancer slope factors, discussed in more detail in section IV.A.1.a. Since this criterion will apply in state waters outside of Indian lands, EPA used Maine's default fish consumption rate of 32.4 g/day, as well as a cancer risk level of 10-6 consistent with DEP Rule Chapter 584. The FCR reflects local survey data, and the CRL is consistent with EPA's recommendation. Therefore, the proposed criterion is protective of human health in waters in Maine outside of Indian lands, for the reasons discussed in EPA's 2015 criteria update.

    V. Economic Analysis

    These WQS may serve as a basis for development of NPDES permit limits. Maine has NPDES permitting authority, through which it ensures that discharges to waters of the state do not cause or contribute to an exceedance of WQS. EPA evaluated the potential costs to NPDES dischargers associated with state implementation of EPA's proposed WQS. This analysis is documented in the “Economic Analysis for Proposal of Certain Federal Water Quality Standards Applicable to Maine,” which can be found in the record for this rulemaking.

    Any NPDES-permitted facility that discharges pollutants for which the proposed WQS are more stringent than the WQS on which permit limits are currently based could potentially incur compliance costs. The types of affected facilities could include industrial facilities and POTWs discharging wastewater to surface waters (i.e., point sources). EPA attributed to the proposed rule only those incremental costs that are above the costs associated with compliance with water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) in current permits. Proposed criteria for pH, temperature, ammonia, and all but one HHC (for waters in Indian lands), proposed criteria for phenol (for state waters outside Indian lands), and proposed criteria for dissolved oxygen (for all state waters) are not expected to result in incremental costs to permitted dischargers. The cost analysis identifies potential costs of compliance with one HHC (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate), bacteria, and the proposed mixing zone policy for waters in Indian lands.

    EPA did not fully evaluate the potential for costs to nonpoint sources for this preliminary analysis. Very little data were available to assess the potential for the rule to result in WQS exceedances attributable to nonpoint sources. It is difficult to model and evaluate the potential cost impacts of this proposed rule to nonpoint sources because they are intermittent, variable, and occur under hydrologic or climatic conditions associated with precipitation events. Finally, legacy contamination (e.g., in sediment) may be a source of ongoing loading. Atmospheric deposition may also contribute loadings of the pollutants of concern (e.g., mercury). EPA did not estimate sediment remediation costs, or air pollution controls costs, for this preliminary analysis.

    A. Identifying Affected Entities

    EPA identified 33 dischargers to waters in Indian lands and their tributaries, two facilities that discharge phenol to other state waters, and 26 facilities that discharge to Class A waters throughout the state. EPA identified 16 point source facilities that could incur additional costs as a result of this proposed rule. Of these potentially affected facilities, eight are major dischargers and eight are minor dischargers. Two are industrial dischargers and the remaining 14 are publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). EPA did not include general permit facilities in its analysis because data for such facilities are limited. EPA evaluated all of the potentially affected facilities.

    B. Method for Estimating Costs

    For the 16 facilities that may incur costs, EPA evaluated existing baseline permit conditions and potential to exceed new effluent limits based on the proposed rule. In instances of exceedances of projected effluent limitations under the proposed criteria, EPA determined the likely compliance scenarios and costs. Only compliance actions and costs that would be needed above the baseline level of controls are attributable to the proposed rule.

    EPA assumed that dischargers will pursue the least cost means of compliance with WQBELs. Incremental compliance actions attributable to the proposed rule may include pollution prevention, end-of-pipe treatment, and alternative compliance mechanisms (e.g., variances). EPA annualized capital costs, including study (e.g., variance) and program (e.g., pollution prevention) costs, over 20 years using a 3% discount rate to obtain total annual costs per facility.

    C. Results

    Based on the results for the 16 facilities, EPA estimated a total annual cost of approximately $213,000 to $1.0 million. The low end of the range reflects $28,000 in annual pollution prevention costs for one facility and $185,300 in incremental annual operating costs for all POTWs to disinfect year-round and for some POTWs to dechlorinate year round. The high end of the cost range reflects incremental annual operating costs of $705,200 for all POTWs to both disinfect and dechlorinate year-round; the maximum estimated annual cost of $273,000 to comply with the updated mixing zone policy; and $43,096 in estimated annual costs for one facility to provide end-of-pipe treatment for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.

    If the proposed criteria result in an incremental increase in impaired waters, resulting in the need for TMDL development, there could also be some costs to nonpoint sources of pollution. EPA had very limited information with which to assess potential impacts of the proposed revisions on ambient water quality. Given the scope of the proposed rule on certain waters and pollutants (notably toxic pollutants) and existing controls on wide-ranging nonpoint source pollution sources including in statewide TMDLs, EPA determined that any incremental costs on nonpoint sources are unlikely to be significant.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The proposed rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities or other sources of pollutants. However, these WQS may serve as a basis for development of NPDES permit limits. Maine has NPDES permitting authority, through which it ensures that discharges to waters of the state do not cause or contribute to an exceedance of WQS. In the spirit of Executive Order 12866, EPA evaluated the potential costs to NPDES dischargers associated with state implementation of EPA's proposed criteria. This analysis, Economic Analysis for Proposal of Certain Federal Water Quality Standards Applicable to Maine, is summarized in section V of the preamble and is available in the docket.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any direct new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Actions to implement these WQS could entail additional paperwork burden. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not include any information collection, reporting, or record-keeping requirements.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Small entities, such as small businesses or small governmental jurisdictions, are not directly regulated by this rule. This proposed rule will thus not impose any requirements on small entities. We continue to be interested, however, in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. As these water quality criteria are not self-implementing, EPA's action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that could significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    E. Executive Order 13132

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

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it would neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. In the state of Maine, there are four federally recognized Indian tribes represented by five tribal governments. As a result of the unique jurisdictional provisions of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, as described above, the state has jurisdiction for setting water quality standards for all waters in Indian lands in Maine. This rule would affect federally recognized Indian tribes in Maine because the water quality standards being proposed would apply to all waters in Indian lands and some will also apply to waters outside of Indian lands where the sustenance fishing designated use established by 30 M.R.S. 6207(4) and (9) applies, and because many of the proposed criteria for such waters are protective of the sustenance fishing designated use, which is based in the Indian claims settlement acts in Maine.

    The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process of developing this proposed rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation is provided in “Summary of Tribal Consultations Regarding Water Quality Standards Applicable to Waters in Indian Lands within the State of Maine,” which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

    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 does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children.

    The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure.

    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 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

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

    Conversely, this action would increase protection for indigenous populations in Maine from disproportionately high and adverse human health effects. EPA developed the criteria included in this proposed rule specifically to protect Maine's designated uses, using the most current science, including local and regional information on fish consumption. Applying these criteria to waters in the state of Maine will afford a greater level of protection to both human health and the environment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Indians—lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

    Dated: April 11, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 131 as follows:

    PART 131—WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards 2. Add § 131.43 to read as follows:
    § 131.43 Maine.

    (a) Human health criteria for toxics for waters in Indian lands and for waters outside of Indian lands where the sustenance fishing designated use established by 30 m.r.s. 6207(4) and (9) applies. The criteria for toxic pollutants for the protection of human health are set forth in the following table 1:

    Table 1—Proposed Human Health Criteria Chemical name CAS No. Water &
  • organisms
  • (µg/L)
  • Organisms
  • only
  • (µg/L)
  • 1. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 0.09 0.2 2. 2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 0.31 0.66 3. 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75-35-4 300 1000 4. 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3 0.002 0.002 5. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 0.0056 0.0056 6. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 200 300 7. 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 2.3 8. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 0.01 0.02 9. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 90 300 10. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 1 1 11. 1,3-Dichloropropene 542-75-6 0.21 0.87 12. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 70 13. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 40 40 14. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 0.20 0.21 15. 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 4 4 16. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 80 200 17. 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 9 30 18. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 0.036 0.13 19. 2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 90 90 20. 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 20 60 21. 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 534-52-1 1 2 22. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 0.0096 0.011 23. 4,4'-DDD 72-54-8 9.3E-06 9.3E-06 24. 4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 1.3E-06 1.3E-06 25. 4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 2.2E-06 2.2E-06 26. Acenaphthene 83-32-9 6 7 27. Acrolein 107-02-8 3 28. Aldrin 309-00-2 5.8E-08 5.8E-08 29. alpha-BHC 319-84-6 2.9E-05 2.9E-05 30. alpha-Endosulfan 959-98-8 2 2 31. Anthracene 120-12-7 30 30 32. Antimony 7440-36-0 4.8 45 33. Benzene 71-43-2 0.40 1.2 34. Benzo (a) Anthracene 56-55-3 9.8E-05 9.8E-05 35. Benzo (a) Pyrene 50-32-8 9.8E-06 9.8E-06 36. Benzo (b) Fluoranthene 205-99-2 9.8E-05 9.8E-05 37. Benzo (k) Fluoranthene 207-08-9 0.00098 0.00098 38. beta-BHC 319-85-7 0.0010 0.0011 39. beta-Endosulfan 33213-65-9 3 3 40. Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether 108-60-1 100 300 41. Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether 111-44-4 0.026 0.16 42. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 117-81-7 0.028 0.028 43. Bromoform 75-25-2 4.0 8.7 44. Butylbenzyl Phthalate 85-68-7 0.0077 0.0077 45. Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.2 0.3 46. Chlordane 57-74-9 2.4E-05 2.4E-05 47. Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 40 60 48. Chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1 1.5 49. Chrysene 218-01-9 0.0098 50. Cyanide 57-12-5 4 30 51. Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene 53-70-3 9.8E-06 9.8E-06 52. Dichlorobromomethane 75-27-4 2 53. Dieldrin 60-57-1 9.3E-08 9.3E-08 54. Diethyl Phthalate 84-66-2 50 50 55. Dimethyl Phthalate 131-11-3 100 100 56. Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 84-74-2 2 2 57. Dinitrophenols 25550-58-7 10 70 58. Endosulfan Sulfate 1031-07-8 3 3 59. Endrin 72-20-8 0.002 0.002 60. Endrin Aldehyde 7421-93-4 0.09 0.09 61. Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 8.9 9.5 62. Fluoranthene 206-44-0 1 1 63. Fluorene 86-73-7 5 5 64. gamma-BHC (Lindane) 58-89-9 0.33 65. Heptachlor 76-44-8 4.4E-07 4.4E-07 66. Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 2.4E-06 2.4E-06 67. Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 5.9E-06 5.9E-06 68. Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.0007 0.0007 69. Hexachlorocyclohexane-Technical 608-73-1 0.00073 0.00076 70. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 0.3 0.3 71. Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 0.01 0.01 72. Indeno (1,2,3-cd) Pyrene 193-39-5 9.8E-05 9.8E-05 73. Isophorone 78-59-1 28 140 74. Methoxychlor 72-43-5 0.001 75. Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 90 76. Methylmercury 22967-92-6 a 0.02 (mg/kg) 77. Nickel 7440-02-0 20 24 78. Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 10 40 79. Nitrosamines 0.0007 0.0322 80. N-Nitrosodibutylamine 924-16-3 0.0044 0.015 81. N-Nitrosodiethylamine 55-18-5 0.0007 0.0322 82. N-Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9 0.00065 0.21 83. N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 621-64-7 0.0042 0.035 84. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86-30-6 0.40 0.42 85. N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 930-55-2 2.4 86. Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 0.008 0.008 87. Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 0.003 0.003 88. Phenol 108-95-2 3,000 20,000 89. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 1336-36-3 b 4.5E-06 b 4.5E-06 90. Pyrene 129-00-0 2 2 91. Selenium 7782-49-2 21 58 92. Toluene 108-88-3 24 39 93. Toxaphene 8001-35-2 5.3E-05 5.3E-05 94. Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.3 0.5 95. Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 0.019 0.12 96. Zinc 7440-66-6 300 360 a This criterion is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (mg methylmercury/kg fish) and applies equally to fresh and marine waters. b This criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or Aroclor analyses).

    (b) Bacteria criteria for waters in Indian lands. (1) The bacteria content of Class AA and Class A waters shall be as naturally occurs, and the minimum number of Escherichia coli bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 100 colony-forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100 ml) in any 30-day interval; nor shall 320 cfu/100 ml be exceeded more than 10% of the time in any 30-day interval.

    (2) In Class B, Class C, and Class GPA waters, the number of Escherichia coli bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 100 colony forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100 ml) in any 30- day interval; nor shall 320 cfu/100 ml be exceeded more than 10% of the time in any 30-day interval.

    (3) The bacteria content of Class SA waters shall be as naturally occurs, and the number of Enterococcus bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 30 cfu/100 ml in any 30-day interval, nor shall 110 cfu/100 ml be exceeded more than 10% of the time in any 30-day interval.

    (4) In Class SA shellfish harvesting areas, the number of total coliform bacteria in samples representative of the waters in shellfish harvesting areas shall not exceed a geometric mean for each sampling station of 70 MPN (most probable number) per 100 ml, with not more than 10% of samples exceeding 230 MPN per 100 ml for the taking of shellfish.

    (5) In Class SB and SC waters, the number of Enterococcus bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 30 cfu/100 ml in any 30-day interval, nor shall 110 cfu/100 ml be exceeded more than 10% of the time in any 30-day interval.

    (c) Ammonia criteria for fresh waters in Indian lands. (1) The one-hour average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg TAN/L) shall not exceed, more than once every three years, the criterion maximum concentration (i.e., the “CMC,” or “acute criterion”) set forth in Tables 2 and 3 of this section.

    (2) The thirty-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg TAN/L) shall not exceed, more than once every three years, the criterion continuous concentration (i.e., the “CCC,” or “chronic criterion”) set forth in Table 4.

    (3) In addition, the highest four-day average within the same 30-day period as in 2 shall not exceed 2.5 times the CCC, more than once every three years.

    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EP20AP16.005 EP20AP16.006 EP20AP16.007

    (d) pH criteria for fresh waters in Indian lands. The pH of fresh waters shall fall within the range of 6.5 to 8.5.

    (e) Temperature criteria for tidal waters in Indian lands. (1) The maximum acceptable cumulative increase in the weekly average temperature resulting from all artificial sources is 1 °C (1.8 °F) during all seasons of the year, provided that the summer maximum is not exceeded.

    (i) Weekly average temperature increase shall be compared to baseline thermal conditions and shall be calculated using the daily maxima averaged over a 7-day period.

    (ii) Baseline thermal conditions shall be measured at or modeled from a site where there is no artificial thermal addition from any source, and which is in reasonable proximity to the thermal discharge (within 5 miles), and which has similar hydrography to that of the receiving waters at the discharge.

    (2) Natural temperature cycles characteristic of the water body segment shall not be altered in amplitude or frequency.

    (3) During the summer months (for the period from May 15 through September 30), water temperatures shall not exceed a weekly average summer maximum threshold of 18 °C (64.4 °F) (calculated using the daily maxima averaged over a 7-day period).

    (f) Natural conditions provisions for waters in Indian lands. (1) The provision in Title 38 of Maine Revised Statutes 464(4.C) which reads: “Where natural conditions, including, but not limited to, marshes, bogs and abnormal concentrations of wildlife cause the dissolved oxygen or other water quality criteria to fall below the minimum standards specified in section 465, 465-A and 465-B, those waters shall not be considered to be failing to attain their classification because of those natural conditions,” does not apply to water quality criteria intended to protect human health.

    (2) The provision in Title 38 of Maine Revised Statutes 420(2.A) which reads “Except as naturally occurs or as provided in paragraphs B and C, the board shall regulate toxic substances in the surface waters of the State at the levels set forth in federal water quality criteria as established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92-500, Section 304(a), as amended,” does not apply to water quality criteria intended to protect human health.

    (g) Mixing zone policy for waters in Indian lands—(1) Establishing a mixing zone. (i) The Department of Environmental Protection (“department”) may establish a mixing zone for any discharge at the time of application for a waste discharge license if all of the requirements set forth in paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section are satisfied. The department shall attach a description of the mixing zone as a condition of a license issued for that discharge. After opportunity for a hearing in accordance with 38 MRS section 345-A, the department may establish by order a mixing zone with respect to any discharge for which a license has been issued pursuant to section 414 or for which an exemption has been granted by virtue of 38 MRS section 413, subsection 2.

    (ii) The purpose of a mixing zone is to allow a reasonable opportunity for dilution, diffusion or mixture of pollutants with the receiving waters such that an applicable criterion may be exceeded within a defined area of the waterbody while still protecting the designated use of the waterbody as a whole. In determining the extent of any mixing zone to be established under this section, the department will require from the applicant information concerning the nature and rate of the discharge; the nature and rate of existing discharges to the waterway; the size of the waterway and the rate of flow therein; any relevant seasonal, climatic, tidal and natural variations in such size, flow, nature and rate; the uses of the waterways that could be affected by the discharge, and such other and further evidence as in the department's judgment will enable it to establish a reasonable mixing zone for such discharge. An order establishing a mixing zone may provide that the extent thereof varies in order to take into account seasonal, climatic, tidal, and natural variations in the size and flow of, and the nature and rate of, discharges to the waterway.

    (2) Mixing zone information requirements. At a minimum, any request for a mixing zone must:

    (i) Describe the amount of dilution occurring at the boundaries of the proposed mixing zone and the size, shape, and location of the area of mixing, including the manner in which diffusion and dispersion occur;

    (ii) Define the location at which discharge-induced mixing ceases;

    (iii) Document the substrate character and geomorphology within the mixing zone;

    (iv) Document background water quality concentrations;

    (v) Address the following factors:

    (A) Whether adjacent mixing zones overlap;

    (B) Whether organisms would be attracted to the area of mixing as a result of the effluent character; and

    (C) Whether the habitat supports endemic or naturally occurring species.

    (vi) Provide all information necessary to demonstrate whether the requirements in paragraph (g)(3) of this section are satisfied.

    (3) Mixing zone requirements. (i) Mixing zones shall be established consistent with the methodologies in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the “Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control” EPA/505/2-90-001, dated March 1991.

    (ii) The mixing zone demonstration shall be based on the assumption that a pollutant does not degrade within the proposed mixing zone, unless:

    (A) Scientifically valid field studies or other relevant information demonstrate that degradation of the pollutant is expected to occur under the full range of environmental conditions expected to be encountered; and

    (B) Scientifically valid field studies or other relevant information address other factors that affect the level of pollutants in the water column including, but not limited to, resuspension of sediments, chemical speciation, and biological and chemical transformation.

    (iii) Water quality within an authorized mixing zone is allowed to exceed chronic water quality criteria for those parameters approved by the department. Acute water quality criteria may be exceeded for such parameters within the zone of initial dilution inside the mixing zone. Acute criteria shall be met as close to the point of discharge as practicably attainable. Water quality criteria shall not be violated outside of the boundary of a mixing zone as a result of the discharge for which the mixing zone was authorized.

    (iv) Mixing zones shall be as small as practicable. The concentrations of pollutants present shall be minimized and shall reflect the best practicable engineering design of the outfall to maximize initial mixing. Mixing zones shall not be authorized for bioaccumulative pollutants or bacteria.

    (v) In addition to the requirements above, the department may approve a mixing zone only if the mixing zone:

    (A) Is sized and located to ensure that there will be a continuous zone of passage that protects migrating, free-swimming, and drifting organisms;

    (B) Will not result in thermal shock or loss of cold water habitat or otherwise interfere with biological communities or populations of indigenous species;

    (C) Is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species listed under section 4 of the ESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of such species' critical habitat;

    (D) Will not extend to drinking water intakes and sources;

    (E) Will not otherwise interfere with the designated or existing uses of the receiving water or downstream waters;

    (F) Will not promote undesirable aquatic life or result in a dominance of nuisance species;

    (G) Will not endanger critical areas such as breeding and spawning grounds, habitat for state-listed threatened or endangered species, areas with sensitive biota, shellfish beds, fisheries, and recreational areas;

    (H) Will not contain pollutant concentrations that are lethal to mobile, migrating, and drifting organisms passing through the mixing zone;

    (I) Will not contain pollutant concentrations that may cause significant human health risks considering likely pathways of exposure;

    (J) Will not result in an overlap with another mixing zone;

    (K) Will not attract aquatic life;

    (L) Will not result in a shore-hugging plume; and

    (M) Is free from:

    (1) Substances that settle to form objectionable deposits;

    (2) Floating debris, oil, scum, and other matter in concentrations that form nuisances; and

    (3) Objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity.

    (h) Dissolved oxygen criteria for class A waters throughout the State of Maine, including in Indian lands. The dissolved oxygen content of Class A waters shall not be less than 7 ppm (7 mg/L) or 75% of saturation, whichever is higher, year-round. For the period from October 1 through May 14, in fish spawning areas, the 7-day mean dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 9.5 ppm (9.5 mg/L), and the 1-day minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 8 ppm (8.0 mg/L).

    (i) Waiver or modification of protection and improvement laws for waters throughout the State of Maine, including in Indian lands. For all waters in Maine, the provisions in Title 38 of Maine Revised Statutes 363-D do not apply to state or federal water quality standards applicable to waters in Maine, including designated uses, criteria to protect existing and designated uses, and antidegradation policies.

    (j) Phenol criterion for the protection of human health for Maine Waters outside of Indian lands. The phenol criterion to protect human health for the consumption of water and organisms is 4000 micrograms per liter.

    [FR Doc. 2016-09025 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 2, 22, 24, 25, 27, 90, 95 and 101 [ET Docket No. 15-170; DA 16-348] Incorporating the American National Standard for Compliance Testing of Transmitters Used in Licensed Radio Services (ANSI C63.26-2015) Into the Commission's Rules AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission acknowledges the publication of ANSI C63.26-2015 “American National Standard for Compliance Testing of Transmitters Used in Licensed Radio Services” and seeks comment on incorporating it into the Commission's rules by reference as part of an open rulemaking proceeding that addresses its equipment authorization (EA) rules and procedures. The standard was recently published and is now an “active standard”—that is, the standards association considers it to be valid, current, and approved.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before May 5, 2016. Reply Comment Date: May 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Butler, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2702, email: [email protected], TTY (202) 418-2989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's (Public Notice) ET Docket No 15-170, released April 1, 2016. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    Synopsis

    By this Synopsis, we acknowledge the publication of ANSI C63.26-2015 “American National Standard for Compliance Testing of Transmitters Used in Licensed Radio Services,” and seek comment on incorporating it into the Commission's rules by reference as part of an open rulemaking proceeding that addresses our equipment authorization (EA) rules and procedures. Comments and reply comments should be filed in the existing EA docket, ET Docket No. 15-170.

    As background, ANSI C63.26 was developed by the ANSI ASC C63 in order to provide manufacturers and test laboratories with the reliable and consistent measurement procedures necessary to demonstrate that transmitters used in licensed radio services comply with the Commission's technical requirements. The standard was recently published and is now an “active standard”—that is, the standards association considers it to be valid, current, and approved.

    The Commission, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Docket 15-170 (EA NPRM), initiated an examination of ways to update and modernize the rules and procedures associated with the equipment authorization program for radiofrequency (RF) devices. In the EA NPRM, the Commission acknowledged the then-pending ANSI C63.26 standard, and observed that references to the applicable measurement procedures in ANSI C63.26 could replace measurement procedures set forth in the part 2 equipment authorization rules and referred to in many specific licensed service subparts. In particular, the Commission noted that section 2.947 of the rules states that it will accept data which has been measured in accordance with standards or measurement procedures acceptable to the Commission and published by national engineering societies.

    ANSI C63.26 is particularly relevant to the testing of digital devices, since our existing rules mostly address older analog technologies, and the supplemental guidance for digital device measurements has generally been provided by OET on an ad hoc basis. Moreover, because the standard complements the ANSI C63.10 standard for measurement procedures for unlicensed devices (which the Commission recently incorporated by reference), the use of ANSI C63.26 would facilitate the testing of devices that contain both licensed and unlicensed transmitters.

    In the EA NPRM, the Commission asked parties to “take the ANSI C63.26 standards development into account when drafting their comments,” anticipated that it would “soon have to consider whether we should allow for the use of ANSI C63.26 once it has been adopted . . . and published,” and proposed “to seek comment on incorporating the ANSI C63.26 into our rules as soon as the standard becomes final.” As the standard has become final, and through this Public Notice, we seek comment on modifying section 2.910 of our rules, 47 CFR 2.910, to incorporate ANSI C63.26 by reference. By supplementing the record within existing Docket 15-170, the Commission will be able to consider the use of ANSI C63.26 as part of its comprehensive review of the EA process.

    In addition to commenting on the potential adoption of ANSI C63.26 generally, commenters should address how the Commission would incorporate the standard into our existing rules, as discussed in the NPRM. For example, what are the specific part 2 measurement procedures that ANSI C63.26 would replace, and which individual service rules should be replaced with cross-references to part 2 (and, by extension, ANSI C63.26)? These filings should be made in ET Docket No. 15-170 within the pleading cycle time period listed above.

    Incorporation by Reference. The OFR recently revised the regulations to require that agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). In accordance with OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes ANSI standards. Copies of the standards are available for purchase from these organizations: The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), 3916 Ranchero Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, 1-800-699-9277, http://www.techstreet.com/ieee; and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore.

    ANSI C63.26-2015, “American National Standard for Compliance Testing of Transmitters Used in Licensed Radio Services,” is ANSI approved and was published on January 15, 2016. The IBR previously proposed in 80 FR 46900 (2015) would also include this standard in multiple rule sections.

    This standard, ANSI C63.26-2015, covers the procedures for testing a wide variety of licensed transmitters; including but not limited to transmitters operating under parts 22, 24, 25, 27, 90, 95 and 101 of the FCC Rules, transmitters subject to the general procedures in part 2 of the FCC Rules and procedures for transmitters not covered in the FCC Rules. The standard also addresses specific topics; e.g., ERP/EIRP, average power measurements and instrumentation requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission. Ronald T. Repasi, Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09058 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    81 76 Wednesday, April 20, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 14, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by May 20, 2016. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Local Food Directories and Survey (formerly Farmers Market Directory and Survey)

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0169

    Note:

    Burden from approved collection OMB 0581-0289 “Local Food Directories and Survey,” is being merged with the renewal submission of 0581-0169. The title of 0581-0169 will be changed from “Farmers Market Directory and Survey” to “Local Food Directories and Survey.”

    Summary of Collection: The primary legislative basis for conducting farmer's market research is the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627). In addition, the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 supports USDA's work to enhance the effectiveness of direct marketing, such as the development of modern farmers markets, the development of On-Farm Markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) and Food Hubs. The Marketing Services Division (MSD), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) identifies marketing opportunities, provides analysis to help take advantage of those opportunities and develops and evaluates solutions including improving farmers markets and other direct-to-consumer marketing activities. Markets are maintained by State Departments of Agriculture, local public authorities, grower organizations and non-profit organizations.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information will be collected using the form TM-6 “Farmers' Market Directory and Survey,” the On-Farm Market Questionnaire, CSA Questionnaire, and the Food Hub Questionnaire. Each survey/questionnaire collects the data necessary to populate the USDA National Farmers Market Directory, and the other three direct to customer directories. Combining the collections will reduce the number of times that it seeks to make contact with market managers. Participating market managers are invited to participate in an optional National Farmers Market Managers Survey evaluating the farmer's market sector. These markets represent a varied range of sizes, geographical locations, types, ownership, structure, and will provide a valid overview of farmers markets in the United States. Information such as the size of market's, operating times and days, retail and wholesale sales, management structure, and rules and regulations governing the markets are all important questions that need to be answered in the design of a new market. The information developed by the Farmer's Market Survey will support better designs, development techniques, and operating methods for modern farmers markets and outline improvements that can be applied to revitalize existing markets. The three direct marketing channel directories along with the National Farmer's Market Directory Web site will provide synergies, give customers a one stop shopping Web site for a wide variety of locally produced directly marketed farm products, and provide a free advertising venue for agricultural enterprise managers seeking to diversify their farming operation by marketing directly to customers.

    Description of Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions

    Number of Respondents: 5,625

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion

    Total Burden Hours: 1,619

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09115 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Generic Clearance for Master Address File (MAF) and Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) Update Activities.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0809.

    Form Number(s): DF-31DA(E/S) Confidentiality Notice Listing and Mapping Application Screen Shots.

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Number of Respondents:

    FY16: 60,000 HH, 2,000 GQs FY17: 60,000 HH, 2,000 GQs FY18: 60,000 HH, 2,000 GQs

    Average Hours per Response: 3 min/HH; 10 min/GQs.

    Burden Hours:

    FY16: 3,333 FY17: 3,333 FY18: 3,333

    Needs and Uses: The Census Bureau requests approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the generic clearance for a number of activities it plans to conduct to update its Master Address File (MAF) and maintain the linkage between the MAF and the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding Referencing System (TIGER) of address ranges and associated geographic information. This MAF/TIGER database (MTdb) serves as the national repository for all of the spatial, geographic, and residential address data needed for census and survey data collection, data tabulation, data dissemination, geocoding services, and map production. The MAF contains all known living quarters and serves as the base of the census frame, to deliver questionnaires and postcards and to facilitate in-person data collection. The goal is to have each address in the MAF linked to a geographic location in TIGER, the Census Bureau's mapped spatial database. This linkage also ensures that the census data are processed and tabulated in the correct geographic location.

    The Census Bureau established the first MAF/TIGER System to support the Census 2000 enumeration. The objective was to build and maintain a permanent housing unit address list and linked spatial database for future use. The 1990 Census Address Control File was the initial base for the MAF. The United States Postal Service (USPS) Delivery Sequence File (DSF) provided regular updates to the MAF in city-style address areas. Census 2000 frame operations were the first decennial census operations to update the MAF. Census 2000 enumeration operations supplied additional updates to the MAF.

    After Census 2000, the advent of the American Community Survey (ACS), an ongoing census survey to collect community information, strengthened the need for MTdb updates throughout the decade. Between 2000 and 2010, the Census Bureau continued to use the USPS's DSF to update the MAF at least twice a year. In addition, the ACS established the Community Address Updating System, a program that provides field verified address updates to the MAF particularly in areas where the DSF is deficient. The Census Bureau used the addresses in the MTdb for the address frame for the 2010 Census and all frame-building operations and will do so again for the 2020 Census. These addresses are also used as a sampling frame for the American Community Survey and our other demographic current surveys. Maintenance activities for the MTdb are ongoing.

    The generic clearance has proved to be very beneficial to the Census Bureau. The generic clearance has allowed us to utilize our limited resources on actual operational planning and development of procedures. The extension will be especially beneficial over the upcoming three years by enabling us to focus on the efforts to improve procedures and continue updating the MTdb for the 2020 Census and current surveys.

    The Census Bureau will follow the protocol of past generic clearances: 30 days before the scheduled start date of each census activity, we will provide OMB with a detailed background on the activity, estimates of respondent burden and samples of pertinent forms. After the close of each fiscal year, we will also file a year-end summary report with OMB, presenting the results of each activity conducted.

    The following sections describe the activities to be included under the clearance. The Census Bureau has conducted these activities (or similar ones) previously and the respondent burden remains relatively unchanged from one time to another. The estimated number of respondents is based on historical contact data and applied to the number of Census blocks in sample.

    Demographic Area Address Listing (DAAL)

    The Demographic Area Address Listing (DAAL) program encompasses the geographic area updates for the Community Address Updating System (CAUS) and the National Health Interview Survey, the area and group quarters (GQ) frame listings for many ongoing demographic surveys (the Current Population Survey, the Consumer Expenditures Survey, etc.), and any other operations that use the MTdb as a frame for data collection. As noted above, the CAUS program was designed to address quality concerns relating to areas with high concentrations of noncity-style addresses and to provide a rural counterpart to the update of city-style addresses the Census Bureau will receive from the U.S. Postal Service's DSF. The ongoing demographic surveys, as part of the 2000 Sample Redesign Program, use the MTdb as one of several sources of addresses from which they select their samples.

    The DAAL program is a cooperative effort among many divisions at the Census Bureau; it includes automated listing software, systems, and procedures that allow us to conduct address listing operations in a dependent manner based on information contained in the MTdb. The DAAL operations are conducted on an ongoing basis in potentially any county across the country. Census Bureau field staff canvass selected 2010 Census tabulation blocks in an effort to improve the address list in areas where substantial address changes may have occurred that have not been added to the MTdb through regular update operations, and/or in blocks in the area or group quarters frame sample for the demographic surveys. Staff update existing information and, when necessary, contact individuals to collect accurate location and mailing address information. In general, contact with a household occurs only when the staff is adding a unit to the address list, there is a missing mailing address flag, and/or the individual's address is not posted or visible to the staff. There is no pre-determined or scripted list of questions asked for households as part of this listing operation. If an address is not posted or visible to the staff, they inquire about the address of the structure, the mailing address, and in some instances, the year the structure was built. If the occupants of these households are not at home, the staff may attempt to contact a neighbor to obtain the correct address information. DAAL collects Group Quarters information from all GQs in the selected blocks, and although there is not a scripted list of questions, the staff will ask information about the GQ such as the number of beds, the GQ name, and so on.

    DAAL is an ongoing operation. Listing assignments are distributed regularly, with the work conducted throughout the time period. We expect the DAAL listing operation will be conducted throughout the entire time period of the extension of this clearance.

    MAF Coverage Study

    The MAF Coverage Study (MAFCS) is planned as an ongoing Census Bureau effort to update the MTdb for current surveys and the Decennial Census, as well as to produce MTdb coverage estimates at national and sub-national levels. The coverage estimates produced as a result of the MAFCS design will allow the Census Bureau to establish a baseline coverage measure for the MTdb and yearly measures to assess the impacts of ongoing address updates on the MTdb. In addition to the traditional updates from the United States Postal Service and current surveys, the Census Bureau now continuously updates the MTdb with data from local data providers through the Geographic Support Systems (GSS). The MAFCS estimates will allow the Census Bureau to assess the updates from the GSS as well as other ongoing updates. MAFCS will leverage existing Census Bureau programs and systems to achieve these objectives. MAFCS data are collected by DAAL staff; hence, there will be a large increase to the DAAL operation workload.

    During Fiscal Year 2016, the bulk of the production field data collection (18,500 blocks) will occur from April 2016 through September 2017. In subsequent fiscal years, the field data collection will be spread over a 12-month period from October through September. The MAFCS uses probabilistic sampling methods to select blocks to canvass in the United States (except remote areas of Alaska) and Puerto Rico. Blocks for Puerto Rico will be selected for Fiscal Year 2017 and canvassing will not begin until April 2017. Blocks that are known to include public lands, nonresidential military facilities, or only street medians are out of scope for the MAFCS.

    The listed activities are not exhaustive of all activities that may be performed under this generic clearance. We will follow the approved procedure when submitting any additional activities not specifically listed here.

    All activities described above directly support the Census Bureau's efforts to update the MTdb on a regular basis so that the most current MTdb will be available for use in conducting and evaluating statistical programs the Census Bureau undertakes on a monthly, annual, or periodic basis.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: Continuous throughout the three years.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 United States Code, Sections 141 and 193.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09101 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-520-803] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Huston, Office VII, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On November 3, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from the United Arab Emirates covering the period November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015.1 The Department received a timely request from Petitioners 2 for an AD administrative review of two companies: JBF RAK LLC (JBF) and Flex Middle East FZE (Flex).3 In addition, Polyplex USA LLC and Flex Films (USA) Inc., domestic interested parties, submitted a timely request for an AD review of JBF,4 and JBF submitted a timely request for an AD review of itself.5 On January 7, 2016, pursuant to the requests from interested parties, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review with respect to Flex and JBF.6 On March 29, 2016, Petitioners withdrew their requests for review of Flex.7

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 80 FR 67706, 67707 (November 3, 2015).

    2 Petitioners are DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., and SKC, Inc.

    3See Petitioners' letter, “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from United Arab Emirates: Request for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated November 30, 2015.

    4See letter from Polyplex USA LLC and Flex Films (USA), Inc., “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from United Arab Emirates: Request for Antidumping Administrative Review,” dated November 30, 2015.

    5See JBF's letter, “JBF RAK LLC/Request for A/D Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from United Arab Emirates,” dated November 30, 2015.

    6See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 736 (January 7, 2016). JBF's name was misspelled in the January 7, 2016 initiation notice, and was corrected in the subsequent initiation notice, see Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 6832, 6837 (February 9, 2016).

    7See Petitioners' letter “Withdrawal of Request for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated March 29, 2016.

    Rescission in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department initiated the instant review on January 7, 2016 and Petitioners withdrew their request on March 29, 2016, which is within the 90-day period and thus is timely. Because Petitioners' withdrawal of their requests for review is timely and because no other party requested a review of Flex, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to Flex, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). No party to the review withdrew their request for a review of JBF. As such, the instant review will continue with respect to JBF.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess anti-dumping duties on all appropriate entries. Subject merchandise of Flex will be assessed ADs at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated ADs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of ADs prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the ADs occurred and the subsequent increase in the amount of ADs assessed.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: April 13, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09147 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-912] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On October 9, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (“OTR tires”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).1 The period of review (“POR”) is September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes in the margin calculations. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results” section below.

    1See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 61166 (October 9, 2015) (“Preliminary Results”).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Medley or Amanda Mallott, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4987 and (202) 482-6430, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    We conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). These final results of administrative review cover nine exporters of subject merchandise.2 The Department finds that of these nine exporters, two mandatory respondents, Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. (“Qihang”) and Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. (“Xugong”),3 made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”), and, an additional four companies, Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Full-World”), Trelleborg Wheel Systems (Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd. (“TWS Xingtai”) and Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (“Zhongwei”), and Tianjin Leviathan International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Leviathan”), demonstrated eligibility for separate rates status. Further, the Department determines that Zhongce Rubber Group Company Limited (“Zhongce”) and Trelleborg Wheel Systems Hebei Co. (“TWS Hebei”) had no shipments during the POR and Qingdao Haojia (Xinhai) Tyre Co. (“Haojia”) failed to demonstrate eligibility for separate rate status.

    2 We initiated a review of 12 companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 64565 (October 30, 2014) (“Initiation Notice”). Double Coin Holdings Ltd. and its affiliate China Manufacturers Alliance (collectively, “Double Coin”), and Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. and its affiliate Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd. (collectively, “GTC”), timely withdrew their requests for review, and on February 24, 2015, the Department rescinded the review for Double Coin and GTC pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 9695 (February 24, 2015).

    3 In the Preliminary Results we determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), to treat affiliated producers Xugong, Xuzhou Armour Rubber Company Ltd. (“Armour”) and Xuzhou Hanbang Tyre Co., Ltd. (“Hanbang”) as a single entity (collectively, “Xugong”). No party has challenged this collapsing decision.

    On October 9, 2015, the Department published its Preliminary Results of the antidumping duty administrative review of OTR tires from the PRC and invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. We received case and rebuttal briefs from Titan Tire Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (“Petitioners”) and both Qihang and Xugong. We also received case briefs from TWS Xingtai. On March 17, 2016, the Department held a public hearing at the request of respondents and Petitioners. For a further discussion of the events that occurred in this investigation subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 Also, as explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its authority to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government.5 As a consequence, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final results is now April 12, 2016. The Department conducted this review in accordance with 751 of the Act.

    4See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China; 2013-2014,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    5See Memorandum to the File from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas” dated January 27, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order includes new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.6

    6 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received a no-shipment certification from Zhongce and TWS Hebei.7 Consistent with its practice, the Department asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to conduct a query on potential shipments made by Zhongce and TWS Hebei during the POR; CBP did not provide any evidence contradicting the no-shipment claims.8 No interested parties provided comments. Thus, based on Zhongce's and TWS Hebei's certifications and our analysis of CBP information, we determine that Zhongce and TWS Hebei did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR.

    7See Preliminary Results, 80 FR at 61167.

    8See CBP Message Number 5141301, dated May 21, 2015.

    Final Determination of Affiliation and Collapsing

    We continue to find that Xugong, Armour, and Hanbang are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act and should be collapsed together and treated as a single company (collectively, “Xugong”), pursuant to the criteria laid out in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1)-(2).9

    9See Preliminary Results, 80 FR at 61167. No party commented on this issue in their case briefs.

    Separate Rates

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that Xugong, Qihang, Full-World, TWS Xingtai, Zhongwei, and Leviathan are eligible for separate-rate status; we also determined that Haojia was not eligible for a separate rate, and thus was part of the PRC-wide Entity.10 We made no changes to these determinations for the final results.

    10See Preliminary Results, 80 FR at 61167-61168, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at the “Separate Rates” section. No parties commented on this issue in their case briefs.

    Rate for Non-Examined Companies Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination of companies subject to the administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents not individually examined in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a preference for not calculating an all-others rate using rates which are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available (“FA”).11 Accordingly, the Department's usual practice has been to determine the dumping margin for companies not individually examined by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for the individually examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.12 Consistent with this practice, in this review, we have calculated weighted-average dumping margins for the two mandatory respondents Qihang and Xugong, and these dumping margins are above de minimis and are not based entirely on FA. Therefore, because we have publicly-ranged shipment data on the record from both Qihang and Xugong, we are assigning to Leviathan, Full-World, TWS Xingtai, and Zhongwei the weighted-average of the margins calculated for Qihang and Xugong, as the separate rate for this review.13

    11See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.

    12See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007).

    13See Memorandum to the File, “2013-2014 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Results Margin Calculation for Separate Rate Companies,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on an analysis of the comments received, we made certain calculation programming changes and revisions to the valuation of certain factors of production. For further details on the changes we made for these final results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. See also Memorandum to the File, “Final Results of the 2013-2014 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,” dated concurrently with this notice; Memorandum to the File, “2013-2014 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd.,” dated concurrently with this notice; and Memorandum to the File, “2013-2014 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd.,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Final Results

    As a result of this administrative review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014:

    Exporter Weighted-average dumping margin (percent) Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd., Armour Rubber Company Ltd., or Xuzhou Hanbang Tyre Co., Ltd 65.33 Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd 79.86 Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., Ltd 70.55 Tianjin Leviathan International Trade Co., Ltd 70.55 Trelleborg Wheel Systems (Xingtai) China, Co. Ltd 70.55 Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd 70.55 Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).14 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    14See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103 (February 14, 2012) (“NME Antidumping Proceedings”).

    For customers or importers of Xugong and Qihang for which we do not have entered value, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total sales quantity of those same sales.15 For customers or importers of Xugong and Qihang for which we received entered-value information, we have calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment rates based on importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates.16 For the non-examined separate rate companies, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at 70.55 percent. For the PRC-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at 105.31 percent.

    15See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    16Id.

    Pursuant to a refinement in the Department's non-market economy (“NME”) practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate.17 In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the NME-wide rate.

    17See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin identified in the “Final Results” section of this notice, above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but that received a separate rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate (or exporter-producer chain rate) published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the exporter was reviewed; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 105.31 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 12, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Issues and Decision Memorandum • Summary • Background • Scope of the Order • List of Comments • Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether Application of Adverse Facts Available Is Warranted With Regards to Certain Xugong Sales Comment 2: Whether To Grant Qihang a Double Remedies Adjustment and What Pass-Through Rate to Use Comment 3: Whether To Adjust Xugong's U.S. Prices for Irrecoverable VAT Comment 4: Treatment of Xugong's Market Economy Purchases Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Apply the Separate Rate Calculated in This Review to TWS Xingtai Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Reject Certain Surrogate Values Submitted After the Preliminary Results Comment 7: Surrogate Country Comment 8: Financial Statements Comment 9: Natural Rubber Comment 10: Reclaimed Rubber Comment 11: Inland Freight Comment 12: Selection Surrogate Value for Carbon Black Comment 13: Inadvertent Errors in Surrogate Value Selection Comment 14: Selection of the Surrogate Values for #3 and #20 Compound Rubber, Activation Rubber Powder, Benzonic Acid, and Tire Cord Fabric • Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-09165 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE574 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would allow eight commercial fishing vessels to fish outside of the limited access sea scallop regulations in support of bycatch reduction research by using a bi-directional extended link apron.

    Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line “DA16-026 CFF Eco Friendly Dredge EFP.”

    Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope ” DA16-026 CFF Eco Friendly Dredge EFP.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Coonamesset Farm Foundation (CFF) has submitted a proposal titled “Development of Ecosystem Friendly Scallop Dredge Bags: Tools for Long-Term Sustainability,” that has been favorably reviewed and is pending final approval by NOAA's Grants Management Division under the 2016 Atlantic Sea Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program.

    CFF submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) on March 10, 2016. The project would continue testing gear that reduces bycatch focusing on a bi-directional extended link apron which increases inter-ring spacing to improve escapement of small scallops and reduction in finfish bycatch.

    CFF is requesting exemptions that would allow eight commercial fishing vessels be exempt from the Atlantic sea scallop days-at-sea (DAS) allocations at 50 CFR 648.53(b); crew size restrictions at § 648.51(c); Atlantic sea scallop observer program requirements at § 648.11(g); access area program requirements at § 648.60(a)(4), and rotational closed area exemptions for Closed Area I at § 648.58(a); Closed Area II at § 648.58(b), and Nantucket Lightship at § 648.58(c). The EFP would exempt participating vessels from possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subsections B and D through O, for sampling purposes only. The EFP would also exempt one vessel from the scallop dredge gear restrictions for minimum ring and mesh size and use of a liner at § 648.51(b) in order to use a survey dredge set to the same specifications the NMFS uses for its yearly abundance survey. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

    Eight vessels would conduct scallop dredging in June 2016-May 2017, on a total of seven 7-day trips, for a total of 49 DAS. Each trip would complete approximately 50 tows for an overall total of 350 tows for the project. Trips would take place in the open areas of Southern New England and Georges Bank as well as in the Mid-Atlantic scallop access area and Georges Bank access areas that are currently closed. Four trips would be conducted in the Mid-Atlantic and southern New England, and three trips would be conducted on Georges Bank. Trips would be centralized around areas with high yellowtail and winter flounder bycatch and in areas with a high abundance of harvestable size scallops mixed with pre-recruit scallops.

    Six trips would fish two 15-foot (4.57-m) Turtle Deflector Dredges, towed for a maximum duration of 30 minutes with a tow speed range of 4.8-5.1 knots. One dredge would be rigged with a standard linked bag while the other would be rigged with a bi-directional extended link apron. Standard linking is defined as a single link between ring spaces, and the extended link is defined as two links linked together between rings. Both dredges would use 4-inch (10.16-cm) rings and a 10-inch (25.40-cm) twine top. One trip would utilize the NMFS survey dredge on one side, which has specifications of 8-feet (2.44 m) wide with 2-inch (5.08-cm) rings and a 3.5-inch (8.89-cm) twine top with a 1.5-inch (3.81-cm) liner inserted inside. The project would use a combination of both the experimental and control dredge on the other side. This would allow the project to compare the absolute selectivity curves between the control and experimental dredges.

    For all tows, the sea scallop catch would be counted into baskets and weighed. One basket from each dredge would be randomly selected and the scallops would be measured in 5-mm increments to determine size selectivity. Finfish catch would be sorted by species and then counted, weighed and measured in 1-mm increments. Depending on the volume of scallops and finfish captured, the catch would be subsampled as necessary. No catch would be retained for longer than needed to conduct sampling and no catch would be landed for sale.

    Project Catch Estimates in Pounds Species Number Weight
  • (pounds)
  • Weight
  • (kilograms)
  • Scallops 250,000 100,000 45,359 Yellowtail Flounder 2,000 2,000 907 Winter Flounder 300 500 227 Windowpane Flounder 5,000 3,500 1,588 Monkfish 2,500 5,500 2,495 Summer Flounder 100 150 68 Barndoor Skate 500 500 227 Northeast Skate Complex 75,000 100,000 45,359

    CFF needs these exemptions to allow them to conduct experimental dredge towing without being charged DAS, and to deploy gear in closed access areas where concentrations of primary bycatch species are sufficiently high to provide statistically robust results. Exemption from the dredge gear requirements would allow the project to tow the NMFS survey dredge, which does not conform with regulation. Participating vessels need crew size waivers to accommodate science personnel, and possession waivers will enable researchers to conduct finfish sampling activities. The project would be exempt from the sea scallop observer program requirements because activities conducted on the trip are not consistent with normal fishing operations.

    If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09168 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE485 Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the availability of the “Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (DPEA) for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC).” Publication of this notice begins the official public comment period for this DPEA. The purpose of the DPEA is to evaluate, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of conducting and funding fisheries and ecosystem research in the southeastern coast of the U.S., the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea marine waters of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    DATES:

    Comments and information must be received no later than May 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the DPEA should be addressed to: NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC/Director's Office, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Key Biscayne, FL 33149. The mailbox address for providing email comments is [email protected] NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the DPEA may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/dpea.html

    Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Melissa Cook, SEFSC, (228) 762-4591.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) is the research arm of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Southeast region of the U.S. The SEFSC conducts research and provides scientific advice to manage fisheries and conserve protected species in marine and estuarine habitats of the Atlantic Ocean along the southeastern coast of the U.S., the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea, including marine waters offshore from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Three regional Fishery Management Councils rely in part on data collected by the SEFSC. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) rely primarily on the SEFSC for fisheries independent research data for development of stock assessment reports and other management purposes. The SEFSC also provides research data and works cooperatively with numerous other domestic and international fisheries management organizations.

    NMFS has prepared the DPEA under NEPA to evaluate several alternatives for conducting and funding fisheries and ecosystem research activities as the primary Federal action. Additionally in the DPEA, NMFS evaluates a related action—also called a “connected action” under 40 CFR 1508.25 of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)—which is the proposed promulgation of regulations and authorization of the take of marine mammals incidental to the fisheries research under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Additionally, because the proposed research activities occur in areas inhabited by species of marine mammals, birds, sea turtles, and fish listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened or endangered, this DPEA evaluates activities that could result in unintentional takes of ESA-listed marine species.

    The following four alternatives are currently evaluated in the DPEA:

    • No-Action/Status Quo Alternative—Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research with Scope and Protocols Similar to Past Effort

    • Preferred Alternative—Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research (New Suite of Research) with Mitigation for MMPA and ESA Compliance

    • Modified Research Alternative— Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research (New Suite of Research) with Additional Mitigation

    • No Research Alternative—No Fieldwork for Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted or Funded by SEFSC

    The first three alternatives include a program of fisheries and ecosystem research projects conducted or funded by the SEFSC as the primary Federal action. Because this primary action is connected to a secondary Federal action (also called a connected action under NEPA), to consider authorizing incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA, NMFS must identify as part of this evaluation “(t)he means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat.” (Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA [16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.]). NMFS must therefore identify and evaluate a reasonable range of mitigation measures to minimize impacts to protected species that occur in SEFSC research areas. These mitigation measures are considered as part of the identified alternatives in order to evaluate their effectiveness to minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. The three action alternatives also include mitigation measures intended to minimize potentially adverse interactions with other protected species that occur within the action area. Protected species include all marine mammals, which are covered under the MMPA, all species listed under the ESA, and bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

    NMFS is also evaluating a second type of no-action alternative that considers no Federal funding for field fisheries and ecosystem research activities. This is called the No Research Alternative to distinguish it from the No-Action/Status Quo Alternative. The No-Action/Status Quo Alternative will be used as the baseline to compare all of the other alternatives. Potential direct and indirect effects on the environment are evaluated under each alternative in the DPEA. The environmental effects on the following resources are considered: Physical environment, special resource areas, fish, marine mammals, birds, sea turtles, invertebrates, and the social and economic environment. Cumulative effects of external actions and the contribution of fisheries research activities to the overall cumulative impact on the aforementioned resources is also evaluated in the DPEA for the three main geographic regions in which SEFSC surveys are conducted. NMFS requests comments on the DPEA for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Please include, with your comments, any supporting data or literature citations that may be informative in substantiating your comment.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Bonnie Ponwith, Director, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09154 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE [Docket ID: USA-2016-HQ-0014] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civil Works announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Mail: ODCMO, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: Mailbox 24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

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

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Casey Building, 8801 Telegraph Road, Alexandria VA 22315 ATTN Meredith Bridgers or call 703-428-8458.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Recreation Compendium of Questions Generic Clearance; OMB Control Number 0710-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary for planning and feasibility studies; understanding of recreation visitor demands, experiences and facility use; input to recreation area management and operations; recreation visitation estimation; and economic estimates at US Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Annual Burden Hours: 8,333 hours

    Number of Respondents: 25,000

    Responses per Respondent: 2

    Annual Responses: 50,000

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes (0.17 hours)

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Surveys developed from this generic clearance may be delivered by any of the following information collection formats, as well as others not mentioned herein: comment cards, paper surveys (on site, mail, email), web-based surveys, interviews (on site, telephone), or focus groups. Potential respondents may include current or future recreational visitors; regional residents; and stakeholders, state/local government agencies, and dependent industries or businesses that operate in or around USACE Water Resource Projects. Potential respondents may be contacted by mail, phone, or in person and invited to participate in the information collection. Respondents may access collection instruments via technology, paper, or by speaking to a USACE employee or representative. Respondents may return the collection instrument electronically, by paper mail, or orally. Appropriate disclosures (Privacy Act Statement) may be provided to the respondent visually (in writing on paper) or orally (in spoken word by a USACE employee or representative).

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09109 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Policy Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Federal advisory committee meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Policy Board (DPB). This meeting will be closed to the public.

    DATES:

    Quarterly Meeting: Monday, May 9, 2016, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Pentagon, 2000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Ann Hansen, 2000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-2000. Phone: (703) 571-9232.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) (“the Sunshine Act”), and the Federal Advisory Committee Management Act; Final Rule 41 CFR parts 101-6 and 102-3 (“the FACA Final Rule”).

    Purpose of Meeting: To obtain, review and evaluate classified information related to the DPB's mission to advise on: (a) Issues central to strategic DoD planning; (b) policy implications of U.S. force structure and force modernization and on DoD's ability to execute U.S. defense strategy; (c) U.S. regional defense policies; and (d) other research and analysis of topics raised by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary or the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

    Meeting Agenda: Beginning at 8:00 a.m. on May 9 the DPB will have secret through top secret (SCI) level discussions on national security issues regarding Iran.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to the Sunshine Act, the FACA and the FACA Final Rule, the DoD has determined that this meeting shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), in consultation with the DoD FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that this meeting be closed to the public because the discussions fall under the purview of Section 552b(c)(1) of the Sunshine Act and are so inextricably intertwined with unclassified material that they cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without disclosing secret or higher classified material.

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Ann Hansen, [email protected]

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the FACA, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the DPB at any time regarding its mission or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the DPB's Designated Federal Officer (DFO); the DFO's contact information is listed in this notice or it can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the DPB may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all committee members.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09108 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-HA-0040] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Active Duty Dental Program (ADDP) Claim Form; OMB Control Number 0720-0053.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    Number of Respondents: 75,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 4.

    Annual Responses: 300,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 75,000.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection is necessary to obtain and record the dental readiness of Service Members using the Active Duty Dental Program (ADDP) and at the same time submit the claim for the dental procedures provided so that claims can be processed and reimbursement made to the provider. Many Service Members are not located near a military dental treatment facility and receive their dental care in the private sector.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Stephanie Tatham.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Stephanie Tatham, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

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

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09076 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2012-HA-0165] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Mail: ODCMO, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: Mailbox 24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD), Defense Health Agency, Tricare Dental Care Section, ATTN: COL James Honey, 7700 Arlington Blvd., 3M453, Falls Church, VA 22042, or call TRICARE Operations Division, at 703-681-8862.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense Active Duty/Reserve Forces Dental Examination; DD Form 2813; OMB Number 0720-0022.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and record the dental health status of members of the Armed Forces. This form is the means for civilian dentists to record the results of their findings and provide the information to the member's military organization. The military organizations are required by Department of Defense policy to track the dental status of its members.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 37,500.

    Number of Respondents: 150,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 5.

    Annual Responses: 750,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 3 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondents are medical professionals who provide dental services. Members of the Armed Forces of the United States are the recipients of the dental examination. The Armed Forces Reserve component members must maintain their dental health at a predetermined level so problems do not occur when they are deployed to a military operation. Reserve component members usually receive their dental care from civilian dentists; therefore it would be civilian dentists who would complete the form. Following a routine dental examination, the dentist would review the categories listed on the form and circle the number corresponding to the condition that best describes the dental health of the patient. If dental problems can be identified, they are indicated on the form. Once the form is complete and the dentist signs it, the members take the form back to the organization to which they belong. The information on the form is logged into a database. The form is kept in the health record until no longer needed and then it is destroyed.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09117 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0044] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to amend a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to amend a system of records, DWHS P18, entitled “Office of the Secretary of Defense Identification Badge System.” The system is used by officials of the Military Personnel Division, Human Resources Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services to temporarily issue the badge at arrival and determine who is authorized permanent award after a one-year period and then prepare the certificate to recognize this event.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before May 20, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Mail: ODCMO, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: Mailbox 24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number 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. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/. The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to amend one system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DWHS P18 System name:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense Identification Badge System (December 23, 2015, 80 FR 79867)

    Changes: Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Disclosure When Requesting Information Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to a federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a DoD Component decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.

    Disclosure of Requested Information Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.

    Disclosure to the Office of Personnel Management Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records subject to the Privacy Act and maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concerning information on pay and leave, benefits, retirement deduction, and any other information necessary for the OPM to carry out its legally authorized government-wide personnel management functions and studies.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.

    [FR Doc. 2016-09083 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2009-OS-0160] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Mail: ODCMO, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, ATTN: Mailbox 24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

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

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (OUSD AT&L), Manufacturing and Industrial Based Policy (MIBP), ATTN: Jonathan Wright, Alexandria, VA 22350-6500, or call MIBP, at 571-372-6271.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Industrial Capabilities Questionnaire; DD Form 2737; OMB Control Number 0704-0377.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide the adequate industrial capability analyses to indicate a diverse, healthy, and competitive industrial base capable of meeting Department demands. Additionally, the information is required to perform the industrial assessments required by Chapter 148, section 2502 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code; and to support development of a defense industrial base information system as required by Section 722 of the 1992 Defense Production Act, as amended, and Section 802 of Executive Order 12919.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 153,600.

    Number of Respondents: 12,800.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 12,800.

    Average Burden per Response: 12 hours.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondents are companies/facilities specifically identified as being of interest to the Department of Defense. Industrial Capabilities Questionnaire DD Form 2737 records pertinent information needed to conduct industrial base analysis for senior DoD leadership to ensure a robust defense industrial base to support the warfighter.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09176 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion Project and Associated Roadway Realignment, NEPA Scoping Meeting and Public Comment Period AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    NEPA scoping meeting and public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), on behalf of the Arlington National Cemetery (ANC), plans to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate environmental impacts from reasonable project alternatives and to determine the potential for significant impacts related to the proposed ANC Southern Expansion Project and Associated Roadway Realignment. If the ANC and the USACE determine that there is a potential for a significant environmental impact, the USACE will issue a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Scoping comments may be submitted until May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public is invited to submit NEPA scoping comments to Ms. Kathy Perdue, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, Planning and Policy Branch, 803 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510 or via email: [email protected]. The Project title and the commenter's contact information should be included with submitted comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kathy Perdue, (757) 201-7218.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The ANC is the lead federal agency for this Project, and the USACE is preparing the NEPA documents on its behalf, assisted by the HNTB Corporation. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and Arlington County will serve as cooperating agencies during the NEPA process. The ANC and the USACE will also consider the input of various stakeholder organizations and the public.

    ANC is located within the eastern boundary of Arlington County, in the northeastern corner of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and at the western terminus of Memorial Avenue, directly across the Arlington Memorial Bridge and the Potomac River from the District of Columbia (Washington DC). ANC is a 624-acre national military shrine that is the final resting place for over 400,000 active duty service members, veterans, and their families. The proposed Southern Expansion site, approximately 37 acres in size, encompasses four parcels of land, including the former Navy Annex site. The parcels are bounded on the south by Interstate 395 (I-395), on the north by Southgate Road, on the west by the Foxcroft Heights neighborhood and the VDOT Maintenance Yard, and on the east by Washington Boulevard (Route 27).

    The EA will evaluate reasonable alternatives and potential impacts of the Southern Expansion Project and associated roadway realignments and land exchange agreement. The objectives (purpose) for the proposed action are:

    • To create an expansion area contiguous with the ANC through the replacement of Southgate Road with a new South Nash Street and realignment of Columbia Pike and the Columbia Pike/Washington Boulevard interchange (adjacent to the Pentagon);

    • To maximize the number of burial plots for first interments and inurnments;

    • To reconfigure the roadways to support the short- and long-term multimodal transportation system needs and goals for the Commonwealth of Virginia and Arlington County;

    • To maintain access to the Air Force Memorial and to create public access for the proposed 9/11 Pentagon Memorial Visitor Education Center; and

    • To identify environmental and cultural resources in the Project area and potential impacts to those resources from the Project.

    Scoping/Public Involvement. The public NEPA scoping meeting will be held on April 27, 2016, from 5 p.m.-9 p.m., at the Sheraton Pentagon City Hotel, 900 S. Orme Street, Arlington, VA 22204. Federal, state, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public are invited to provide scoping comments to identify issues and potentially significant effects to be considered in the analysis.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09053 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0046] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2019) Pilot Test Recruitment AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0046. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, 2E-105, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2019) Pilot Test Recruitment.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0695.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,119.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 274.

    Abstract: The Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is an international assessment of fourth and eighth grade students' achievement in mathematics and science. Since its inception in 1995, TIMSS has continued to assess students every 4 years. The United States will participate in TIMSS 2019 to continue to monitor the progress of its students compared to that of other nations and to provide data on factors that may influence student achievement. New in 2019, TIMSS will be a technology-based assessment conducted in an electronic format. TIMSS is designed by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), and is conducted in the U.S. by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). In preparation for the TIMSS 2019 main study, in April 2017, U.S. will participate in a pilot study to assist in the development of eTIMSS, and then U.S. will implement a field test, from March through April 2018, to evaluate new assessment items and background questions. This submission describes the plans for recruiting schools, teachers, and students for the pilot study beginning in October 2016. Recruitment for the field test will begin in May 2017, and recruitment for the main study in May of 2018. In the summer of 2016, NCES will submit a separate request for the pilot data collection and recruitment for the 2018 field test, including draft versions of the pilot test questionnaires.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09099 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0045] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Direct Loan, FFEL, Perkins and TEACH Grant Total and Permanent Disability Discharge Application and Related Forms AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0045. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-105, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jon Utz, 202-377-4040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Direct Loan, FFEL, Perkins and TEACH Grant Total and Permanent Disability Discharge Application and Related Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0065.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 254,800.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 127,400.

    Abstract: The Discharge Application: Total and Permanent Disability serves as the means by which an individual who is totally and permanently disabled, as defined in section 437(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, applies for discharge of his or her Direct Loan, FFEL, or Perkins loan program loans, or TEACH Grant service obligation. The form collects the information that is needed by the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) to determine the individual's eligibility for discharge based on total and permanent disability. The Total and Permanent Disability Discharge: Post-Discharge Monitoring form serves as the means by which an individual who has received a total and permanent disability discharge provides the Department with information about his or her annual earnings from employment during the 3-year post-discharge monitoring period that begins on the date of discharge. The Total and Permanent Disability Discharge: Applicant Representative Designation form serves as the means by which an applicant for a total and permanent disability discharge may (1) designate a representative to act on his or her behalf in connection with the applicant's discharge request, (2) change a previously designated representative, or (3) revode a previous designation of a representative.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09100 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before June 20, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Scott Whiteford at 202-287-1563 or by fax at 202-287-1656 or by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to by email at [email protected]

    Information for the Excess Personal Property Furnished to Non-Federal Recipients and the Exchange/Sale Report is collected using GSA's Personal Property Reporting Tool and can be found at the following link: https://gsa.inl.gov/property/.

    Information for the Federal Fleet Report is collected using the Federal Automotive Statistical Tool and can be found at the following link: https://fastweb.inel.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-1000; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Exchange/Sale Report, Excess Personal Property Furnished to Non-Federal Recipients, Federal Automotive Statistical Tool Report; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: The information being collected is data required in order to submit annual personal property reports as required by 41 CFR part 102 and the Office of Management and Budget. Respondents to this information collection request will be the Department of Energy's Management and Operating Contractor and other major site contractors; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Total Respondents: 76 respondents for each of the three reports; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 228 (76 respondents × 3 reports); (7) Total annual estimated number of burden hours is 1,672. A breakout of burden hours for each report is listed below:

    ○ Exchange/Sale 2 hours with 76 respondents ○ Non-Federal Recipient Report are estimated at 2 hours for 76 estimated ○ Federal Automotive Statistical Tool at 18 hours for each of the 76 estimated respondents, for a total of 1,368 burden hours.

    (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden is $133,760.

    Authority:

    (A) 41 CFR 102-39.85, (B) 41 CFR 102-36.295 and 102-36.300, (C) OMB Circular A-11 section 25.5, (D) 41 CFR 102-34.335.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 14, 2016. Carmelo Melendez, Director, Office of Asset Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09125 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-419] Application to Export Electric Energy; MXTREP #1, LLC AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    MEXTREP #1, LLC (Applicant or MEXTREP) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before May 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.§ 824a(e)).

    On March 31, 2016, DOE received an application from MEXTREP for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities.

    In its application, MEXTREP states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that MEXTREP proposes to export to Mexico would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning MEXTREP's application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-419. An additional copy is to be provided to Boone Nerren, MEXTREP#1, LLC, 16200 Dallas Parkway, Suite 245, Dallas, TX 75248.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2016. Brian Mills, Senior Planning Advisor, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09127 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:

    TIME AND DATE:

    April 21, 2016, 10 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Agenda.

    * NOTE—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.

    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.

    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    1026th—Meeting [Regular Meeting; April 21, 2016; 10:00 a.m.] Item No. Docket No. Company ADMINISTRATIVE A-1 AD16-1-000 Agency Administrative Matters. A-2 AD16-7-000 Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations. A-3 AD16-19-000 National Labs Panel on Grid Modernization. A-4 AD16-20-000 Electric Storage Participation in Regions with Organized Wholesale Electric Markets. ELECTRIC E-1 EL12-80-001 Exelon Wind 1, LLC. QF05-114-004 QF05-116-004 Exelon Wind 2, LLC. QF05-115-004 Exelon Wind 3, LLC. QF03-13-005 Exelon Wind 4, LLC. QF06-289-004 Exelon Wind 5 LLC. QF06-290-004 Exelon Wind 6, LLC. QF07-46-004 Exelon Wind 7, LLC. QF07-53-004 Exelon Wind 8, LLC. QF07-54-004 Exelon Wind 9, LLC QF07-55-004 Exelon Wind 10, LLC. QF07-56-004 Exelon Wind 11, LLC. QF07-257-003 High Plains Wind Power, LLC. E-2 EL14-28-000 Occidental Chemical Corporation. QF00-64-002 E-3 EL13-41-000 Occidental Chemical Corporation v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-4 EL13-88-000 Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, LLC. E-5 EL14-20-000 Independent Market Monitor for PJM v. PJM Interconnection, LLC. E-6 EL12-54-000 Viridity Energy, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection, LLC. E-7 EF15-10-000 Western Area Power Administration. E-8 QM14-3-001 Entergy Services, Inc. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC. Entergy Louisiana, LLC. Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Entergy New Orleans, Inc. Entergy Texas, Inc. E-9 ER14-2850-004 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. ER14-2851-004 E-10 OMITTED E-11 OMITTED E-12 ER11-2275-003 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-13 ER15-952-001 New Jersey Energy Associates, a Limited Partnership. E-14 ER16-763-000 NorthWestern Corporation. E-15 ER15-1861-001 Tucson Electric Power Company. ER15-1862-001 E-16 ER15-553-001 San Diego Gas & Electric Company. E-17 ER16-866-000 MDU Resources Group, Inc. E-18 EL09-61-003 Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC and Entergy Texas, Inc. E-19 EL09-61-002 Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC and Entergy Texas, Inc. E-20 OMITTED E-21 ER14-822-002 PJM Interconnection, LLC. ER14-822-003 E-22 ER14-504-001 PJM Interconnection, LLC. E-23 ER13-2108-001 PJM Interconnection, LLC. E-24 OMITTED E-25 ER09-411-005 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-26 ER11-2275-002 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-27 OMITTED E-28 EL07-86-012 Ameren Services Company and Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. EL07-88-012 Great Lakes Utilities. Indiana Municipal Power Agency. Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission. Missouri River Energy Services. Prairie Power, Inc. Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency. Wisconsin Public Power Inc. v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. EL07-92-012 Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-29 OMITTED E-30 EL16-41-000 Morongo Transmission LLC. E-31 EL14-66-003 E.ON Climate & Renewables North America LLC. Pioneer Trail Wind Farm, LLC. Settlers Trail Wind Farm, LLC v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company. E-32 EL16-29-000 North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation. North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1. Piedmont Municipal Power Agency. City of Concord, NC. City of Kings Mountain, NC v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. EL16-30-000 North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation. North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency. Fayetteville Public Works Commission v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC. E-33 EL12-60-001 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Western Area Power Administration. Basin Electric Power Cooperative. Heartland Consumers Power District. ER12-1586-002 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. ER12-1586-003 E-34 ER16-120-000 New York Independent System Operator, Inc. EL15-37-001 GAS G-1 RP13-743-004 ANR Pipeline Company and Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership. RP15-138-002 RP15-139-002 (Consolidated) RP14-650-000 RP14-650-001 RP15-785-000 (Not Consolidated) G-2 OR14-17-001 Colonial Pipeline Company. G-3 OR13-3-000 Buckeye Pipe Line Company, LP. G-4 IS09-348-011 BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. IS09-395-011 IS10-204-010 IS10-491-000 IS10-491-006 IS09-384-010 ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc. IS10-205-009 IS10-476-000 IS10-476-006 IS09-391-010 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company. IS09-177-012 IS10-200-009 IS10-547-000 IS10-547-005 IS10-54-008 Koch Alaska Pipeline Company, LLC. IS10-496-000 IS10-496-006 IS09-176-011 Unocal Pipeline Company. IS07-41-009 IS08-53-009 IS10-52-008 OR10-3-009 IS10-490-000 IS10-490-005 IS11-3-000 IS11-3-004 G-5 IS11-335-000 BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. IS12-458-000 IS13-62-000 IS13-108-000 IS13-506-000 IS15-88-000 IS16-76-000 IS11-306-000 ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc. IS12-498-000 IS13-480-000 IS13-125-000 IS14-596-000 IS15-522-000 IS11-336-000 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company. IS12-397-000 IS13-55-000 IS13-496-000 IS14-575-000 IS15-580-000 IS11-546-000 Unocal Pipeline Company. IS11-328-000 Koch Alaska Pipeline Company, LLC. G-6 IS15-522-001 ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc. IS11-306-003, et al. (Consolidated) ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc. G-7 IS15-580-001 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company. IS11-306-004, et al. (Consolidated) ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc. HYDRO H-1 P-13287-004 City of New York, New York. H-2 P-14316-002 Columbia Basin Hydropower. P-14318-002 P-14349-002 P-14351-002 H-3 P-13333-005 Public Utility District No. 1 of Klickitat County, Washington. P-14729-001 Clean Power Development, LLC. H-4 P-7856-027 Willow Creek Hydro, LLC. H-5 P-2146-141 Alabama Power Company. CERTIFICATES C-1 CP16-1-000 Dominion Transmission, Inc. Issued: April 14, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David Reininger at 703-993-3100.

    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.

    [FR Doc. 2016-09256 Filed 4-18-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1407-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-04-14_SA 2880 Attachment A Project Specs (Ameren-Wabash Valley Power UCA) to be effective 3/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20160414-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1408-000.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Rate Schedule No. 153 NPC/Aha Macav Interconection and TSA Agr. to be effective 4/15/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20160414-5154.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1409-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Revised Added Facilities Rate under WDAT—Filing No. 4 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20160414-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09090 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP15-115-000; CP15-115-001] National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, Empire Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Northern Access 2016 Project

    On March 17, 2015, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) and Empire Pipeline, Inc. (Empire) (collectively referred to as National Fuel) filed an application in Docket No. CP15-115-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania and New York. National Fuel amended its application on November 4, 2015. The proposed project is known as the Northern Access 2016 Project (Project), and would expand the National Fuel pipeline system to provide 497,000 dekatherms per day of new firm natural gas transportation capacity and the Empire pipeline system to provide 350,000 dekatherms per day of new firm natural gas transportation capacity.

    On March 27, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA—July 27, 2016 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—October 25, 2016

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    The Project involves the construction and operation of certain facilities to provide natural gas transportation service from a receipt point in McKean County, Pennsylvania to an existing Empire pipeline system in Niagara County, New York.

    National Fuel's proposed facilities include: Installation of about 96.9 miles of new 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in McKean County, Pennsylvania and Cattaraugus and Erie Counties, New York; modifications at the existing Porterville Compressor Station in Erie County; addition or modification of interconnect/tie-in facilities; addition of 13 mainline valve sites; and cathodic protection facilities.

    Empire's proposed facilities in Niagara County include: The new Pendleton Compressor Station; 2.1 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline for the compressor station; the new Wheatfield Dehydration Facility; construction/modification of tie-in facilities; and removal of an existing meter and odorizer station.

    Background

    On October 22, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Northern Access 2016 Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). The NOI was issued during the pre-filing review of the Project in Docket No. PF14-18-000. On April 29, 2015, the Commission issued a supplemental NOI for the newly identified locations for the Pendleton Compressor Station and Wheatfield Dehydration Facility. After National Fuel filed a new site for the Pendleton Compressor Station in the amended docket, the Commission issued an additional supplemental NOI on November 19, 2015.

    The NOIs were sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; New York Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation; and numerous individuals and landowners. The primary issues raised by the commentors include potential impacts on wetlands; waterbodies; forested areas; groundwater; threatened and endangered species; socioeconomic; land use and recreational; air quality; noise; safety; and potential cumulative impacts.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP15-115), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09091 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Membership of Performance Review Board For Senior Executives (PRB)

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby provides notice of the membership of its Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Commission's Senior Executive Service (SES) members. The function of this board is to make recommendations relating to the performance of senior executives in the Commission. This action is undertaken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4).

    The Commission's PRB will remove the following members:

    David L. Morenoff

    The Commission's PRB will add the following members:

    Max J. Minzner Dated: April 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09088 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket EL 10-18-000] Conway Corporation; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 13, 2016, Conway Corporation submitted a second supplement to its November 19, 2015 application for proposed rate for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 20, 2016.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09087 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No., EL16-17-000] City of West Memphis, Arkansas; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 13, 2016, the City of West Memphis, Arkansas submitted a second supplement to its November 19, 2015 application for proposed rate for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 20, 2016.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09086 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2114-271] Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County; Notice of Application and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Filing of Maps Pursuant to Approved Shoreline Management Plan.

    b. Project No: 2114-271.

    c. Date Filed: January 29, 2016.

    d. Applicant: Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County (Grant PUD).

    e. Name of Project: Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project is located on the mid-Columbia River in portions of Grant, Yakima, Kittitas, Douglas, Benton, and Chelan counties, Washington. The relevant map non-project use restrictions are located in Yakima and Kittitas counties.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Ross Hendrick, License Compliance Manager, Grant PUD, P.O. Box 878, Ephrata, WA 98823-0878, (509) 793-1468, [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Hillary Berlin, (202) 502-8915, [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: May 14, 2016.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2114-271.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee filed maps delineating areas on project lands within the project facilities classification where no non-project uses will be authorized. The licensee will consider non-project use requests in areas not specifically reserved for hydropower generation at Wanapum and Priest Rapids Dams, for operation of Priest Rapids Hatchery, and for the Wanapum Dam Indian Village adjacent to Priest Rapids Dam. For lands classified as Public Recreation Development, the licensee will only consider non-project use requests that demonstrate substantial public benefit and open access.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09089 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-3-001] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 29, 2016, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) filed an amendment, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for the Access South, Adair Southwest and Lebanon Extension Projects. The Application of the project was originally filed on October 8, 2015 in Docket No. CP16-3-000. The amended filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Berk Donaldson General Manager, Rates & Certificates Texas Eastern Transmission, LP P.O. Box 1642 Houston, Texas 77251-1642 or telephone: (713) 627-4488, or by fax (713) 627-5947.

    Texas Eastern's proposes amending the Application to request authorization under Section 7(c) of the NGA to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain approximately 0.5 miles of replacement pipeline and appurtenant facilities in Attala County, Mississippi as part of its Access South Project. Texas Eastern is also requesting authority pursuant to Section 7(b) of the NGA to abandon pipeline that is being removed as part of the lift and replacement activities.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of any mailed environmental documents, and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 5, 2016.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09084 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC06-48-005.

    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: Request to Terminate Mitigation Measures and Reporting Requirement of Westar Energy, Inc.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5276.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-101-000.

    Applicants: White Pine Solar, LLC, White Oak Solar, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of White Pine Solar, LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5258.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-87-000.

    Applicants: Peak View Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Peak View Wind Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20160414-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1431-001.

    Applicants: Northampton Generating Company, L.P.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing and Unopposed Request for Limited Waiver to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 4/7/16.

    Accession Number: 20160407-5195.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1400-000.

    Applicants: Golden Fields Solar I, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement, FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1 to be effective 4/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5240.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1401-000.

    Applicants: Golden Fields Solar II, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement, FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1 to be effective 4/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5242.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1402-000.

    Applicants: Golden Fields Solar III, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement, FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1 to be effective 4/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5243.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1403-000.

    Applicants: Golden Fields Solar IV, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement, FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1 to be effective 4/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1404-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance—BSM Rule Renewable and Self Supply Exemptions to be effective 10/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1405-000.

    Applicants: Western Spirit Clean Line LLC.

    Description: Application for authorization to sell transmission service rights at negotiated rates, request for approval of capacity allocation process, and request for waivers of Western Spirit Clean Line LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5257.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1406-000.

    Applicants: Peak View Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 6/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20160414-5047.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1406-001.

    Applicants: Peak View Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to April 14, 2016 Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 6/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20160414-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09093 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP16-116-000; PF15-14-000] Texas LNG Brownsville LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 31, 2016, Texas LNG Brownsville LLC (Texas LNG), 2800 North Loop West, Suite 910, Houston, Texas 77092, filed an application pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's Regulations, requesting authorization to site, construct, modify, and operate a new liquefied natural gas export terminal (Texas LNG Project) located in the Port of Brownsville, Texas. The filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free (886) 208-3676 or TYY (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Langtry Meyer, Chief Operating Officer, Texas LNG Brownsville LLC, 2800 North Loop West, Suite 910, Houston, Texas 77092, telephone (832) 849-4920, or email [email protected]

    Specifically, Texas LNG proposes to construct two 2 million ton per annum liquefaction trains; two single containment, 210,000 cubic meter capacity, storage tanks; one LNG carrier berth and dredged maneuvering basin; and all necessary ancillary and support facilities. These facilities will enable Texas LNG to liquefy and export up to 0.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. Texas LNG states it will receive natural gas via a non-jurisdictional intrastate natural gas pipeline.

    On April 14, 2015, the Commission staff granted Texas LNG's request to use the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF15-14-000 to staff activities involving the proposed facilities. Now, as of the filing of this application on March 31, 2016, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP16-116-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 5, 2016.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09085 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1966-054] Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Notice of Application Tendered For Filing with the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule For Licensing and Deadline For Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: New Major License.

    b. Project No.: P-1966-054.

    c. Date filed: March 30, 2016.

    d. Applicant: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.

    e. Name of Project: Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Wisconsin River in Lincoln County, Wisconsin. The project would occupy 0.1 acres of Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Todd P. Jastremski, Asset Manager Hydro Operations, WE Energies, 800 Industrial Park Drive, Iron Mountain, MI 49801; or at (906) 779-4099.

    i. FERC Contact: Lee Emery at (202) 502-8379 or by email at [email protected]

    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    k. The existing Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project consists of (1) a 36-foot-high, 625-foot-long reinforced concrete main dam with a crest elevation of 1,402 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) that includes a masonry non-overflow wall, a concrete spillway section with seven Tainter gates, and a non-overflow masonry dam and a rockfill embankment with masonry core wall; (2) a 340-acre reservoir at a full-pool elevation of 1,397.1 feet NGVD; (3) a 67-foot-long by 51-foot-wide powerhouse containing an 11-MW turbine-generator and a 6.2-megawatt (MW) turbine-generator providing a combined installed capacity 17.2 MW; (4) a 300-foot-wide by 4,000-foot-long intake canal; (5) an 11-foot- diameter by 1,325-foot-long wooden stave penstock and a 13.5-foot-diameter by 1,325-foot-long wooden stave penstock to the powerhouse; (7) a steel surge tank connected to each penstock; (8) an intake structure at the downstream end of the intake canal with two 55.5-foot-wide by 30.5-foot-high trashracks with a clear bar spacing of 2.5 inches; (9) a 20-foot-wide by 167-foot long concrete sluiceway at the canal intake structure; (10) 6.9-kilovolt (kV) generator leads; (11) a 300-foot-long, 46 kV overhead transmission line; and (12) appurtenant facilities. The intake canal and penstocks bypass about 4,800 feet of the Wisconsin River.

    The Grandfather Falls Project is operated in a limited peaking mode. The project is fully automated and is remotely operated from Wisconsin Public Service's control center in Green Bay, which is staffed 24 hours a day, and 365 days a year. Remote operation includes starting and stopping the project generators, monitoring kilowatt output, monitoring headwater and tailwater gage elevations, and maintaining headwater elevations through the operation of a heated gate structure. The project is required to maintain a minimum flow of 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow, whichever is less, as measured below the project tailrace and include a continuous minimum flow of 50 cfs released into the bypassed reach of the Wisconsin River between the project dam and the tailrace.

    During normal peaking operations, the impoundment is drawn down from the maximum pond elevation during the day and refilled at night providing one peaking cycle per day. The maximum elevation of the impoundment is 1,397.1 feet NGVD and the minimum elevation is 1,396.1 feet NGVD. The operating regime has both seasonal and daily variations depending on precipitation and controlled releases made at upstream storage reservoirs, regulated by the Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company. Water releases from the Tomahawk and the Grandmother Falls projects and the non-power dam at Spirit Lake, (which are all located upstream from the Grandfather Falls Project) are coordinated with water releases from the Grandfather Falls Project to ensure that adequate water is available in the Wisconsin River during the seasonal low-flow periods. The pondage provided by the 1 foot of maximum drawdown between elevation 1,396.1 feet NGVD and 1397.1 feet NGVD for the Grandfather Falls Project, is used to augment and adjust the timing of the peaking operation at the project. Recharge of the Grandfather Falls reservoir occurs in the late evening and early morning hours. The peaking discharges from the Grandfather Falls Project are attenuated by the effects of the downstream Bill Cross Rapids (which is part of a free-flowing stretch of the Wisconsin River) with no evidence of the project's peaking effects visible at Wisconsin Public Service Corporation's downstream Alexander Project (FERC No. 1979), which operates in a run-of-river mode. When flows in the Wisconsin River exceed 2,820 cfs, water is discharged via operation of the spillway Tainter gates at the project.

    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERCOnline [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Procedural schedule:

    The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

    Milestone Target date Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis June 2016. Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions August 2016. Issue Environmental Assessment (EA) December 2016. Comments due on EA January 2017. Modified terms and conditions March 2017.

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: April 6, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09092 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0118; FRL-9945-31-OAR] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Control of Evaporative Emissions From New and In-Use Portable Gasoline Containers (Renewal), ICR 2213.05, OMB 2060-0597 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), ” Control of Evaporative Emissions from New and In-Use Portable Gasoline Containers (Renewal)”, ICR 2213.05, OMB 2060-0597 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection request as described below. This notice is a proposed extension of the Portable Fuel Container ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2016. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, online using www.regulations.gov (o