Federal Register Vol. 81, No.83,

I. Background

On November 26, 2003, at 68 FR 66534, DOL adopted the government-wide nonprocurement debarment and suspension common rule, which recast the nonprocurement debarment and suspension regulations in plain English and made other required updates.

Thereafter, on May 11, 2004, at 69 FR 26276, OMB established Title 2 of the CFR as the new central location for OMB guidance and agency implementing regulations concerning grants and agreements. This approach benefits the public by making it easier for the affected public to identify an agency's additions and clarifications to the Government-wide policies and procedures. In that action, OMB announced its intention to replace the common rules with OMB guidance that agencies could adopt. OMB began that process by proposing on August 31, 2005, at 70 FR 51863, an interim final guidance on non-procurement debarment and suspension. That guidance requires each agency to issue a brief rule that: (1) Adopts the guidance, giving it regulatory effect for that agency's activities; and (2) states any agency-specific additions or clarifications to the government-wide policies and procedures. The notice stated that the substantive content of the guidance was intended to conform with the substance of the Federal agencies' most recent update in 2003 to the common rule. The guidance was finalized on November 15, 2006, at 71 FR 66431. The proposed regulatory actions will bring the Department into compliance with OMB's 2006 guidance.

Pursuant to requirements in OMB's guidance, DOL is taking three actions. First, DOL is adding a new part to its existing Chapter XXIX under Title 2 of the CFR Subtitle B, which is a brief adoption of the OMB guidance and states DOL-specific additions and clarifications. Second, DOL is removing 29 CFR part 98, the part containing the common rule on nonprocurement debarment and suspension that the OMB guidance supersedes. Third, DOL is making technical corrections to provisions within 29 CFR 95 to replace references to the earlier common rule.

Taken together, these regulatory actions are solely an administrative simplification and are not intended to make any substantive change in policies or procedures. In soliciting comments on these actions, we therefore are not seeking to revisit substantive issues that were resolved during the development of the final common rule in 2003. We are inviting comments specifically on any unintended changes in substantive content that the new part in 2 CFR would make relative to the common rule at 29 CFR part 98.

Please submit comments by only one method. Receipt of comments will not be acknowledged; however, the Department will post all comments received on http://www.regulations.gov without making any change to the comments, including any personal information provided. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is the Federal e-rulemaking portal, and all comments posted there are available and accessible to the public.

The Department cautions commenters not to include personal information, such as Social Security Numbers, personal addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses, in comments, as such submitted information will become viewable by the public via http://www.regulations.gov. It is the responsibility of the commenter to safeguard personal information. Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov will not include the commenter's email address unless the commenter chooses to include that information as a part of a comment.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), agencies generally propose a regulation and offer interested parties the opportunity to comment before it becomes effective. However, as described in the “Background” section of this preamble, the policies and procedures in this regulation have been proposed for comment two times—one time by Federal agencies as a common rule in 2003 and a second time by OMB as guidance in 2006—and adopted each time after resolution of the comments received.

This direct final rule is solely an administrative simplification that would make no substantive change in DOL's policy or procedures for debarment and suspension. We therefore believe that the rule is noncontroversial and do not expect to receive adverse comments, although we are inviting comments on any unintended substantive change this rule makes.

Accordingly, we find that the solicitation of public comments on this direct final rule is unnecessary and that “good cause” exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d) to make this rule effective immediately without further action. However, we are affording the public an opportunity to comment, in the unlikely scenario where unintended consequences are identified. If an adverse comment is received, then the rule will be revoked so that such comments can be considered fully.

OMB has determined this rule to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

This proposed regulatory action will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed regulatory action does not contain a Federal mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year.

This regulatory action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

This proposed regulatory action does not have Federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This proposed regulatory action does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 that would require a tribal summary impact statement. The proposed rule would not 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.

The proposed regulatory action is not subject to Executive Order 12630 because it does not involve implementation of a policy that has takings implications or that could impose limitations on private property use.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301; E.O. 12549 (3 CFR, 1986 Comp. p.189); E.O. 12689 (3 CFR, 1989 Comp. p.235); sec 2455 Public Law 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note), the United States Department of Labor amends the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 2, Subtitle B, and Parts 95 and 98 of Subtitle B of Title 29, as follows:

Background on the FSFL Program

The FSFL Program is a CCC program administered by FSA. As specified in the CCC Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b), the goal of the FSFL Program is to increase producer-owned storage capacity to alleviate national, regional, and local shortages in the storage of eligible commodities. FSFLs are available in amounts up to $500,000 for terms not to exceed 12 years.

The FSFL Program provides low-cost financing for producers to build or upgrade on-farm storage and handling facilities. FSFLs can be used for items such as drying and cooling equipment, safety equipment, and new concrete foundations, as well as for storage buildings and grain bins. The FSFL Program benefits producers who lack local commercial storage options or have limited marketing options for their commodities at harvest time. This rule does not change the basic administrative structure and nature of the FSFL Program.

Having on-farm storage helps producers to sell their crop at a time when the market is favorable for them, rather than being forced to sell immediately after harvest or pay for commercial storage. Producers can use on-farm storage to store livestock feed grown on-farm, rather than buying feed. On-farm storage allows producers to better serve their customers that buy commodities throughout the year. FSFLs are for storage and handling facilities and equipment only; FSFLs are not made for crop production equipment. For example, cold storage facilities to store aquaculture products are eligible for FSFLs, but not tanks in which to raise live aquaculture species.

Eligible commodities for which an FSFL is available include:

• Aquaculture;

• Floriculture;

• Fruits (including nuts) and vegetables;

• Harvested as whole grain: Corn, grain sorghum, rice, soybeans, oats, wheat, sugar, peanuts, barley, and minor oilseeds;

• Harvested as other-than-whole grain: Corn, grain sorghum, wheat, oats, and barley;

• Hay;

• Honey;

• Hops;

• Maple sap;

• Meat and poultry;

• Milk;

• Other grains (triticale, spelt, and buckwheat);

• Pulse crops (lentils, chickpeas, and dry peas);

• Renewable biomass;

• Rye;

• Eggs; and

• Cheese, butter and yogurt.

As part of the application process, FSFL borrowers must demonstrate a satisfactory credit history and an ability to repay the debt. All FSFLs are secured by the facility or equipment for which the FSFL is made. Each FSFL must be secured by a promissory note and security agreement. FSFLs greater than $100,000 require additional security, which typically is a lien on the real estate parcel on which the structure is located or another form of security acceptable to USDA, such as a deed of trust or irrevocable letter of credit. As part of the application process, borrowers must demonstrate their need for storage capacity based on their historical production of eligible commodities.

As part of an ongoing effort to improve the effectiveness of our programs, FSA evaluated the needs of smaller farms and identified potential barriers to their eligibility for FSFLs. Smaller farms and specialty crop producers typically have limited commercial financing options to purchase or upgrade storage and handling facilities that would allow them to expand their business, and with limited capital resererves, may struggle to meet the down payment requirements for FSFLs. Beginning farmers sometimes do not have the production history to demonstrate the need for additional storage capacity. Specialty crop producers have a need for portable equipment such as storage trucks to store and deliver fresh commodities to farmers markets, and need financing to own rather than rent that equipment.

The changes in the rule are primarily intended to help smaller farms and specialty crop producers who have not previously participated in the FSFL Program. Traditional grain producers and large farm operations who have historically been the key customers for the FSFL Program may also benefit if they have a need for portable equipment and portable storage such as portable grain handling equipment and scales, which were not previously eligible for FSFL.

This rule defines “FSFL microloan” as a new category of the FSFL program. An FSFL microloan is a loan for which the producer's total outstanding balance for all of their outstanding FSFLs is less than or equal to $50,000 at the time of loan application and disbursement. This rule defines the down payment and documentation requirements for an FSFL microloan. Some of the requirements for the FSFL microloan category are different from the existing requirements that will continue to apply to all loans greater than $50,000. Producers can have more than one FSFL outstanding at a time, so the definition is based on the “aggregate” or total outstanding balance to the borrower. For example, a new FSFL of $50,000 would be an FSFL microloan if the producer didn't have any other outstanding FSFLs. A producer with an outstanding balance of $20,000 on an existing FSFL could get an additional FSFL for $30,000 and that second FSFL would be considered an FSFL microloan. However, if the second FSFL was for $40,000, then it would not be considered an FSFL microloan because the aggregate total of the two FSFLs would be $60,000, which exceeds the $50,000 FSFL microloan aggregate outstanding balance threshold.

The $50,000 limit for FSFL microloans is consistent with the FSA Farm Loan Programs Microloan Program limit established as specified in section 5106 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79, referred to as the 2014 Farm Bill), amending the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-419) (7 U.S.C. 1943), to set the limit of $50,000 for the total microloan indebtedness outstanding at any one time to any single borrower.

This rule specifies a smaller down payment for FSFL microloans than for loans over $50,000 and also specifies different documentation requirements. The smaller down payment requirement for FSFL microloans is intended to help small farm operations, such as beginning farmers, niche and non-traditional farm operations. Currently, the FSFL minimum down payment requirement of the net cost of the storage facility is 15 percent, which may be a difficult requirement for small farms or new farm operations. The rule establishes the down payment requirement for an FSFL microloan at 5 percent of the net cost of the eligible storage facility (costs that may be included in the net cost are specified in § 1436.9(b)) for producers who have no more than $50,000 in total outstanding FSFL indebtedness when the FSFL microloan is made and disbursed. For example, on a $35,000 FSFL to purchase a bulk milk storage tank, the minimum down payment required under these new rules would now be $1,750 instead of $5,250.

For FSFL applications in the new microloan category, this rule also does not require that producers demonstrate storage needs based on 3 years of production history. Instead, the producer applying for an FSFL microloan will have the option to self-certify the farm's storage needs at the time of application, and will not be required to file acreage reporting on an FSA-578 to qualify for an FSFL microloan. (Many producers will need to continue to file an FSA-578 to establish eligibility for other FSA programs.) This distinction for FSFL microloans as compared to regular FSFLs allows applicants for FSFL microloans to self-certify their commodity storage and handling needs. The change is intended to assist smaller start-up farm operations, which may not be able to meet the existing 3-year production requirement. The self-certified information will be used by FSA county- and State-level personnel to determine FSFL eligibility and feasibility. The requirement to document 3 years of production history to justify storage needs will remain for non-microloan FSFLs to borrowers with an aggregate outstanding FSFL indebtedness above $50,000. FSFL microloans will be for a term of 3, 5 or 7 years, with the loan term selected by the producer at the time of application. The loan term for used equipment will be 3 or 5 years.

This rule expands the FSFL program to include new and used portable storage and handling equipment and storage and handling trucks. Portable or used storage and handling equipment have not previously been eligible for an FSFL. This rule adds definitions for “portable storage and handling equipment” and “storage and handling trucks.” This rule revises the definition of “collateral” to include these new types of equipment. Approval requirements for portable storage and handling equipment and those requirements for storage and handling trucks will be specified in the FSA Handbook.

In § 1436.6, “Eligible storage and handling equipment,” this rule adds new provisions for new and used portable storage and handling equipment. Portable storage and handling equipment includes components such as, but not limited to: Conveyors, augers, vacuums, pilers, scales, batch dryers, storage containers, and other necessary equipment used to handle and maintain eligible commodities being stored. The new provisions ensure efficient operation of the storage and handling of eligible commodities and provides affordable financing so producers can obtain the necessary equipment. For example, if the producer's eligible commodities are fruits and vegetables that sell in farmers markets, the producer will be able to use the FSFL to purchase equipment to weigh vegetables, forklifts to handle the fruits and vegetables, and portable storage containers to store fruits and vegetables for short or extended periods of time. Eligible portable storage facilities include manufactured storage containers that may be used when transported, hitched, or mounted on a trailer or truck for the purpose of storing and handling eligible commodities. All storage and handling trucks must be registered with the applicable State Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) and all State and local MVA laws, insurance, and title provisions must be adhered to before loan disbursement. The minimum requirement for insurance will require that the producer must obtain insurance equal to the value of the security at the time of loan closing and maintain that insurance for the term of the loan. The insurance obtained by the applicant should be the standard insurance policy for the locality in which the property is located and CCC will be listed as loss payee.

Portable handling equipment for eligible storage commodities will allow a producer to use equipment for more than one storage facility located on the farm. Portable handling equipment includes, but is not limited to, hydraulic self-propelled fork lifts, wheel loaders, grippers, skid steers, front-end loader attachments, or 3-point hitch lifts. Portable handling equipment for eligible storage commodities is often less expensive than affixed equipment, which is especially beneficial to smaller farm operations that may have lower gross incomes available to repay FSFLs.

FSA will add certain details and examples in program related handbooks, that will further explain requirements for types of eligible portable equipment that are being added by this rule. The promise to pay and security requirements for FSFL microloans and other types of FSFL will be outlined in the Promissory Note and Security Agreement, which FSA will provide to the borrower before loan closing. Requirements for how and where to apply for a loan are not changing, and are specified in § 1436.4, “Application for Loans.” Additionally, in order to protect FSA's security interest, throughout the loan term, the Promissory Note and Security Agreement will specify that FSA must have access, which is consistent with the requirement in § 1436.15(e), to the portable collateral to ensure the equipment is being used for its intended purpose and required compliance inspections.

The specific procedures for portable collateral liens, which are applicable to State and local laws for perfecting liens, and allowing FSA physical access to inspect portable collateral to ensure the collateral is being used for its intended purpose will be specified in FSA program related handbooks and in the Promissory Note and Security Agreement. For example, CCC seals with identifiable numbers may be placed on the FSFL portable collateral and storage and handling trucks, and a CCC lien will be recorded at the State or county courthouse for the collateral and with the State MVA for storage and handling trucks, according to State and local laws. This is consistent with current FSFL practice for liens on other types of storage facilities and equipment when the FSFL is $100,000 or less: There is a lien on the collateral (the building or equipment), but no additional security required. Most FSFLs for portable equipment and storage and handling trucks, in general, are expected to be under $100,000, have a maximum of four axles, and have a gross vehicle weight rating of 60,000 lbs. or less.

New and used portable equipment determined to be eligible for an FSFL by the FSA Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs include, but are not limited to, bulk tanks, conveyors, augers, scales, vacuums, pilers, scales, batch dryers, and storage containers. The FSFL request for portable storage and handling equipment will be processed using the existing FSFL process; FSA county office reviewers will review FSFL applications to determine the producer's on-farm production and storage and handling needs for eligible commodities. Loans associated with portable storage and handling equipment and storage and handling trucks may be applied for under an FSFL microloan or regular FSFL request. However, loans for defined used storage and handling equipment or trucks may not have a loan term greater than 5 years.

This rule provides flexibility to the FSA Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs to establish new loan terms, for commodities other than sugar, not to exceed 12 years based on the FSFL principal and request type. With the addition of FSFLs for portable storage and handling equipment and trucks, new or used, and the new provisions for FSFL microloans, we anticipate that the FSFL Program will make a greater number of FSFLs with smaller loan amounts than in the past. Shorter loan terms of 3 or 5 years for example, may be more appropriate for these smaller FSFLs and more specifically, for used portable storage and handling equipment and trucks; in the past, producers have requested a shorter loan term, but that option had not previously been available. For example, producers have asked FSA for shorter loan terms on FSFLs with larger loan amounts so that their real estate collateral does not have a lien for many years.

Prior to this rule, the regulations have specified that no extensions of the loan term (refinancing to extend the maturity date) are possible, and that the FSFL must be repaid in full at the end of the loan term. In order to permit consideration of external factors that may warrant discretion to extend the loan term, this rule allows extensions when, at the discretion of the Deputy Administrator, unforeseen weather events, unexpected changes to a farming operation (such as unexpected or unplanned departure of a member or partner), unexpected low commodity prices, or other matters, as determined appropriate by the Deputy Administrator, adversely impact the borrower's ability to repay the FSFL by the end of the loan's term. The borrower agrees to the loan term (maturity date of the loan) through the Promissory Note at the time of loan distribution. Borrowers who have already agreed to a loan's term have no right to an extension or even the consideration of a request for extension; however, the regulation will permit the Deputy Administrator to exercise discretion to consider a request to extend a loan's term. This will allow FSA to better manage potentially delinquent debt in the portfolio. It is expected that extensions would be for 1 or 2 years, to be decided on a case by case basis.

Although the rule will now allow the Deputy Administrator the discretion to consider extension requests, if the Deputy Administrator chooses not to consider the extension request, then there are no appeal rights because the borrower is not entitled to an extension at any time. However, if the Deputy Administration does consider an extension request and makes a decision to deny the extension or grant a shorter than requested extension, then the borrower may appeal that determination.

In addition to the substantive provisions discussed above, this rule makes a number of clarifying and housekeeping changes to make the rules clear and consistent with how the FSFL Program is currently implemented.

This rule adds a definition for “facility” to specify that a facility includes any on-farm storage and handling facility or structure, storage and handling equipment, or storage and handling truck.

This rule adds a definition for “off farm paid labor.” This definition is needed to clarify that paying workers who are not regular or seasonal employees, but are only hired to construct or install the storage facility, is an eligible FSFL expense.

This rule specifies the full list of currently eligible commodities in the definition of “facility loan commodity.” The CCC Charter Act, in 15 U.S.C. 714b, authorizes CCC to make FSFLs to grain producers needing grain storage facilities in areas where the Secretary determines a deficiency of such storage exists. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, referred to as the 2008 Farm Bill) provides discretionary authority to the Secretary to add additional storable commodities to the list of eligible crops for the FSFL Program. FSA's intent for adding new FSFL commodities is to provide increased access to capital to smaller and specialty producers to purchase and erect storage, drying, and handling facilities for their commodities.

FSA has used this authority, as delegated by the Secretary, to add eligible commodities through notices to the field and handbook changes.

This rule therefore changes the definition of “facility loan commodity” to add the discretionary additional commodities that are already eligible for FSFLs, but are not listed in the regulations. These commodities include specialty grains (triticale, spelt, and buckwheat), floriculture (flowers and ornamental plants), honey, maple sap, hops, rye, milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, meat, poultry, eggs, and aquaculture. A conforming change is made in § 1436.2, “Administration,” to include the additional eligible commodities. In multiple sections, specific references to fruits, vegetables, and grains are removed, since many other types of commodities are eligible for the FSFL Program.

This rule amends the regulations in § 1436.9, “Loan Amount and Loan Application Approvals,” to change the expiration of the 4 month FSFL approval period to 6 months, which was already implemented administratively. As part of the FSFL application process, the county committee determination form is provided to the applicant as part of the application package; on that form, it specifies the 6 month expiration date of the approval and specifies that loan funds will not be disbursed, except for any partial loan disbursement as allowed under the regulation, until the structure has been constructed, assembled, or installed and inspected. As indicated in the county committee determination form and this rule, as amended, 6 months is the timeframe, from approval to expiration, during which the facility must be completely and fully delivered, erected, constructed, assembled, or installed and a CCC representative has inspected and approved the facility. As specified in § 1436.9(a), the cost on which the FSFL is based is the net cost of the eligible facility, accessories, and services; those costs are not known until the FSFL construction or acquisition project is completed. Changing the expiration of the approval period to 6 months helps producers who have difficulty completing their FSFL project in 4 months. For various reasons, such as weather conditions, equipment delivery, or construction scheduling, FSA determined it usually takes more than 4 months for an FSFL construction project to be completed or equipment to be installed. Over a 2-year period, FSA piloted an FSFL approval change from 4 months to 6 months and confirmed the change was beneficial to producers and FSA staff. FSFL producers may also request an additional FSFL approval extension beyond 6 months, if it is determined necessary for the producer to complete the FSFL construction project. For example, if the FSFL request was approved on January 4 and was recorded as having an FSFL loan approval expiration date of July 4, then the producer would need to finish the FSFL project and have receipts from all the suppliers by July 4th. However, the producer may request an additional 6 months for a loan approval extension in June, before the loan approval window expires. After approval by the State or County Office Committee, the loan approval period in this example would be extended to January 4 of the following year.

Current FSFL provisions require that the storage facility or equipment must have a useful life of at least 15 years. That may not be a realistic requirement for portable equipment, so this rule changes the requirement for all FSFL storage and handling equipment, trucks and structures to have a useful life of at least the term of the loan and any authorized loan term extensions.

This rule revises the provisions in § 1436.1, “Applicability,” to specify that unless otherwise specified in the regulation all of the provisions of 7 CFR part 1436 apply to FSFL microloans. This rule also revises the provisions in § 1436.4, “Application for Loans,” to specify where the FSFL application must be submitted.

Aquaculture is one of the eligible commodities added to the definition of “facility loan commodity.” Aquaculture species, for FSFL purposes, are defined as any species of aquatic organism grown as food for human consumption, or fish raised as feed for fish that are consumed by humans. Aquaculture species are perishable commodities and their quality can only be maintained for a limited period of time. The FSFL program provides cold storage facilities which may extend this period of time. The aquaculture storage capacity will be determined based on production for 1 year. All applicable State laws must be followed by the producer for storing aquaculture in the FSFL storage facility.

Pending a completed Environmental Assessment (EA), consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), and the Clean Water Act, FSA will consider whether the FSFL program could authorize holding or storage structures that will have uptake or discharge water that comes from natural sources, tributaries, coastal and ocean waters, or perennial waterways. FSA is currently making preparations to have the Environmental Assessment (EA) completed. Once the EA is completed, the findings will be posted on the FSA Web site at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/environmental-cultural-resource/nepa/current-nepa-documents/index. A notice of the EA availability will be published in the Federal Register. Any substantive change to FSFL policy for aquaculture FSFL as a result of the EA will made through future rulemaking.

This rule provides flexibility for the FSA Deputy Administrator, Farm Programs, or a State Committee to rescind authorization for self-certification of storage needs for FSFL microloans or provisions authorizing eligibility of portable collateral, such as storage and handling equipment and storage and handling trucks when it is determined such actions are having an adverse effect on the financial integrity of the FSFL Program. For example, if the FSFL default rate rises for smaller FSFLs or storage and handling equipment and trucks, specifically, portable facility FSFLs, FSA would have the ability to remove or implement additional administrative provisions, such as requiring additional security at a determined threshold, but not less than $50,000, to protect CCC's financial interest at the State or the national level. The authority can only be exercised at the State or national level; it cannot be used to disapprove or to add documentation requirements for individual FSFLs.

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the Federal Register and interested persons be given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation, except when the rule involves a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This rule involves loans, in addition, the regulations for this program are exempt from the notice and comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), as specified in section 1601(c) of the 2008 Farm Bill, which allows that the regulations be promulgated and administered without regard to the notice and comment requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides generally that before rules are issued by Government agencies, the rule must be published in the Federal Register, and the required publication of a substantive rule is to be not less than 30 days before its effective date. However, noted above, one of the exceptions is that section 553 does not apply to rulemaking that involves a matter relating to loans. Therefore, because this rule relates to loans, the 30 day effective period requirement in section 553 does not apply. This final rule is effective when published in the Federal Register. This will allow us to provide greater access to capital for small farms as soon as possible before the 2016 planting or harvesting season.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this final rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, OMB did not review this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because CCC is not required by any law to publish a proposed rule for public comments for this rulemaking.

The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of NEPA, the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR 799). Previous changes to the FSFL Program were analyzed and evaluated in a Programmatic Environmental Assessment and subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact (74 FR 71674) after the 2008 Farm Bill. FSA has determined that the provisions defined herein will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment either individually or cumulatively. Therefore, no Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared for these regulatory changes. To consider additional FSFL provisions for aquaculture beyond those included in this rule, an Environmental Assessment is being prepared to determine if any significant adverse impacts would be anticipated.

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials that would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal Financial assistance and direct Federal development. For reasons specified in the final rule related notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs and activities within this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. This rule will not have retroactive effect. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 are to be exhausted.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as required by law. Nor will this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

This 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.

FSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 the UMRA.

This rule is not a major rule under SBREFA (Pub. L. 104-121). Therefore, there is no requirement to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. This rule is effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.

The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies is the Farm Storage Facility Loans—10.056.

The regulations in this rule are exempt from requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), as specified in section 1601(c)(2) of the 2008 Farm Bill, which provides that the regulations for the programs in Title I of the 2008 Farm Bill be promulgated and administered without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

FSA 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.

For the reasons discussed above, CCC amends 7 CFR part 1436 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

On February 10, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at South Grand Lake Regional Airport, Ketchum, OK, (81 FR 7040)). Docket No. FAA-2016-1288. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of South Grand Lake Regional Airport, Ketchum, OK, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

On February 4, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hollis Municipal Airport, Hollis, OK, (81 FR 5946). Docket No. FAA-2016-0835. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Hollis Municipal Airport, Hollis, OK, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

On February 10, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Horseshoe Bend Airport, Horseshoe Bend, AR. (81 FR 7039). Docket No. FAA-2015-5802. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Horseshoe Bend Airport, Horseshoe Bend, AR, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

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

On March 18, 2016 (81 FR 14716), USTR published an interim final rule, which added 15 CFR part 2017. The new Part 2017 establishes a petition process that supplements the annual (normal cycle) request for public comments on whether a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country is meeting the eligibility criteria and requirements of the AGOA program (see, e.g., 80 FR 48951, Aug. 14, 2015). The interim final rule was effective upon publication and the public comment period closed on April 18, 2016. USTR did not receive any comments.

I. Background

Shelby County was designated as nonattainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). Local transportation sources in the City of Memphis were identified as the prime contributors to monitored CO violations in Shelby County at that time. The City of Memphis I/M program was adopted as a control strategy to attain the CO NAAQS.

On July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37939), EPA redesignated Shelby County to attainment for the CO standard and approved the initial 10-year CO maintenance plan for Shelby County. Subsequently, further improvements in automotive technology led to a consistent reduction in locally monitored levels of CO. On October 25, 2006 (71 FR 62384), EPA approved the required second 10-year CO maintenance plan which demonstrated that I/M was no longer needed to maintain the CO NAAQS.

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated Shelby County, Tennessee, and Crittenden County, Arkansas, as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with a classification of `moderate' (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Memphis 1997 8-hour Ozone Area”).1 Under CAA section 182(b)(4), moderate ozone nonattainment areas with a census-defined urbanized area population over a given threshold are required to adopt basic I/M as part of the required SIP.

Following the initial designations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, Shelby County, the State of Tennessee, Crittenden County, and the State of Arkansas adopted additional measures to control ozone-forming emissions in the region and petitioned EPA to use its discretion under CAA section 181(a)(4) to reclassify the Area from moderate to marginal. On September 22, 2004 (69 FR 56697), EPA granted the petition to reclassify the Area, which removed the SIP planning requirements mandated of moderate ozone nonattainment areas, including the adoption of a mandatory I/M program, and reset the attainment deadline to June 15, 2007. The Area failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the marginal area attainment deadline. Consequently, on March 28, 2008 (73 FR 16547), EPA reclassified the Area as a moderate nonattainment area. This reclassification reset the attainment deadline to June 15, 2010, with an attainment plan SIP revision due on March 1, 2009, to address all CAA requirements for a moderate ozone nonattainment area, including an I/M program in Shelby County pursuant to CAA section 184(b)(4).

The end of the 2008 ozone monitoring season resulted in a design value for the Memphis 1997 8-hour Ozone Area that met the NAAQS. Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas prepared separate, but coordinated, redesignation requests and maintenance plans for their respective portions of the Area. Tennessee, on behalf of Shelby County, submitted the redesignation request and maintenance plan for its portion of the 1997 8-hour Ozone Area to EPA on February 26, 2009, prior to the attainment plan SIP revision due date.

EPA approved Tennessee's redesignation request and maintenance plan on January 4, 2010 (75 FR 56). Although there was no longer a mandatory requirement to implement I/M in Shelby County under section 184(b)(4) of the CAA, the City of Memphis continued to operate its I/M program, and the SIP-approved maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS includes the implementation of a basic I/M program in Shelby County as a contingency measure in the event that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is violated in the 1997 8-hour Ozone Area after redesignation. In mid-2012, the Memphis City Council voted to defund the City of Memphis I/M program beginning with Fiscal Year 2013/2014. Vehicle inspection operations at all four City of Memphis inspection stations ended on June 28, 2013. Tennessee's May 23, 2014, SIP submission addresses the termination of this program.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on February 12, 2016 (81 FR 7483), EPA proposed to approve the May 23, 2014, SIP revision. No comments were received on the February 12, 2012, NPRM. The details of Tennessee's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM.

Tennessee's May 23, 2014, maintenance plan revision updates the MVEBs for 2006 and 2021 using on-road mobile source emissions estimates from MOVES and removes the MVEBs for 2009 and 2017. The revised 2021 MVEB accounts for the termination of the I/M program and the shutdown of the Cleo, Inc. facility.2 These budgets are used by transportation authorities to assure that transportation plans, programs, and projects are consistent with, and conform to, the maintenance of acceptable air quality in the Memphis 1997 8-hour Ozone Area.

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan for that NAAQS.

Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), Transportation Conformity Rule. The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the MVEB. According to 40 CFR 93.118, a maintenance plan must establish MVEBs for the last year of the maintenance plan (in this case, 2021). The updated MVEBs in the revised maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are for the base year (2006) and the last year of the first 10-year maintenance plan (2021). The 2021 MVEB reflects the total on-road mobile source emissions for 2021 plus an allocation from the available volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) safety margins.3 The MVEBs are presented in Table 1, below.

The previously-approved 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Shelby County contained interim MVEBs for years 2006, 2009, and 2017 in addition to the required maintenance year MVEB of 2021. The consensus formed during the interagency consultation process was that MVEBs should only be set for 2006 and 2021.4 Therefore, the revised maintenance plan removes the interim budgets for years 2009 and 2017.

EPA is approving Tennessee's May 23, 2014, SIP revision seeking to remove the City of Memphis I/M program from the SIP and to incorporate Shelby County's revised maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS into the SIP.5 The maintenance plan includes, among other things, an emissions reduction measure to offset the emissions increase expected from the termination of City of Memphis I/M program as well as revised emission inventory estimates and revised 2006 and 2021 MVEBs based upon new modeling associated with the termination of the I/M program and the inclusion of the offset measure. Within 24 months from this final rule, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e)(3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 28, 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).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

On February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7259), we proposed to approve revisions to the Arizona SIP under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) and provided a 30-day comment period. The revisions include rescissions of certain statutory provisions, administrative and prohibitory rules, and test methods. The EPA also proposed to correct certain errors in previous actions on prior revisions to the Arizona SIP and to make certain other corrections.

On that same date, we issued a direct final rule (81 FR 7209) taking final action effective April 11, 2016 but indicated that, if we received adverse comments by the end of the comment period, we would publish a withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register prior to the effective date informing the public that the direct final rule will not take effect. The February 11, 2016 proposed rule indicated that if the EPA received adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the direct final rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

We received a timely adverse comment on a specific test method for which we had approved rescission and found that our action on the test method (and other test methods and performance test specifications from the same approved SIP revision submittal) could be severed from the rest of the rule. Thus, we published a partial withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register at 81 FR 19495 (April 5, 2016), affecting only the action as it relates to the test method for which the comment was received (and the other test methods and performance test specifications that were submitted and approved on the same dates as the test method in question). In today's action, we provide our response to the public comment and take final action to approve the rescissions of the outdated test methods and performance test specifications based on the proposal published on February 11, 2016.

In our February 11, 2016 proposed rule (81 FR 7259), we directed commenters to the direct final rule for a detailed rationale for the proposed approval of the SIP revisions and for the proposed corrections. As such, the following paragraphs summarize the background information and evaluation included in the direct final rule also published on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7209) as it relates to the test methods and performance test specifications that are the subject of this final rule.

On March 10, 2015 and January 13, 2016, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted rescissions of certain statutory and regulatory provisions from the applicable Arizona SIP. Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is obligated to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve SIPs and SIP revisions, including rescissions. As noted above, the rescissions relate to certain statutory provisions, administrative and prohibitory rules, and test methods. In our February 11, 2016 direct final rule (81 FR 7209), we approved all of the rescissions included in the two SIP revisions except for certain test methods and performance test specifications, for which we withdrew direct final action. In our direct final rule, we also corrected certain errors in previous actions on prior revisions to the Arizona SIP and to make certain other corrections, but because no adverse comments were received on the corrections, we did not withdraw any part of the error corrections portion of the direct final rule.

Table 1 lists the test methods and performance test specifications the rescission of which we withdrew direct final action, the dates on which the EPA approved the provisions as part of the SIP, and the dates on which ADEQ submitted the rescissions to the EPA.

As explained in our February 11, 2016 direct final rule, in April 1982, the EPA approved sections 3 and 4 of the Arizona Testing Manual for Air Pollutant Emissions (“Arizona Testing Manual”) as a revision to the Arizona SIP. Section 3 of the Arizona Testing Manual includes certain test methods from 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and section 4 of the Arizona Testing Manual includes certain performance test specifications from 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. Both the test methods and performance test methods approved into the Arizona SIP date from the 1970s.

Over the years, the EPA's test methods and performance test specifications in 40 CFR part 60 have been revised, and thus, the versions of the test methods and performance test specifications approved as part of the Arizona SIP are outdated. Also, in recent years, the EPA has approved two state rules that in effect incorporate more recent versions of the EPA's test methods and performance test specifications into the Arizona SIP. See Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-311 (“Test Methods and Procedures”) and appendix 2 (“Test Methods and Protocols”) for AAC, title 18, chapter 2.1 See 80 FR 67319 (November 2, 2015) and 79 FR 56655 (September 23, 2014). As such, the outdated test methods and performance test specifications approved as part of the Arizona Testing Manual need not be retained in the Arizona SIP. Thus, we found ADEQ's rescission of the outdated test methods and performance test specifications to be acceptable, and, under section 110(k), we proposed to approve the state's rescission of them from the Arizona SIP.

For further information about the SIP revisions and our corresponding evaluation, please see our direct final rule (81 FR 7209, February 11, 2016).

Our February 11, 2016 proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment period. During that period, we received a comment from a member of the public. Staff at EPA Region 9 contacted the commenter to clarify this comment on March 22, 2016. Our response to this comment is provided below.

Comment: All legacy permits and emission sources administered under this [SIP] should allow the use of EPA Method 9 and/or EPA Broadly Applicable Alternative Method 082 for the measurement of opacity and evaluation of visible emissions. All new sources regulated under this plan should require the use of EPA Alternative Method 082 for the measurement of opacity and the evaluation of visible emission sources. People complain about what they can see and smell and the use of digital-camera-based visible emission evaluation is the best means to ensure public participation and support. The EPA declared ASTM D7520's Digital Camera Opacity Technique (DCOT) the Best Available Measurement Technology for visible emissions in the Ferroalloy Production NESHAP rule and this example should be followed in all State Implementation Plans.

EPA Response: Under the existing SIP, EPA Method 9 is already allowed to be used. In fact, under the existing SIP, two versions of EPA Method 9 are approved for use: The version of EPA Method 9 approved at 47 FR 17483 (April 23, 1982) and the updated version of EPA Method 9 approved through approval of AAC R18-2-311 and appendix 2 for AAC, title 18, chapter 2, which incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 60 appendices (including EPA Method 9) revised as of July 1, 2006. Our approval of the state's rescission of the 1982 approved version of EPA Method 9 simply deletes that version from the SIP. The more current version of Method 9 continues to apply under the SIP.

As far as alternative methods are concerned, AAC R18-2-311, which as noted above has been approved as part of the Arizona SIP, does provide for alternatives to EPA Method 9, but the alternative method so provided for does not include Broadly Applicable Alternative Method 082. More specifically, AAC R18-2-311(B) provides that a permit may specify a method, other than EPA Method 9, for determining the opacity of visible emissions from a particular emission unit, if the method has been promulgated by the EPA in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The EPA has approved and promulgated in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A only one alternative to Method 9: “Alternative Method 1—Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources Remotely by LIDAR.” Thus, Alternative Method 082 is not specifically provided for under the Arizona SIP at the present time.2 The rescission of an outdated version of EPA Method 9 has no effect on the status of Alternative Method 082 in the Arizona SIP.

We do recognize that the EPA has approved Alternative Method 082 as an alternative to EPA Method 9 with certain limitations and for certain purposes. Alternative Method 082 specifies, with certain limitations, the use of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D7520-09 “Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere” as an alternative to EPA Method 9 for sources subject to 40 CFR 60, 61, and 63. See 77 FR 8865 (February 15, 2012). We also note that the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for the Ferroalloys Production source category was recently amended following the EPA's request for comments on the use of new technologies to provide continuous or near continuous long term approaches to monitoring emissions from industrial sources for the Ferroalloy Production source category. After consideration of comments received and after evaluating the technologies, the EPA amended the Ferroalloys Production NESHAPS to, among other things, replace the weekly Method 9 opacity requirement with a weekly requirement to measure opacity using ASTM D7520-13 (i.e., an updated version of ASTM D7520-9) and the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) to demonstrate compliance with the process fugitives standards. See 80 FR 37366 (June 30, 2015).

However, use of Alternative Method 082's or ASTM D7520's digital camera technology by states to determine opacity of visible emissions is not a requirement for SIPs. The State of Arizona could consider a revision to its rules to allow the use of Alternative Method 082 (for appropriate applications and with appropriate limitations) or the most current version of ASTM D7520 if it chooses to do so, as long as the use of the DCOT in lieu of EPA Method 9 is consistent with EPA's approval of ASTM D7520-09 in Alternative Method 082. We generally support its inclusion in State programs where appropriate. The EPA would take action to approve or disapprove such a revision under CAA section 110(k) if the state were to adopt such a revision and submit it to the EPA as a SIP revision.

Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is approving the state's rescission of the outdated test methods and performance test specifications listed in Table 1 from the Arizona SIP because we believe they are no longer necessary to retain.

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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely rescinds outdated test methods and performance test specifications as unnecessary to retain in the applicable SIP and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

• 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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 28, 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)).

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

I. What action is the EPA taking today?

The EPA is approving Puerto Rico's State plan submitted to the EPA on July 30, 2014, for the control of air emissions from existing sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units throughout the Commonwealth. When the EPA developed the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (subpart LLLL) for SSI units on March 21, 2011, it concurrently promulgated Emission Guidelines (EG) (subpart MMMM) to control air emissions from existing SSI units. The Puerto Rico State SSI plan adopts and implements the EG applicable to existing SSI units, and establishes other requirements for SSI units constructed on or before October 14, 2010.

The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) developed a plan, as required by sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), to adopt the EG into its body of regulations, and EPA is acting today to approve Puerto Rico's plan.

As explained below, Puerto Rico requested in its July 30, 2014 submittal, that the EPA not take any action on a provision of the Puerto Rico State SSI plan allowing for affirmative defenses of CAA violations in the case of malfunctions.

Therefore, the EPA is not taking action on the affirmative defense provision portion of Puerto Rico's State SSI plan.

In an April 18, 2014 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated an affirmative defense in one of the EPA's Section 112 regulations. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Circuit, 2014) (vacating affirmative defense provisions in the Section 112 rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). The court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an affirmative defense for private civil suits and held that under the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. The Office of General Counsel determined that EPA policy should reflect the court's decision. The vacated affirmative defense provision in the EPA's Portland cement MACT rule is identical to the affirmative defense provision in the EPA's SSI EG, promulgated on March 21, 2011, under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA, at § 60.5181 (“How do I establish an affirmative defense for exceedance of an emission limit or standard during a malfunction?”). Puerto Rico's State SSI plan adopted all the applicable requirements of the EPA's SSI EG, including the affirmative defense provisions at § 60.5181, into its State plan at Rule 405(d) of the Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP). Specifically, Puerto Rico requested that the EPA not include the following affirmative defense provisions in Puerto Rico's Rule 405(d): (d)(2)(E), (d)(2)(E)(i) and (d)(2)(E)(ii) in Puerto Rico's State plan.

Because of the April 2014 D.C. Court vacatur referred to above, Puerto Rico, in its July 30, 2014 submittal letter to the EPA, requested that the EPA not take action on the affirmative defense provision included in Puerto Rico's State SSI plan submitted to the EPA for approval on July 30, 2014.1

Consequently, the EPA is not taking any action on those particular provisions of Puerto Rico's State SSI plan as discussed herein.

On March 21, 2011, in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA, EPA promulgated the SSI EG and compliance times for the control of emissions from existing SSI units. See 76 FR 15371. EPA codified these guidelines at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM. They include a model rule at 40 CFR 60.5085 through 62.5250 that States may use to develop their own plans. Under that rule, EPA has defined an “SSI unit,” in part, as any incineration unit that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. 40 CFR 60.5250.

On July 30, 2014,2 the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board submitted its section 111(d) State plan for implementing EPA's EG for existing SSI units located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico amended Rule 102, entitled “Definitions of the Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP),” and incorporated Rule 405(d), entitled “Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units (SSI),” to include the requirements for implementing the SSI EG covered under Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA, and codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM. Revisions to Puerto Rico's Rules 3 became effective on July 13, 2014.

For further details, the reader is referred to EPA's proposal located in the EPA's electronic docket at www.regulations.gov.

There were no comments received on the EPA's proposed rulemaking (80 FR 76894, December 11, 2015) regarding Puerto Rico's State plan for existing SSI units. The 30-day public comment period on the EPA's proposed approval ended on January 11, 2016.

For the reasons described in this rulemaking and in EPA's proposal, the EPA is approving Puerto Rico's sections 111(d) and 129 plan for existing SSI units. However, as described above, the EPA is not taking any action on the affirmative defense provisions in Puerto Rico's Rule 405(d), as follows: (d)(2)(E), (d)(2)(E)(i) and (d)(2)(E)(ii) in Puerto Rico's State plan.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

• 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, this action does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175, because the section 111(d)/129 plan is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this section.

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 28, 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)).

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

This direct final rule is published under authority of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law under 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. Section 5103(b) of Federal Hazmat Law authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 mandates that all federal agencies use technical standards developed and adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The guidelines used by agencies to assess and report their conformity with the requirements of the Act are detailed in Office of Budget and Management (OMB) Circular No. A-119, entitled “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities.” OMB Circular No. A-119 recognizes that the vibrancy and effectiveness of the U.S. standards system in enabling innovation depends on continued private sector leadership and engagement.

This rulemaking is a Direct Final Rule under PHMSA's rulemaking authority outlined in 49 CFR 106.40 to incorporate by reference the latest edition of a technical/industry standard. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This rulemaking is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

PHMSA is issuing this direct final rule without prior notice and prior public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act provides that an agency may publish a final rule without prior notice and comment if the agency for good cause finds that the notice and comment procedure is unnecessary (49 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). This rule will not make any significant substantive changes to the Hazardous Materials Regulations. Accordingly, PHMSA does not foresee adverse comments in response to this rulemaking, and consequently a 30-day notice and comment period is reasonable.

The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT), 44 FR 1134, February 26, 1979, provide that to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice. Accordingly, PHMSA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this final rule.

This direct final rule will take effect as indicated above unless PHMSA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment within the comment period. An adverse comment explains why a rule would be inappropriate or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. It may challenge the rule's underlying premise or approach. Under the direct final rule process, we do not consider the following types of comments to be adverse:

(1) A comment recommending another rule change, in addition to the change in the direct final rule at issue, unless the commenter states why the direct final rule would be ineffective without the change.

(2) A frivolous or irrelevant comment.

If we receive an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment, we will advise the public by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the effective date of the final rule. This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part. If we withdraw the direct final rule because of an adverse comment, we may incorporate the adverse comment into another direct final rule or may publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.

See the “Additional Information” section for information on how to comment on this direct final rule and how PHMSA will handle comments received. The “Additional Information” section also contains related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. There is also information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

This direct final rule adopts the most recent edition of a consensus technical standard, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (2015 Edition) and ASME Code for Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries: Pressure Piping, B31.4-2012. The Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code enables nurse tank manufacturers and other DOT and UN specification packaging manufacturers to use current technology, materials, and practices. The incorporation of the most recent edition of the ASME Code improves clarity, consistency, accuracy, reduces unnecessary burdens on the regulated community, and will provide, at minimum, an equivalent level of safety for non-specification (nurse tanks) and specification tanks regulated under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). PHMSA is replacing the 1998 Edition of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Sections with the following, current 2015 Edition of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Sections:

PHMSA is also replacing the 1998 Edition of ASME B31.4-1998 Edition, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and other Liquids with the following, current 2012 Edition of ASME B31.4-2012, now titled Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries as it relates to 49 CFR 173.5a “Oilfield service vehicles, mechanical displacement meter provers, and roadway striping vehicles exceptions.”

For full access to these Sections, please see http://go.asme.org/PHMSA-ASME. PHMSA is aware that industry is already manufacturing nurse tanks and other specification cargo tanks in accordance with various ASME Editions between 1998 and 2015, and PHMSA is not aware of any adverse safety issues, as long as tanks have been properly built in accordance with ASME Editions. PHMSA recognizes the safety and validity of these ASME Editions published after the 1998 Edition as related to this rulemaking. This update will increase PHMSA's ability to ensure compliance with the 2015 ASME Edition related to non-specification (nurse tanks) and specification cargo tanks and with the 2012 ASME edition related to mechanical displacement meter provers.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) directs Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of government-written standards whenever possible. Voluntary consensus standards are standards developed or adopted by voluntary bodies that develop, establish, or coordinate technical standards using agreed upon procedures.

PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety adopts 187 voluntary consensus standards issued by 27 different technical organizations, and the Office participates in numerous national voluntary consensus standards committees. PHMSA adopts voluntary consensus standards applicable to packaging design, construction, maintenance, inspection, and repair when they are consistent with the safe transportation of hazardous materials. PHMSA reviews and approves for incorporation by reference updated versions based on this directive. When PHMSA believes some aspect of a standard does not meet an adequate level of safety, it will not incorporate the standard or the part of the standard that it believes is contradictory with the directive.

Parts 171 through 180 incorporate by reference all or parts of standards and specifications developed and published by technical organizations, as referenced in 49 CFR 171.7, including, but not limited to, the American Petroleum Institute, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Society for Testing and Materials, Compressed Gas Association, International Organization for Standardization, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the United Nations. These organizations update and revise their published standards periodically to reflect modern technology and best technical practices. PHMSA has reviewed the revised voluntary consensus standards being incorporated in this final rule.

Parts A and B of Section II are “Service Sections” to the other Sections of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, and they provide material specifications for ferrous and nonferrous materials adequate for safety in the field of pressure equipment. These specifications contain requirements for chemical and mechanical properties, heat treatment, manufacture, heat and product analyses, and methods of testing.

Section V contains requirements and methods for nondestructive examination, which are referenced and required by other Sections. It also includes manufacturers' examination responsibilities, duties of authorized inspectors and requirements for qualification of personnel, inspection and examination.

Section VIII, Division 1 provides requirements applicable to the design, fabrication, inspection, testing, and certification of pressure vessels operation at either internal or external pressures exceeding 15 psig. Division 1 also contains mandatory and non-mandatory appendices detailing supplementary design criteria, nondestructive examination and inspection acceptance standards.

Section IX contains rules relating to the qualification of welding, brazing, and fusing procedures as required by other Sections for component manufacture. It also covers rules relating to the qualification and requalification of welders, brazers, and welding, brazing and fusing machine operators in order that they may perform welding, brazing, or plastic fusing as required by other Sections in the manufacture of components.

The above editions of currently referenced standards are being incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 171.7, 173.315, and 178.338-3. These new Editions refine and clarify existing material in the standard and generally do not introduce new topics.

The above standard is being incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 173.5a. This Edition refines and clarifies existing material in the standard and generally does not introduce new topics as related to mechanical displacement meter provers. PHMSA is not seeking or accepting comments on the unrelated, Proposed Rule entitled “Hazardous Materials: Adoption of ASME Code Section XII and the National Board Inspection Code” (docket number PHMSA-2010-0019; RIN 2137-AE58). This rulemaking also has no impact on or relation to the Pipeline Safety Regulations at 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 190-199.

The 2015 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the 2012 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries are freely accessible to the public for the full 30 day comment period online at http://go.asme.org/PHMSA-ASME. In addition, all Sections of the 2015 Edition of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code are available for purchase directly from ASME online at https://www.asme.org/shop/standards#des=BPVC and the 2012 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries is available for purchase directly from ASME online at https://www.asme.org/products/codes-standards/b314-2012-pipeline-transportation-systems-liquid. Members of the public may access hard copies of standards incorporated by reference at PHMSA's Hazardous Materials Information Center (HMIC) at the Department of Transportation Headquarters in Washington, DC. Members of the public may make arrangements to visit the HMIC by visiting HMIC's Web site at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/standards-rulemaking/hmic or by telephone at 800-467-4922. PHMSA staff will work directly with any person requesting access to these standards.

PHMSA believes the majority of industry nurse tank manufacturers and other DOT and UN specification packaging manufacturers has already purchased and therefore possess and adhere to these standards in order to be certified under ASME's various certification programs. For example, products manufactured by ASME BPVC Certificate Holders are certified and stamped with a Certification Mark in accordance with the applicable ASME BPVC Section. According to ASME, there are currently more than 6,800 Certificate Holders in the ASME BPVC Certification Program. For more information on ASME's Certification Programs, please see https://www.asme.org/shop/certification-and-accreditation/boiler-and-pressure-vessel-certification.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA is required to consider whether rulemaking actions would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule ensures that manufacturers are able to use the most current editions of technical standards incorporated by reference. PHMSA concludes this rule does not have a significant negative economic impact on any small entity. Based on the facts available about the expected impact of this rulemaking, PHMSA certifies under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605) that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

There are no new information collection requirements in this direct final rule.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $155,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, to either State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of major federal actions and to prepare a detailed statement on any action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Since these new standards provide, at minimum, an equivalent level of protection to the currently referenced standards, it is unlikely that the adoption of these standards will have any impact on the environment. We find that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this direct final rule. PHMSA invites comments about environmental impacts that could result from this direct final rule.

PHMSA has analyzed the direct final rule according to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255). This direct final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The direct final rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

This direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) and, therefore, was not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This direct final rule is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).

In this direct final rule we are updating references to standards that are incorporated in the Hazardous Materials Regulations. These updates will enhance safety while reducing the compliance burden on the regulated industry. PHMSA welcomes public comments on potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because the direct final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

PHMSA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the rulemaking action in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the rulemaking action, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

PHMSA will file any comments it receives in the docket, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with PHMSA personnel concerning this rulemaking. Before acting on this rulemaking action, PHMSA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. PHMSA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this rulemaking action in light of the comments it receives.

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained online by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visiting the PHMSA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/standards-rulemaking, or;

3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Commenters must identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking.

All documents PHMSA considered in developing this rulemaking action may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

Send comments to PHMSA in either of the following ways:

(1) By mail to: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(2) Through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Make sure your comments reach by the deadline. We will consider late filed comments to the extent possible. For further guidance on required information for written comments, see 49 CFR 106.65.

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov/search/footer/privacyanduse.jsp.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2016 total allowable catch (TAC) of longnose skate in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 61 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2016 TAC of longnose skate in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will be reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that longnose skate in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of longnose skate in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of April 22, 2016.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2016 Greenland turbot ITAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI is 170 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016). The Regional Administrator has determined that the 2016 ITAC for Greenland turbot in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI is necessary to account for the incidental catch of this species in other anticipated groundfish fisheries for the 2016 fishing year. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator establishes the directed fishing allowance for Greenland turbot in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI as zero mt. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Greenland turbot in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Greenland turbot in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as April 25, 2016.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.