Federal Register Vol. 81, No.97,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 97 (May 19, 2016)

Page Range31489-31825
FR Document

81_FR_97
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 31635 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 31622 - State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB) MeetingPDF
81 FR 31561 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps; WithdrawalPDF
81 FR 31623 - Agency Information Collection Extension With ChangesPDF
81 FR 31675 - Twenty-Seventh Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 216 (SC-216) Aeronautical Systems SecurityPDF
81 FR 31589 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 31674 - Notice of Meeting of Advisory Committee on International LawPDF
81 FR 31489 - Civil Penalties Inflation AdjustmentsPDF
81 FR 31592 - Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
81 FR 31664 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Evaluation of the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3) ProgramPDF
81 FR 31643 - Diabetes Outcome Measures Beyond Hemoglobin A1c: CDER Public WorkshopPDF
81 FR 31565 - Clean Air Act Grant: South Coast Air Quality Management District; Opportunity for Public HearingPDF
81 FR 31666 - Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade PolicyPDF
81 FR 31629 - Intent To Grant a Co-Exclusive Patent LicensePDF
81 FR 31629 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish CoatingsPDF
81 FR 31526 - Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation; General, Publicizing Contract Actions, Types of Contracts, Bonds and Insurance, Taxes, Contract Financing, Solicitation Provisions and Contract ClausesPDF
81 FR 31520 - Maleic Anhydride; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
81 FR 31581 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals In or On Various CommoditiesPDF
81 FR 31612 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31591 - Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31590 - Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31590 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31660 - Information Collection Activities: Decommissioning Activities, Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31620 - Secretary of Energy Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 31652 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31669 - NRC Regulation of Radium-226 Under Military Control and for Coordination on Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Response Actions at the U.S. Department of Defense Sites With Radioactive MaterialsPDF
81 FR 31563 - Safety Zone; Allegheny River Mile 44.1 to 45.1, Kittanning, PennsylvaniaPDF
81 FR 31504 - Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, TexasPDF
81 FR 31532 - Generic Determinations Regarding the Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal When Considering Nuclear Power Reactor License ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 31668 - Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 31675 - Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review for Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 31586 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
81 FR 31620 - American LNG Marketing, LLC; Application for Blanket Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations on a Short-Term BasisPDF
81 FR 31619 - Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use ActPDF
81 FR 31622 - Application for Presidential Permit; Nogales Interconnection ProjectPDF
81 FR 31618 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31613 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 31634 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 31503 - Removal of the Equal Employment Opportunity; Policy, Procedures and Programs RegulationPDF
81 FR 31646 - Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees From Bliss and Laughlin Steel in Buffalo, New York, To Be Included in the Special Exposure CohortPDF
81 FR 31655 - Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge, Polk County, Minnesota; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental AssessmentPDF
81 FR 31588 - Siskiyou County Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 31587 - Gila National Forest, Quemado Ranger District; New Mexico; Luna Restoration ProjectPDF
81 FR 31594 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to an Anchor Retrieval Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort SeasPDF
81 FR 31588 - Prince of Wales Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 31676 - Decision That Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
81 FR 31641 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31645 - Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 31500 - Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning FranchisingPDF
81 FR 31668 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Establish an Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 31646 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31634 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31619 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Study of School Climate Transformation GrantsPDF
81 FR 31653 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for T Nonimmigrant Status; Application for Immediate Family Member of T-1 Recipient; and Declaration of Law Enforcement Officer for Victim of Trafficking in Persons, Form I-914 and Supplements A and B, Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.PDF
81 FR 31635 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31660 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 31670 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 31659 - Notice of Request for Nominees for the U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 31666 - Proposed Collection, Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31643 - Advisory Committee; Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, RenewalPDF
81 FR 31594 - Open Meeting of the Information Security and Privacy Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 31642 - Advisory Committee; Blood Products Advisory Committee; RenewalPDF
81 FR 31644 - Advisory Committee; Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, RenewalPDF
81 FR 31648 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 31649 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 31650 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: Development and Commercialization of Adeno-Virus Based Cancer ImmunotherapyPDF
81 FR 31652 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Start-up Option License: Anti-TNF Induced Apoptosis (ATIA) Diagnostic Markers and TherapiesPDF
81 FR 31632 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing, and Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 31632 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 31630 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 31631 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 31501 - Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer ManualPDF
81 FR 31637 - American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
81 FR 31654 - Proposed Information Collection; Revealing Opportunities for Local-Level Stakeholder Engagement and Social Science Inquiry in Landscape Conservation DesignPDF
81 FR 31671 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 4702 and 4703PDF
81 FR 31671 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Changes to Procedures Regarding Establishing the LBMA Silver PricePDF
81 FR 31670 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, Relating to Pre-Opening Indications and Opening ProceduresPDF
81 FR 31670 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 31645 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31656 - Land Acquisitions; Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 31674 - Commission MeetingPDF
81 FR 31506 - Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory LicensePDF
81 FR 31633 - Stormwater Management in Response to Climate Change Impacts: Lessons From the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes RegionsPDF
81 FR 31513 - Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements To Address Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQSPDF
81 FR 31529 - Hazardous Materials: Carriage of Battery-Powered Electronic Smoking Devices in Passenger BaggagePDF
81 FR 31614 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 31561 - Privacy Act of 1974; ImplementationPDF
81 FR 31497 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 31770 - Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Strengthening the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage ProgramPDF
81 FR 31511 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska: Updates to Incorporation by Reference and Miscellaneous RevisionsPDF
81 FR 31567 - Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source PermitsPDF
81 FR 31495 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 31492 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 31680 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for CompressorsPDF
81 FR 31542 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Uninterruptible Power SuppliesPDF
81 FR 31577 - Technical Amendments to Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6PDF
81 FR 31515 - Technical Amendments to Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6PDF
81 FR 31571 - Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur DioxidePDF

Issue

81 97 Thursday, May 19, 2016 Contents Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Intents to Grant Exclusive Licenses, 31586-31587 2016-11798 2016-11800 2016-11813 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Research Service

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Housing Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Army Army Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 31613-31614 2016-11808 Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Decommissioning Activities, 31660-31664 2016-11829 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31641-31642 2016-11791 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Sabine River, Orange, TX, 31504-31506 2016-11821 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Allegheny River Mile 44.1 to 45.1, Kittanning, PA, 31563-31565 2016-11822 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board RULES Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License, 31506-31511 2016-11746 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31612-31613 2016-11834 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Navy Department

PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act; Implementations, 31561-31563 2016-11702 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 31614-31618 2016-11703
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Study of School Climate Transformation Grants, 31619 2016-11783 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Energy Information Administration

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Standards for Compressors, 31680-31768 2016-11337 Test Procedures for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps; Withdrawal, 31561 2016-11912 Test Procedures for Uninterruptible Power Supplies, 31542-31560 2016-11205 NOTICES Applications to Export Liquefied Natural Gas: American LNG Marketing, LLC, 31620-31622 2016-11812 Filings of Self-Certification of Coal Capability under the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, 31619-31620 2016-11811 Meetings: Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, 31620 2016-11828 Presidential Permit Applications: Nogales Interconnection Project, 31622 2016-11810
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Meetings: State Energy Advisory Board, 31622-31623 2016-11913 Energy Information Energy Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31623-31629 2016-11911 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Acquisition Regulations: General, Publicizing Contract Actions, Types of Contracts, Bonds and Insurance, Taxes, Contract Financing, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses, 31526-31529 2016-11838 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alaska; Updates to Incorporation by Reference and Miscellaneous Revisions, 31511-31513 2016-11626 Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements to Address Interstate Transport for 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 31513-31515 2016-11744 Pesticide Tolerances: Maleic Anhydride; Exemption, 31520-31526 2016-11837 Technical Amendments to Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6, 31515-31520 2016-10989 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide, 31571-31577 2016-10985 California; Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits, 31567-31570 2016-11621 Clean Air Act Grants: South Coast Air Quality Management District; Opportunity for Public Hearing, 31565-31566 2016-11843 Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities, 31581-31585 2016-11835 Technical Amendments to Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6, 31577-31581 2016-10990 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings, 31629-31630 2016-11839 NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing, and Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources, 31632 2016-11768 NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating, 31632-31633 2016-11767 NSPS for Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations, 31630-31631 2016-11766 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans, 31631-31632 2016-11765 Intents to Grant Co-Exclusive Patent Licenses, 31629 2016-11841 Stormwater Management in Response to Climate Change Impacts: Lessons from Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes Regions, 31633-31634 2016-11745 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31634 2016-11784 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 31492-31500 2016-11427 2016-11457 2016-11682 NOTICES Meetings: RTCA Special Committee 216 (SC-216) Aeronautical Systems Security, 31675 2016-11910 Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review: Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CA, 31675-31676 2016-11814 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31634-31635 2016-11807 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31635 2016-12006 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31635-31637 2016-11781 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission RULES Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising, 31500-31501 2016-11789 NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc.; Analysis to Aid Public Comment, 31637-31641 2016-11763 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Revealing Opportunities for Local-Level Stakeholder Engagement and Social Science Inquiry in Landscape Conservation Design, 31654-31655 2016-11762 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Charter Renewals: Blood Products Advisory Committee, 31642-31643 2016-11774 Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, 31644-31645 2016-11773 Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, 31643-31644 2016-11776 Meetings: Diabetes Outcome Measures Beyond Hemoglobin A1c: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Public Workshop, 31643 2016-11846 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge, Polk County, MN, 31655-31656 2016-11803 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Gila National Forest, Quemado Ranger District; NM; Luna Restoration Project, 31587-31588 2016-11801 Meetings: Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee, 31588 2016-11797 Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee, 31588-31589 2016-11802 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31645-31648 2016-11757 2016-11785 Decisions to Evaluate Petitions to Designate Classes of Employees for Inclusion in the Special Exposure Cohort: Bliss and Laughlin Steel in Buffalo, NY, 31646 2016-11804
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, 31645 2016-11790 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Secret Service

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Equal Employment Opportunity; Policy, Procedures and Programs; Removal, 31503-31504 2016-11806 PROPOSED RULES Federal Housing Administration: Strengthening the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program, 31770-31825 2016-11631 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Land Acquisitions: Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, 31656-31659 2016-11756 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Advisory Committee, 31659-31660 2016-11778
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, 31592-31594 2016-11858 Labor Department Labor Department See

Labor Statistics Bureau

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Evaluation of Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth Program, 31664-31666 2016-11847 Charter Renewals: Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy, 31666 2016-11842
Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31666-31667 2016-11777 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance; Approvals: Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles are Eligible for Importation, 31676-31677 2016-11793 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board, 31594 2016-11775 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Grants of Exclusive Patent Licenses: Development and Commercialization of Adeno-Virus Based Cancer Immunotherapy, 31650-31651 2016-11770 Grants of Exclusive Start-up Option Licenses: Anti-TNF Induced Apoptosis Diagnostic Markers and Therapies, 31652 2016-11769 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 31648-31650 2016-11771 2016-11772 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Anchor Retrieval Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, 31594-31612 2016-11799 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 31660 2016-11780 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31668 2016-11787 Meetings: Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations, 31668-31669 2016-11816 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31618-31619 2016-11809 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Generic Determinations Regarding the Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal when Considering Nuclear Power Reactor License Applications, 31532-31542 2016-11820 NOTICES Regulation of Radium-226 under Military Control and for Coordination on CERCLA Response Actions at U.S. Department of Defense Sites with Radioactive Materials, 31669 2016-11825 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Hazardous Materials: Carriage of Battery-Powered Electronic Smoking Devices in Passenger Baggage, 31529-31531 2016-11729 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 31670 2016-11758 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 31670 2016-11779 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31589-31590 2016-11831 2016-11909 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31590-31592 2016-11832 2016-11833 Secret Secret Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31652-31653 2016-11827 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual, 31501-31503 2016-11764 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC; Withdrawal, 31671 2016-11761 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 31670-31671 2016-11759 NYSE Arca, Inc., 31671-31674 2016-11760 Small Business Small Business Administration RULES Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments, 31489-31492 2016-11868 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on International Law, 31674 2016-11885 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Meetings: Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 31674-31675 2016-11751 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for T Nonimmigrant Status; Application for Immediate Family Member of T-1 Recipient; and Declaration of Law Enforcement Officer for Victim of Trafficking in Persons, 31653-31654 2016-11782 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 31680-31768 2016-11337 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 31770-31825 2016-11631 Reader Aids

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

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

81 97 Thursday, May 19, 2016 Rules and Regulations SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Parts 107, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 142, and 146 RIN 3245-AG80 Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

ACTION:

Interim final rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Small Business Administration (SBA) is amending its regulations to adjust for inflation the amount of certain civil monetary penalty that is within the jurisdiction of the agency. This adjustment is required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. This rule also makes technical amendments to the regulations governing misrepresentations in SBA contracting programs to add a cross reference to the regulation that contains the applicable penalty amounts for misrepresentations and to correct a citation in the same regulations. Finally, the rule makes a technical amendment to an existing regulation governing small business investment companies to add a cross reference to a new civil penalty provision.

DATES:

Effective Date: This rule is effective on August 1, 2016.

Comment Date: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG80 by any of the following methods:

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

Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Arlene Embrey, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

SBA will post all comments on http://www.Regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at http://www.Regulations.gov, please submit the information to Arlene Embrey, Trial Attorney, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416 and highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe this information should be held confidential. SBA will review the information and make a final determination of whether the information will be published or not.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arlene Embrey, 202-205-6976, or at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act), Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584. This act amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat 890 (the 1990 Inflation Adjustment Act), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act requires agencies to issue an interim final rule (IFR) to: (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment; and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation beginning January 2017.

Based on the definition of a “civil monetary penalty” in the 1990 Inflation Adjustment Act, agencies are to make adjustments to the civil penalties that (i) are for a specific monetary amount as provided by federal law or have a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; (ii) are assessed or enforced by an agency; and (iii) are enforced or assessed in an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts. SBA has identified the civil penalties SBA is responsible for assessing or enforcing and in this IFR sets forth the initial adjustments to those penalties that fall within the definition of civil monetary penalties. Penalties that are stated as a percentage of an indeterminate amount or as a function of a violation (penalties that encompass actual damages incurred) are not adjusted by this rule.

The formula for making this initial adjustment under the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvement Act requires agencies to use as a base, the Consumer Price Index for the month of October preceding the adjustment, which in this instance is October 2015. SBA has not previously adjusted any of the penalties discussed in this rule. Therefore, based on this formula and the OMB guidance implementing the inflation adjustment requirements, for each penalty being adjusted in this rule, SBA identified the year and corresponding amounts for which the maximum penalty level or range was last established or adjusted. SBA then modified the applicable penalty or penalty ranges by (1) identifying the last date a penalty or penalty range was modified; (2) multiplying the current penalty or penalty range by a multiplier identified for the applicable year in which the penalty or penalty range was last established or modified based on the Consumer Price Index for October 2015; and (3) ensuring that the product of (1) and (2) did not exceed 150% of the penalty or penalty range that was in effect on November 2, 2015.

II. Civil Money Penalties Adjusted by This Rule

This rule makes adjustments to civil monetary penalties authorized by the Small Business Act, the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (SBIAct), the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act and the Byrd Amendment to the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. These penalties and the implementing regulations are discussed below.

1. 13 CFR 107.665

SBA licenses, regulates and provides financial assistance to financial entities called small business investment companies (SBICs). Pursuant to section 315 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 15 U.S.C. 687g, SBA may impose a penalty on any SBIC that fails to comply with SBA's regulations or directives governing the filing of regular or special reports. That civil penalty is not more than $100 for each and every day of the continuance of the SBIC's failure to file such report, unless the SBIC can show that its failure was due to a reasonable cause. SBA has not incorporated this penalty in its regulation. Therefore, a new section is being added to 13 CFR part 107 that will include the adjusted civil penalty.

The adjusted civil penalty amount was calculated by multiplying the current civil penalty by the multiplier of 7.22912 established under the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act for civil penalties last amended or established in 1966, to reach a product of $723 rounded to the nearest dollar. However, because the adjusted amount is more than the catch up adjustment cap of 150% (or $250), the new civil penalty amount is $250 for each and every day the SBIC fails to file the respective report.

2. 13 CFR 120.465

According to the regulations at § 120.465, any small business lending company (SBLC) that violates a regulation or written directive issued by the SBA Administrator regarding the filing of any regular or special report is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each day the company fails to file the report, unless the small business lending company can show that there is reasonable cause for its failure to file. This penalty, authorized by section 23(j) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 650(j), was established in 2004.

This rule amends § 120.465(b) to adjust the civil penalty from not more than $5,000 for each day of the continuance of the failure to file the respective report to not more than $6,229 for each day the small business lending company fails to file the report. The new civil penalty amount was calculated by multiplying the current civil penalty by the multiplier of 1.24588 established under the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act for civil penalties last amended or established in 2004, to reach a product of $6,229, rounding to the nearest dollar. The adjusted amount is not more than the catch up adjustment cap of 150% (or $7,500) allowed.

3. 13 CFR 142.1(b)

SBA has promulgated regulations at 13 CFR part 142 to implement the civil penalties authorized by the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA), 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812. Under the regulation, a person who submits, or causes to be submitted, a false claim or a false statement to SBA is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each statement or claim. This penalty is applicable to violations for making misrepresentations to obtain benefits from an SBA financial assistance or contracting program, has not been adjusted previously.

This rule amends § 142.1(b) to adjust the current civil penalty amount from $5,000 to $10,781 per claim. The adjusted amount was calculated by multiplying the current penalty of $5,000 by the multiplier established under the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act of 2.15628 for civil penalties last established or amended by statute in 1986, to reach a product of $10,781, rounding to the nearest dollar. The adjusted amount is less than the 150% catch-up adjustment cap (or $12,500) allowed.

4. 13 CFR 146.400(a), (b), (e)

SBA has promulgated regulations at 13 CFR part 146 to govern lobbying activities by recipients of federal financial assistance. These regulations implement the authority in 31 U.S.C. 1352, which was established in 1989 and imposes penalties on any recipient that fails to comply with certain requirements in the part. Specifically, penalties may be imposed on those who make prohibited expenditures or fail to file the required disclosure forms or to amend such forms, if necessary. The regulations at § 146.400(a) and (b) currently impose “a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and no more than $100,000” for each prohibited expenditure or failure to file or amend the disclosure forms. These penalties have not been adjusted previously. Notwithstanding the penalties in paragraphs (a) and (b) described above, the lobbying regulations at § 146.400(e) provide that first offenders under those paragraphs are subject to a maximum civil penalty of $10,000, absent aggravating circumstances.

This rule amends § 146.400 (a) and (b), to adjust the current civil penalty amounts from “not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000” to “not less than $18,936 and not more than $189,361.” The penalty in paragraph (e) is being amended from $10,000 to $18,936. The new civil penalty amounts were calculated by multiplying the current civil penalty of $10,000 by the multiplier of 1.89361 established under the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act for civil penalties last established or amended by statute in 1989 to reach a product of $18,936, rounding to the nearest dollar. The current maximum civil penalty of $100,000 was also adjusted using the same method and multiplier to reach a product of $189,361. Each of these adjusted penalty amounts is less than the allowed 150% catch-up adjustment cap (or $25,000 and $250,000, respectively).

III. Technical Amendments

This rule also makes technical amendments to six program-specific regulations that reference the civil monetary penalties for misrepresentation by an applicant for certain SBA program benefits. Each of these regulations, with the heading Civil Penalties, states that program participants or applicants are subject to penalties “under the False Claims Act and under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act” but do not reference SBA's PFCRA implementing regulations. In this rule, SBA amends each of the following regulations to add that reference: (1) § 121.108(e)(2) (for misrepresentation of an applicant's size status as a small business); (2) § 121.411(i)(2) (for misrepresentation in SBA's Section 8(d) Subcontracting Program); (3) § 124.1015(e)(2) (for misrepresentation of status as a small disadvantaged business); (4) § 125.29(e)(2) (for misrepresentation of status as a small disadvantaged veteran owned small business); (5) § 126.900(e)(2) (for misrepresentation of HUBZone status); and (6) § 127.700(e)(2) (for misrepresentation of status as either a Woman Owned Small Business or an Economically Disadvantaged Woman Owned Small Business). This rule also corrects a typographical error in each of the regulations listed in order to correct the statutory citation for PFCRA, which currently reads “331 U.S.C. 3801” instead of “31 U.S.C. 3801”.

Finally, this rule also makes a technical amendment to § 107.670(b) to replace the statutory reference to section 315 of the Small Business Investment Act with a reference to § 107.665, which is a new section being added by this rule to implement the penalty authorized by section 315 of the SBIAct.

IV. Justification for Interim Final Rule

The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act specifically authorizes agencies to promulgate rulemaking for the adjustment to their civil monetary penalties through an interim final rule.

Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 13132, and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.S. Ch. 35) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this interim final rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800.

Executive Order 12988

This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

Executive Order 13132

For the purpose of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that the rule 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. Therefore, this interim final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

SBA has determined that this rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA requires agencies to consider the effect of their regulatory actions on small entities, including small non-profit businesses, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rule the agency must prepare an analysis that describes whether the impact of the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of such small entities. However, the RFA requires such analysis only where notice and comment rulemaking is required. As stated above, SBA has express statutory authority to issue an interim final rule. Since notice and comment is not required before this rule is issued, SBA is not required to prepare a regulatory analysis.

List of Subjects 13 CFR Part 107

Investment companies, Loan programs-business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

13 CFR Part 120

Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

13 CFR Part 121

Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs—business, Loan programs—business, Small businesses.

13 CFR Part 124

Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Hawaiian Natives, Indians—business and finance, Minority businesses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technical assistance.

13 CFR Part 125

Government contracts, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Technical assistance, Veterans.

13 CFR Part 126

Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

13 CFR Part 127

Government contracts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

13 CFR Part 142

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.

13 CFR Part 146

Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Lobbying, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR parts 107, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 142, and 146 as follows:

PART 107—SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANIES 1. The authority citation for part 107 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 681 et seq., 683, 687(c), 687b, 687d, 687g, 687m.

2. Add § 107.665 to subpart F to read as follows:
§ 107.665 Civil penalties.

Except as provided in § 107.670, a Licensee that violates any regulation or written directive issued by SBA, requiring the filing of any regular or special report pursuant to this part, shall be fined a civil penalty of not more than $250 for each day the Licensee fails to file such report. The civil penalties provided for in this section shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the SBA.

§ 107.670 [Amended]
3. In § 107.670(b), remove the words “provision of section 315(a) of the Act” and add in their place the words “stated in § 107.665”.
PART 120—BUSINESS LOANS 4. The authority citation for part 120 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(14), (h), and note, 636(a), (h) and (m), 650, 687(f), 696(3), and 697(a) and (e); Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, Public Law 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504.

§ 120.465 [Amended]
5. Paragraph (b) of § 120.465 is amended by removing “$5,000” and adding in its place “$6,299”.
PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS 6. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 662, and 694a(9).

7. Revise § 121.108(e)(2) to read as follows:
§ 121.108 What are the penalties for misrepresentation of size status?

(e) * * *

(2) Civil Penalties. Persons or concerns are subject to severe penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812 and any other applicable laws or regulations, including 13 CFR part 142.

8. Revise § 121.411(i)(2) to read as follows:
§ 121.411 What are the size procedures for SBA's Section 8(d) Subcontracting Program?

(i) * * *

(2) Civil Penalties. Persons or concerns are subject to severe penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812 and any other applicable laws or regulations, including 13 CFR part 142.

PART 124—8(a) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT/SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS STATUS DETERMINATIONS 9. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 636(j), 637(a), 637(d), 644 and Pub. L. 99-661, Pub. L. 100-656, sec. 1207, Pub. L. 101-37, Pub. L. 101-574, section 8021, Pub. L. 108-87, and 42 U.S.C. 9815.

10. Revise § 124.1015(e)(2) to read as follows:
§ 124.1015 What are the requirements for representing SDB status, and what are the penalties for misrepresentation?

(e) * * *

(2) Civil Penalties. Persons or concerns are subject to severe penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812, and any other applicable laws or regulations, including 13 CFR part 142.

PART 125—GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING PROGRAMS 11. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 632(p), (q); 634(b)(6), 637, 644, 657f, and 657q.

12. Revise § 125.29(e)(2) to read as follows:
§ 125.29 What are the requirements for representing SDVO SBC status, and what are the penalties for misrepresentation?

(e) * * *

(2) Civil Penalties. Persons or concerns are subject to severe penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812, and any other applicable laws or regulations, including 13 CFR part 142.

PART 126—HUBZONE PROGRAM 13. The authority citation for part 126 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 632(a), 632(j), 632(p), 644 and 657a.

14. Revise § 126.900(e)(2) to read as follows:
§ 126.900 What are the requirements for representing HUBZone status, and what are the penalties for misrepresentation?

(e) * * *

(2) Civil Penalties. Persons or concerns are subject to severe penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812, and any other applicable laws or regulations, including 13 CFR part 142.

PART 127—WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS FEDERAL CONTRACT PROGRAM 15. The authority citation for part 127 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 637(m), and 644.

16. Revise § 127.700(e)(2) to read as follows:
§ 127.700 What are the requirements for representing EDWOSB or WOSB status, and what are the penalties for misrepresentation?

(e) * * *

(2) Civil Penalties. Persons or concerns are subject to severe penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812, and any other applicable laws or regulations, including 13 CFR part 142.

PART 142—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT REGULATIONS 17. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 634(b); 31 U.S.C. 3803(g)(2).

§ 142.1 [Amended]
18. Paragraph (b) of § 142.1 is amended by removing “$5,000” and adding in its place “$10,781”.
PART 146—NEW RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING 19. The authority citation for part 146 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Section 319, Pub. L. 101-121 (31 U.S.C. 1352); 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6).

§ 146.400 [Amended]
20. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) of § 146.400 are amended by removing “$10,000” wherever it appears and adding in its place “$18,936” and by removing “$100,000” and adding in its place “$189,361”.
Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-11868 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0703; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-004-AD; Amendment 39-18518; AD 2016-10-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a pilot commanding an in-flight engine shut down in response to a low oil pressure warning indication. Further investigation revealed the mounting studs in the engine mounted alternating current (AC) generator mounting plate were pulled out of position and the threaded interface in the plate was corroded. This AD requires repetitive inspections for discrepancies on certain AC generator mounting adapters, and replacing discrepant adapters with serviceable ones. This AD also requires revising the maintenance program to incorporate a repetitive task specified in certain temporary revisions. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the AC generator mounting plate, which could result in a gap between the AC generator and the generator mounting plate, and cause loss of engine oil and consequent engine failure.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 23, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-4000; fax: 416-375-4539; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0703.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0703; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1563), (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2013 (78 FR 53080), (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for discrepancies on certain AC generator mounting adapters, and replacing discrepant adapters with serviceable ones. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance program to incorporate a repetitive task specified in certain temporary revisions. The NPRM was prompted by a report of a pilot commanding an in-flight engine shut down in response to a low oil pressure warning indication. Further investigation revealed the mounting studs in the engine mounted AC generator mounting plate were pulled out of position and the threaded interface in the plate was corroded.

The SNPRM proposed to require the actions specified in the NPRM, and to expand the proposed applicability. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the AC generator mounting plate, which could result in a gap between the AC generator and the generator mounting plate, and cause loss of engine oil and consequent engine failure.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive, CF-2012-29R1, effective April 28, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The MCAI states:

An incident has been reported, on the DHC-8 aeroplane, where a pilot commanded in-flight engine shut down in response to an engine low oil pressure warning indication.

Further investigation revealed the mounting studs in the engine mounted alternating current (AC) generator mounting plate were pulled out of position and the threaded interface in the plate corroded. This resulted in a gap between the AC generator and the generator mounting plate, leading to the loss of engine oil and the ensuing illumination of the associated engine low oil pressure warning indication.

To ensure the integrity of the affected units, Part I of this [Canadian] AD mandates an inspection of the affected AC generator mounting adapters part numbers (P/N) 31708-500 or 31708-501, and, as applicable, replacement with new or serviceable mounting plates.

Part II of this [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of a repeat Maintenance Review Board (MRB) inspection applicable to the replacement of the AC generator mounting adapters P/Ns 31708-510 or 31708-511 only.

Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to include additional aeroplane serial numbers (003 through 018) to the Applicability section, and to clarify the compliance schedules in Part I B. and Part II below [in this Canadian AD].

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0703. Comments

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 8-24-88, Revision A, dated September 23, 2014. This service information describes repetitive inspections for discrepancies on certain AC generator mounting adapters, and replacing discrepant adapters with serviceable ones.

Bombardier, Inc. has also issued the following de Havilland service information, which introduces MRB Report Task 2420/14, “Functional Check (pull test) of the AC generator adapter kit.”

• de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 MRB Report Temporary Revision MRB-153, dated July 10, 2012, to Section 2—Systems, in Part 1 of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7.

• de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 MRB Report Temporary Revision MRB 2-31, dated July 10, 2012, to Section 2—Systems, in Part 1 of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-82-7.

• de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 MRB Report Temporary Revision MRB 3-162, dated July 10, 2012, to Section 2—Systems, in Part 1 of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-83-7.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 88 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $4,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $396,880, or $4,510 per product.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-10-07 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18518. Docket No. FAA-2013-0703; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-004-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective June 23, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 672 inclusive.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a report of a pilot commanding an in-flight engine shut down in response to a low oil pressure warning indication. Further investigation revealed the mounting studs in the engine mounted alternating current (AC) generator mounting plate were pulled out of position and the threaded interface in the plate corroded. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the AC generator mounting plate, which could result in a gap between the AC generator and the generator mounting plate, and cause loss of engine oil and consequent engine failure.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection of AC Generator Mounting Adaptor and Corrective Action

Within 6,000 flight hours, or 36 months, or when the AC generator is removed for service, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection and a mechanical inspection for discrepancies (i.e., damage, corrosion, and failed mechanical inspection) on AC generator mounting adapters having part number (P/N) 31708-500 and P/N 31708-501, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-88, Revision A, dated September 23, 2014. If any discrepancy (i.e., damage, corrosion, or failed mechanical inspection) is found, before further flight, replace the AC generator mounting adapter with a serviceable mounting adapter having P/N 31708-510, P/N 31708-511, P/N 31708-500, or P/N 31708-501, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-88, Revision A, dated September 23, 2014.

(h) Repetitive Inspections

For in-service mounting adapters that have P/N 31708-500 or P/N 31708-501: Repeat the general visual and mechanical inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours, or 36 months after the most recent inspection, or when the AC generator is removed for service, whichever occurs first.

(i) Replacement of Certain AC Generator Mounting Adaptors

For airplanes having AC generator mounting adapters that have P/N 31708-500 or P/N 31708-501: Within the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, replace the AC generator mounting adapter with a new AC generator mounting adapter having P/N 31708-510 or P/N 31708-511.

(1) Before the accumulation of 120 months on the AC generator mounting adapter.

(2) Within 12 months, or 2,000 flight hours, or when the generator is removed from service, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Airplane Maintenance Program Revision

For airplanes having AC generator mounting adapters that have P/N 31708-510 or P/N 31708-511: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating maintenance review board (MRB) Report Task 2420/14, “Functional Check (pull test) of the AC generator adapter kit,” in the applicable maintenance program manual specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance time for MRB Task 2420/14 is prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total flight hours or within 60 months since installation of the part, whichever occurs first.

(1) For Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes: de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 MRB Report Temporary Revision MRB-153, dated July 10, 2012, to Section 2—Systems, of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7.

(2) For Model DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes: de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 MRB Report Temporary Revision MRB 2-31, dated July 10, 2012, to Section 2—Systems, of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-82-7.

(3) For Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes: de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 MRB Report Temporary Revision MRB3-162, dated July 10, 2012, to Section 2—Systems, of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-83-7.

(k) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

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

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-88, dated December 13, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(n) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2012-29R1, dated April 28, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0703.

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(4) of this AD.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-88, Revision A, dated September 23, 2014.

(ii) de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report Temporary Revision MRB-153, dated July 10, 2012, to Section 2—Systems, of Part 1 of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7.

(iii) de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 MRB Report Temporary Revision MRB 2-31, dated July 10, 2012, to Section 2—Systems, of Part 1 of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-82-7.

(iv) de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 MRB Report Temporary Revision MRB 3-162, dated July 10, 2012, to Section 2—Systems, of Part 1 of the de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual PSM1-83-7 MRB Report.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-4000; fax: 416-375-4539; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 6, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11427 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8431; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-128-AD; Amendment 39-18517; AD 2016-10-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that the network interface installed between the Information Management System (IMS) 6000 unit and the Cabin Entertainment System (CES) network could affect the Aircraft Control Domain (ACD), and result in the transmission of misleading navigational information to the flightcrew. This AD requires inspecting the network interface installation between the IMS and the CES, and disconnecting the installation, if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent the transmission of misleading navigational information, which could adversely affect the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 23, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514 855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8431.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8431; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1568) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the network interface installed between the IMS 6000 unit and the CES network could affect the ACD, and result in the transmission of misleading navigational information to the flightcrew. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the network interface installation between the IMS and the CES, and disconnecting the installation, if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent the transmission of misleading navigational information, which could adversely affect the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-19, dated July 20, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

It was discovered that on certain aeroplanes, the network interface installed between the Information Management System (IMS) 6000 unit and the Cabin Entertainment System (CES) network may affect the Aircraft Control Domain (ACD). This could potentially compromise the operational integrity of the avionics system and result in misleading navigational information to the flight crew. Misleading navigational information could have adverse effects on the safe operation of the aeroplane.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the [general visual] inspection [to determine if pins are present at positions 25, 27, 48, and 50] and disconnection, as required, of the network interface installation between the IMS and the CES.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8431. Comments

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for inspecting the network interface installation between the IMS and the CES, and disconnecting the installation, if necessary.

• Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

• Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 77 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $6,545, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on action takes about 3 work-hours, for a cost of $255 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-10-06 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18517. Docket No. FAA-2015-8431; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-128-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective June 23, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

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

(1) Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers 9381, 9432 through 9708 inclusive; 9711 through 9718 inclusive; and 9720 through 9730 inclusive.

(2) Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes, serial numbers 9386, 9401, 9445 through 9707 inclusive; 9710 through 9717 inclusive; and 9722, 9732, 9734, and 9737.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a determination that the network interface installed between the Information Management System (IMS) 6000 unit and the Cabin Entertainment System (CES) network could affect the Aircraft Control Domain (ACD), and result in the transmission of misleading navigational information to the flightcrew. We are issuing this AD to prevent the transmission of misleading navigational information, which could adversely affect the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Disconnection, if Necessary

Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the network interface installation between the IMS and CES to determine if pins are present at positions 25, 27, 48, and 50; and if any pins are present, before further flight, disconnect the installation; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), or (h)(4) of this AD, as applicable. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, dated February 23, 2015.

(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, Revision 01, dated March 20, 2015.

(3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, dated February 23, 2015.

(4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, Revision 01, dated March 20, 2015.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(j) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-19, dated July 20, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8431.

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2015.

(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2015.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514 855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 6, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11457 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3634; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-203-AD; Amendment 39-18521; AD 2016-10-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-20-01 for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. AD 2014-20-01 required repetitive inspections for any fuel leak in the right-hand landing lights compartment, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2014-20-01 also provides for an optional replacement of the connector of the fuel boost pump canister of the auxiliary power unit (APU), which terminates the repetitive inspections. This new AD requires replacing the connector of the fuel boost pump canister of the APU. This AD was prompted by the determination that a terminating action for the repetitive inspections is necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fuel leaks in the right-hand landing lights compartment, which, in combination with the heat generated by the taxi lights and landing lights on the ground reaching the auto-ignition temperature of the fuel, could result in ignition of any fuel or fumes present in the right-hand landing lights compartment.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective June 23, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 20, 2014 (79 FR 59640, October 3, 2014).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this finale rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3634.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3634; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-20-01, Amendment 39-17974 (79 FR 59640, October 3, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-01”). AD 2014-20-01 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2015 (80 FR 57543) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by the determination that a terminating action for the repetitive inspections is necessary. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for any fuel leak in the right-hand landing lights compartment, and related investigative and corrective actions. The NPRM also provided an optional replacement of the connector of the fuel boost pump canister of the APU, which terminates the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fuel leaks in the right-hand landing lights compartment, which, in combination with the heat generated by the taxi lights and landing lights on the ground reaching the auto-ignition temperature of the fuel, could result in ignition of any fuel or fumes present in the right-hand landing lights compartment.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-21, dated July 10, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:

Bombardier, Inc. has discovered fuel leakage in the auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel Boost Pump (BP) canister connector cavity. On some of those aeroplanes, leakage was also noticed at the APU fuel BP electrical conduit connection in the right hand landing light compartment. The root cause of the subject fuel leak is identified to be the improper length of the female connector keyway located in the fuel BP canister, causing a shift of the electrical harness and its seals.

Available data indicates that on a hot day, due to the heat generated by the taxi light and/or landing lights on the ground, temperature in the landing light compartment can reach the fuel auto ignition temperature. Therefore, presence of any fuel in the right hand landing light compartment is considered to be a safety hazard [fuel or fumes present in the right-side landing lights compartment might ignite] that warrants mitigating action.

In order to help mitigate the potential safety hazard precipitated by any fuel leakage in the right hand landing light compartment, Bombardier, Inc., has revised the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) through Temporary Revisions (TRs) 604/38 and 605/20 dated 16 June 2014 to restrict the operation of Taxi and Landing lights on the ground. Transport Canada issued Emergency [Canadian] AD CF-2014-17 [(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/CF-2014-17), which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-15-17, Amendment 39-17919 (79 FR 44268, July 31, 2014)] to mandate incorporation of the above AFM TRs.

To address the root cause of the subject fuel leakage from the APU fuel boost pump canister wiring conduit, Bombardier, Inc. issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) A605-28-008 that requires periodic [repetitive general visual] inspection[s] for fuel leaks and [applicable related investigative and corrective actions and] eventually the replacement of the discrepant fuel BP canister connectors [including related investigative and corrective actions] on affected aeroplanes. The ASB has been revised to include an additional inspection of the new connector wiring for damage and this [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the compliance with ASB A605-28-008 Revision 2 requirements.

We also included compliance times for the terminating action. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3634. Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

Mr. James Tyron stated that he supports the actions proposed in the NPRM, and asserted that the time and cost of repetitively inspecting these airplanes will be reduced as a result.

Request To Shorten a Certain Compliance Time

Mr. Connor McClintock requested that the connectors and wiring be inspected immediately instead of within 5 months or 150 flight hours after issuance of the AD, and those failing safety standards should likewise be replaced immediately to reduce further risk of an accidental fire. The commenter stated that the compliance times for replacing APU boost pump connectors, as described in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD, seems unnecessarily long. The commenter provided no technical justification for reducing this proposed compliance time.

We disagree with changing the compliance times for replacing APU boost pump connectors. AD 2014-15-17 revised the Aircraft Flight Manual to restrict the operation of taxi and landing lights on the ground to reduce the chance of a fire. In addition, the compliance time for replacing the APU boost pump connectors was developed by the manufacturer in concert with TCCA and it represents an interval that, when combined with the mitigating actions in AD 2014-15-17, will reduce the risk of fire. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 92 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2014-20-01 and retained in this AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2014-20-01 is $170 per product.

We also estimate that it takes about 22 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $172,040, or $1,870 per product.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-20-01, Amendment 39-17974 (79 FR 59640, October 3, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2016-10-10 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18521. Docket No. FAA-2015-3634; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-203-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective June 23, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2014-20-01, Amendment 39-17974 (79 FR 59640, October 3, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-01”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 5906, 5910, 5912, 5917, 5919 through 5932 inclusive, 5934, 5935, 5939, 5940, 5942, and 5948.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a report of fuel leaks in the auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel boost pump canister connector cavity and in the right-hand landing lights compartment from the APU fuel boost pump electrical conduit connection, and by a determination that terminating action for the repetitive inspections is necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fuel leaks in the right-hand landing lights compartment, which, in combination with the heat generated by the taxi lights and landing lights on the ground reaching the auto-ignition temperature of the fuel, could result in ignition of any fuel or fumes present in the right-hand landing lights compartment.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections for Fuel Leaks, With No Changes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-20-01, with no changes. Within 25 flight hours after October 20, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-20-01): Do a general visual inspection for any fuel leak in the right-hand landing lights compartment, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2014, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8 flight hours until the replacement specified in paragraph (j) of this AD has been accomplished.

(h) Retained Corrective Action for Fuel Leak Found During Related Investigative Actions, With No Changes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-20-01, with no changes. If any fuel leak is found during the related investigative actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, do the terminating action specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, or do corrective actions using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(i) Retained Inspection of Connector Wiring With No Changes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2014-20-01, with no changes. For airplanes having new connectors installed, as specified in Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, dated April 21, 2014: Within 6 months or 150 flight hours after October 20, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-20-01), whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection for damage (cuts) of the connector wiring, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2014. If any damage (cuts) is found on the wires, before further flight, replace the wire with a new wire identified in kit 605K28-008A, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2014.

(j) New Requirement: Terminating Action—Replacement of Connector

Within 6 months, or 150 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, replace the connector of the fuel boost pump canister of the APU and do all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2014. Accomplishing this replacement terminates the repetitive actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, provided that the following actions are done, as applicable.

(1) If any damage (cuts) is found on the wires, before further flight, replace the wire with a new wire identified in kit 605K28-008A, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2014.

(2) If any damage is found on an O-ring, before further flight, replace the O-ring with a new O-ring, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2014.

(3) If any fuel leak is found, before further flight, do corrective actions using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(k) Retained Credit for Previous Actions, With Revised Paragraph Reference

This paragraph restates paragraph (k) of AD 2014-20-01, with a revised paragraph reference. This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before October 20, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-20-01), using Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, Revision 01, dated May 28, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(m) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-21, dated July 10, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3634.

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

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 20, 2014 (79 FR 59640, October 3, 2014).

(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-28-008, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11682 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 436 Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).

ACTION:

Final rule amendments.

SUMMARY:

The FTC announces revised monetary thresholds for three exemptions from the Franchise Rule. The FTC is required to adjust the size of the monetary thresholds every fourth year based upon the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on July 1, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig Tregillus, Franchise Rule Coordinator, Division of Marketing Practices, FTC, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2970, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FTC's Trade Regulation Rule entitled “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising” (Franchise Rule or Rule) 1 provides three exemptions based on a monetary threshold: The “minimum payment exemption,” 2 the “large franchise investment exemption” 3 and the “large franchisee exemption.” 4 The Rule requires the Commission to “adjust the size of the monetary thresholds every fourth year based upon the . . . Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [CPI-U] published by the Department of Labor.” 5 This requirement, added by the 2007 amendments to the Rule, took effect on July 1, 2007, so that franchisors would have a one-year phase-in period within which to comply with the amended Rule's revised disclosure requirements before the July 1, 2008, final compliance deadline.6

1 16 CFR part 436.

2 16 CFR 436.8(a)(1).

3 16 CFR 436.8(a)(5)(i).

4 16 CFR 436.8(a)(5)(ii).

5 16 CFR 436.8(b).

6 72 FR 15444 (Mar. 30, 2007).

As required by the Rule, the Commission revised the three monetary thresholds to reflect inflation in the CPI-U from 2007 through 2011 of 8.49 percent.7 The adjusted thresholds, which took effect on July 1, 2012, raised the minimum payment exemption from $500 to $540; the large franchise investment exemption from $1 million to $1,084,900; and the large franchisee exemption from $5 million to $5,424,500.8

7 77 FR 36149, 36150 (June 18, 2012).

8Id.

We base the exemption monetary thresholds that will take effect on July 1, 2016, on the increase in the CPI-U between 2007 and 2015. During this period, the annual average value of the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers and all items increased by 14.31 percent—from an index value of 207.342 to a value of 237.017.9 Applying the percentage increase to the three monetary thresholds increases the thresholds as follows:

9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Detailed Report: Data for February 2016, Table 24, p. 72, available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1602.pdf.

Exemption 2007 base Adjusted
  • 2016
  • threshold
  • Minimum Payment $500 10 $570 Large Franchise Investment 1,000,000 1,143,100 Large franchisee 5,000,000 5,715,500

    Because the calculation of these thresholds is purely ministerial in nature and implements the Rule's mandatory adjustment mechanism, these adjustments are exempt from the rulemaking procedures specified in section 18 of the FTC Act.11 In addition, the Commission has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for the same reason. The Commission, therefore, has omitted notice and comment for good cause as provided by section 553(b)(B) of the APA.12 For this reason, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act also do not apply.13 Accordingly, the adjusted thresholds will take effect on July 1, 2016.

    10 The Commission has rounded this figure from $571.55 to $570 for compliance clarity and simplicity.

    11 See 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(2)(B); 16 CFR 1.15(b) (providing that non-substantive amendments to trade regulation rules are exempt from the rulemaking procedures of Section 18 of the FTC Act).

    12 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) (providing that “good cause” exists to forego notice and comment when public comment is unnecessary).

    13 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 (no regulatory flexibility analyses required where the APA does not require public comment).

    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 436

    Advertising, Business and industry, Franchising, Trade practices.

    Rule Amendments

    For the reasons set out in the preamble of this document, the Federal Trade Commission amends 16 CFR part 436 as follows:

    PART 436—DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND PROHIBITIONS CONCERNING FRANCHISING 1. The authority citation for part 436 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 41-58.

    § 436.8 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 436.8 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove “$540” and, in its place, add “$570”; b. In paragraph (a)(5)(i), remove both references to “$1,084,900” and, in their place, add “$1,143,100”; and c. In paragraph (a)(5)(ii), remove “$5,424,500” and, in its place, add “$5,715,500”.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11789 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 232 [Release Nos. 33-10071; 34-77693; 39-2509; IC-32091] Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) is adopting revisions to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (EDGAR) Filer Manual and related rules to reflect updates to the EDGAR system. The updates are being made primarily to support the 2016 XBRL taxonomies; add new submission form types SBSE, SBSE/A, SBSE-A, SBSE-A/A, SBSE-BD, SBSE-BD/A, SBSE-C and SBSE-W pursuant to Section 15F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rules 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-2 thereunder; add submission form types 17HACON, 17HACON/A, 17HQCON and 17HQCON/A pursuant to Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T under the Exchange Act; and permit a value of zero in addition to the currently allowable numeric values in the “Current Number of Employees” field on the “Disclosure Requirements” screen of the Regulation Crowdfunding submission form types C, C/A and C-U. The EDGAR system was upgraded to support the new 2016 XBRL taxonomies on March 7, 2016. The EDGAR system is scheduled to be upgraded to support the other functionalities on April 25, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective May 19, 2016 The incorporation by reference of the EDGAR Filer Manual is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    In the Division of Trading and Markets, for questions concerning Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, Form SBSE-BD, Form SBSE-C, Form SBSE-W, and Form 17-H, contact Kathy Bateman at (202) 551-4345; in the Division of Corporation Finance, for questions concerning Form C, contact Vik Sheth at (202) 551-3818; and in the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, for questions concerning XBRL taxonomies, contact Walter Hamscher at (202) 551-5397.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II. The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system.1 It also describes the requirements for filing using EDGARLink Online and the Online Forms/XML Web site.

    1 We originally adopted the Filer Manual on April 1, 1993, with an effective date of April 26, 1993. Release No. 33-6986 (April 1, 1993) [58 FR 18638]. We implemented the most recent update to the Filer Manual on December 14, 2015. See Release No. 33-9987 (January 4, 2016) [81 FR 3].

    The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 36 (April 2016). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

    The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format.2 Filers may consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with our rules governing mandated electronic filing when preparing documents for electronic submission.3

    2 See Rule 301 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.301).

    3 See Release No. 33-9987 in which we implemented EDGAR Release 15.4. For additional history of Filer Manual rules, please see the cites therein.

    The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 16.1 on April 25, 2016 and will introduce the following changes:

    Pursuant to Section 15F of the Exchange Act and Rules 15Fb1-1 through 15Fb6-2 thereunder, Security-based Swap Dealers and Major Security-based Swap Participants will be able to electronically register, amend their registration and withdraw from their registration with the Commission using the following submission form types:

    • SBSE: Application for Registration of Security-based Swap Dealers and Major Security-based Swap Participants

    • SBSE/A: Amendment to an Application for Registration of Security-based Swap Dealers and Major Security-based Swap Participants

    • SBSE-A: Application for Registration of Security-based Swap Dealers and Major Security-based Swap Participants that are Registered or Registering with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a Swap Dealer or Major Swap Participant

    • SBSE-A/A: Amendment to an Application for Registration of Security-based Swap Dealers and Major Security-based Swap Participants that are Registered or Registering with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a Swap Dealer or Major Swap Participant

    • SBSE-BD: Application for Registration of Security-based Swap Dealers and Major Security-based Swap Participants that are Registered Broker-dealers

    • SBSE-BD/A: Amendment to an Application for Registration of Security-based Swap Dealers and Major Security-based Swap Participants that are Registered Broker-dealers

    • SBSE-C: Certifications for Registration of Security-based Swap Dealers and Major Security-based Swap Participants

    • SBSE-W: Request for Withdrawal from Registration as Security-based Swap Dealer or Major Security-based Swap Participant

    These submission form types can be accessed by clicking the “File SBSE” link on the EDGAR Filing Web site. Additionally, filers can construct XML submissions for SBSE, SBSE/A, SBSE-A, SBSE-A/A, SBSE-BD, SBSE-BD/A, SBSE-C, and SBSE-W by following the “EDGAR Form SBSE XML Technical Specification” document located on the SEC's Public Web site (http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml).

    Pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T, broker-dealers that choose to file electronically will now submit the Risk Assessment Report for Brokers and Dealers Form 17-H via EDGAR using the following submission form types:

    • 17HACON: Confidential broker dealer annual 17-H report

    • 17HACON/A: Amendment for confidential broker dealer annual 17-H report

    • 17HQCON: Confidential broker dealer quarterly 17-H report

    • 17HQCON/A: Amendment for confidential broker dealer quarterly 17-H report

    These submission form types can be accessed by clicking the “File 17-H” link on the EDGAR Filing Web site. Additionally, broker-dealers can construct XML submissions for 17HACON, 17HACON/A, 17HQCON, and 17HQCON/A by following the “EDGAR Form 17-H XML Technical Specification” document located on the SEC's Public Web site (http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml).

    The “Current Number of Employees” field on the “Disclosure Requirements” screen of the Regulation Crowdfunding submission form types C, C/A, and C-U has been updated to permit a value of zero in addition to the currently allowable numeric values.

    On March 7, 2016, the EDGAR system was upgraded to Release 16.0.3 and now supports the 2016 US GAAP, 2016 COUNTRY, 2016 CURRENCY and 2016 EXCH taxonomies. Please see http://sec.gov/info/edgar/edgartaxonomies.shtml for the complete listing of supported standard taxonomies.

    Along with the adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    The updated EDGAR Filer Manual will be available for Web site viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml. You may also obtain paper copies of the EDGAR Filer Manual from the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

    Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule changes relate solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).4 It follows that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 do not apply.

    4 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

    5 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

    The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is May 19, 2016. In accordance with the APA,6 we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to Release 16.1 is scheduled to become available on April 25, 2016. The Commission believes that establishing an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with these system upgrades.

    6 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Statutory Basis

    We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,7 Sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,8 Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,9 and Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.10

    7 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, and 77s(a).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78w, and 78ll.

    9 15 U.S.C. 77sss.

    10 15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37.

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232

    Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    Text of the Amendment

    In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 232—REGULATION S-T—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC FILINGS 1. The authority citation for Part 232 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c), 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350.

    2. Section 232.301 is revised to read as follows:
    § 232.301 EDGAR Filer Manual.

    Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets out the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 24 (December 2015). The requirements for filing on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 36 (April 2016). Additional provisions applicable to Form N-SAR filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: “N-SAR Supplement,” Version 5 (September 2015). All of these provisions have been incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, which action was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You must comply with these requirements in order for documents to be timely received and accepted. The EDGAR Filer Manual is available for Web site viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml. You can obtain paper copies of the EDGAR Filer Manual from the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. You can also inspect the document at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Dated: April 22, 2016.

    By the Commission.

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11764 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 7 [Docket No. FR-5645-F-01] RIN 2501-AD78 Removal of the Equal Employment Opportunity; Policy, Procedures and Programs Regulation AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    To increase the effectiveness of its Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program and streamline HUD's regulations, HUD has decided to remove 24 CFR part 7 (HUD's EEO regulation), while continuing to publish its EEO policy and procedures as administrative guidance. This action is necessary because HUD's EEO regulation has been superseded by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation at 29 CFR part 1614 (EEOC's regulation) and therefore does not establish binding requirements. In addition, HUD's EEO regulation was intended to conform to and mirror EEOC's regulation. As EEOC's regulation has been revised, HUD's EEO regulation has become outdated and may create confusion for parties having to reconcile differing HUD and EEOC regulations. By consolidating its EEO policy and procedures in administrative guidance, HUD can more effectively incorporate amendments to EEOC's regulation, highlight HUD-specific guidance, and simplify the procedures for parties seeking to exercise their EEO rights.

    DATES:

    Effective: June 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John P. Benison, Director, Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 2102, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-3362 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    HUD policy is to provide equality of employment opportunity for all persons, and to prohibit discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information in all facets of employment. These policies are integral to HUD's mission and underlie its efforts to promote economic and community development; increase homeownership; create affordable housing opportunities for low-income Americans; enforce the Nation's fair housing laws; and support the homeless, the elderly, people with disabilities, and people living with AIDS. Toward this goal, HUD remains committed to promoting affirmative employment through the removal of barriers and by positive actions at every management level, including the early resolution of EEO disputes.

    To increase the effectiveness of HUD's EEO program and streamline HUD's regulations, HUD has decided to consolidate its EEO policy and procedure, currently codified in HUD's EEO regulation at 24 CFR part 7, in administrative guidance that is already posted on HUD's Web site. This action is necessary because HUD's EEO regulation has been superseded by EEOC regulation, and, as such, does not establish binding requirements. In addition, this action allows HUD to ensure that its EEO policy and procedures are accurate and up-to-date.

    HUD's EEO regulation was promulgated on April 23, 2001 (66 FR 20564). When published, the rule was intended to mirror and conform to EEOC's “Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity” regulation at 29 CFR part 1614. Since promulgation of HUD's EEO Regulation, EEOC's regulation at 29 CFR part 1614 was revised several times: On May 21, 2002, to implement the amendment of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, under the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992; on August 2, 2006, to address the posting requirements of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (71 FR 43644); on December 7, 2009, to include references to title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (74 FR 63981); on July 25, 2012, to reform the Federal sector EEO complaint process (77 FR 43498); and on various other dates to implement clerical or procedural changes. As a result, HUD's EEO Regulation no longer mirrors EEOC's regulation and is now outdated. HUD is concerned that this may result in confusion for parties required to reconcile HUD's EEO regulation and EEOC's regulation. Further, the provisions of HUD's EEO regulation that expand on EEOC's regulation may add further confusion by adding procedures that apply only to HUD and not to those employees or applicants seeking information about Federal equal employment opportunity policies, procedures, and programs.

    To remedy this situation, HUD is removing 24 CFR part 7. By removing HUD's EEO regulation and consolidating all of HUD's EEO policy and procedures in administrative guidance, HUD can more effectively incorporate amendments to EEOC's regulation, highlight HUD specific guidance, and simplify the procedures for parties seeking to exercise their EEO rights.

    HUD consulted with the EEOC in development of this final rule, consistent with “Executive Order 12067—Providing for Coordination of Federal Equal Employment Opportunity programs” (43 FR 28967). Executive Order 12067 requires that “agencies shall advise and offer to consult with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the development of any proposed rules, regulations, policies, procedures or orders concerning equal employment opportunity.”

    II. Justification for Final Rulemaking

    HUD generally publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. Part 10 provides for exceptions to the general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (24 CFR 10.1; see also 5 U.S.C. 553(b)). HUD finds that public notice and comment are unnecessary for this rulemaking because HUD's EEO regulation is obsolete and unnecessary, and, as such, its removal does not establish or affect substantive policy. HUD's EEO regulation was initially promulgated to mirror and conform to EEOC's regulation, but was later effectively superseded as EEOC revised its regulations. For the sake of accuracy and flexibility, HUD will address in administrative guidance, rather than in the Code of Federal Regulations, any future changes to its internal EEO policy and procedures. Additionally, this will eliminate confusion resulting from having two regulations that address the same EEO laws yet differ in currency and scope.

    For these reasons, HUD has determined that it is unnecessary to delay the effectiveness of this rule in order to solicit prior public comment.

    III. Findings and Certification Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.

    Since this final rule covers internal HUD operations and pertains only to current/former employees and applicants for employment at HUD, it is not subject to review under Executive Order 12866. As discussed in this preamble, the final rule would amend HUD's personnel regulations by removing HUD's EEO regulation that, when issued, was established to conform to the EEOC's regulation but is now outdated. HUD is consolidating its EEO policy and guidance in administrative guidance, allowing HUD more flexibility to effectively incorporate amendments to EEOC's regulation and simplify procedures for parties seeking to exercise their EEO rights. This final rule is, nevertheless, consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563, to reduce regulatory burdens and maintain maximum agency flexibility.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because HUD has determined that good cause exists to issue this rule without prior public comment, this rule is not subject to the requirement to publish an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA as part of such action.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 1 requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of UMRA also requires an agency to identity and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule.2 However, the UMRA applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking. As discussed above, HUD has determined, for good cause, that prior notice and public comment is not required on this rule and, therefore, the UMRA does not apply to this final rule.

    1 2 U.S.C. 1532.

    2 2 U.S.C. 1534.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.

    Environmental Review

    This final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

    List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 7

    Administrative practice and procedure, Equal employment opportunity, Organization and functions (Government agencies).

    PART 7—[REMOVED] Accordingly, under 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and as discussed in the preamble, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is amending 24 CFR by removing part 7. Dated: May 12, 2016. Nani A. Coloretti, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11806 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG 2016-0321] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, Texas AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for waters of the Sabine River, shoreline to shoreline, adjacent to the public boat ramp located in Orange, TX. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from hazards associated with a high speed boat race competition. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m. on May 21, 2016, through 6 p.m. on May 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0321 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409-719-5086, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The Coast Guard received notice on March 30, 2016 that this boat racing event is scheduled to take place on May 21 and 22, 2016. Upon full review of the event details, the Coast Guard determined that additional safety measures are necessary due to potential navigational hazards present during the high speed boat race. It is impractical to publish a NPRM because a safety zone needs to be established by May 21, 2016.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because regulatory action is necessary to limit access to the area of the high speed boat races, protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels from the potential hazards during a high speed boat race on a navigable waterway. The Coast Guard will notify the public and maritime community that the safety zone will be in effect and of its enforcement periods via broadcast notices to mariners (BNM) and the event will advertised in the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port, Port Arthur (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with high speed boat races are a safety concern for vessels operating on the Sabine River. This rule is needed to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the scheduled races.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8:30 a.m. on May 21, 2016 through 6:00 p.m. on May 22, 2016. The safety zone covers all navigable waters of the Sabine River, shoreline to shoreline, adjacent to the public boat ramp located in Orange, TX. The northern boundary is from the end of Navy Pier One then easterly to the river's eastern shore. The southern boundary is a line shoreline to shoreline. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels, in the navigable waters of the Sabine River during the high speed boat races. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone is over a 2-day period and enforcement during the effective times, enforcement periods will include scheduled breaks, providing opportunity for vessels to transit through the affected area. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessel to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone during a 2-day period that will prohibit entry within the zone without permission of the Captain of the Port. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add temporary § 165.T08-0321 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0321 Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, Texas.

    Location. The following area is a safety zone: Waters of the Sabine River, shoreline to shoreline, adjacent to the Orange public boat ramps located in Orange, TX. The northern boundary is from the end of old Navy Pier One at 30°05′50″ N. 93°43′15″ W. then easterly to the river's eastern shore. The southern boundary is a line shoreline to shoreline at latitude 30°05′33″ N. (NAD83).

    (a) Effective Periods. This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m. on May 21, 2016 through 6:00 p.m. on May 22, 2016. Enforcement during the effective periods will allow for scheduled breaks allowing vessels to pass through the safety zone. Notice of scheduled breaks will be provided as indicated under (d) Informational broadcasts.

    (b) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited to all persons and vessels except those vessels specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through must request permission from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16, or by phone at by telephone at 409-719-5070.

    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the lawful orders or directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or the Captain of the Port's designated representative. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    (c) Information broadcasts. The Coast Guard will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of channel restrictions and Vessel Traffic Service advisories on VHF-FM channel 65A.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. R.S. Ogrydziak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, Texas.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11821 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board 37 CFR Part 370 [Docket No. RM 2008-7] Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License AGENCY:

    Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Copyright Royalty Judges are amending a Copyright Royalty Board rule regarding reporting requirements for certain Educational Stations that pay no more than the minimum fee for their use of sound recordings under the applicable statutory licenses.

    DATES:

    Effective May 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kimberly Whittle at (202) 707-7658 or at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    On May 2, 2014, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) published a document in the Federal Register seeking comments on two unrelated rulemaking proposals (Proposal).1 For the proposal that is the subject of this document the Judges requested comments on a proposed rule amendment to relax certain reporting requirements for educational stations that pay no more than the minimum fee for the use of sound recordings under the statutory licenses in Sections 112(e) and 114 of the Copyright Act. The Judges received over twenty comments on the proposal, most of which supported it. For the reasons discussed below, the Judges adopt the proposed amendment.

    1See 79 FR 25038. The Judges continue to analyze the second rulemaking proposal, submitted by SoundExchange, Inc., and the comments responsive thereto.

    Background

    On October 28, 2009, College Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI), American Council on Education (ACE), and Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, Inc. (IBS) (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed a motion with the Judges seeking clarification of an issue purportedly raised by final regulations that the Judges adopted regarding reporting requirements for entities that digitally transmit sound recordings pursuant to section 114(d)(2) of the Copyright Act or that make ephemeral phonorecords of sound recordings pursuant to section 112(e) of that Act.2 Joint Petition for Clarification, Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under the Statutory License, Docket No. RM 2008-7 (Oct. 28, 2009) (Joint Petition). The regulations at issue are found in 37 CFR 370.4, and they prescribe rules for the maintenance and delivery of reports of use (ROUs).3

    2 The release adopting the regulations appeared in 74 FR 52418 (Oct. 13, 2009). The applicable rules are codified in 37 CFR part 370.

    3 An ROU is a report required to be provided by an entity that transmits sound recordings pursuant to the statutory licenses in section 114(d)(2) or that makes ephemeral recordings of sound recordings pursuant to section 112(e) of the Copyright Act. 37 CFR 370.1(i). ROUs must be delivered to the Collective designated by the Judges (currently SoundExchange, Inc.). See, e.g., 37 CFR 370.4(c). ROUs must include the name of the entity making the transmissions, a category transmission code, the featured artist of the sound recording, and the sound recording title, among other information. The current proceeding is focused only on the reporting requirements of “nonsubscription transmission services,” which are entities that provide audio programming consisting of performances of sound recordings. See 37 CFR 370.1(e). Such services are often referred to as webcasters.

    For nonsubscription transmission services, except those qualifying as minimum fee broadcasters, the ROU must include the actual total performances of each sound recording during the reporting period. 37 CFR 370.4(d)(2)(vi). Minimum fee broadcasters, however, may report, as an alternative to actual total performances, the aggregate tuning hours, the channel or program name, and play frequency. 37 CFR 370.4(d)(2)(vii).

    Whereas most services must prepare an ROU for each calendar month of the year, a minimum fee broadcaster need only prepare an ROU for a two-week period for each calendar quarter of the year. 37 CFR 370.4(d)(3).4 However, the regulations exempt minimum-fee broadcasters from the census reporting requirement (i.e., the requirement to report actual total performances) only if their stations are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the FCC licensing is part of the definition of “broadcaster.” Petitioners asked that the Judges “clarify” that the regulations also exempt minimum-fee broadcasters that are not FCC-licensed broadcasters if they are “educational” in nature. Joint Petition at 2-4.

    4 The weeks need not be consecutive but both must be completely within the calendar quarter. 37 CFR 370.4(d)(3)(ii).

    After reviewing the Joint Petition, the Judges concluded that Petitioners were not seeking a clarification of the final regulations but rather were seeking a substantive change. In other words, the “clarification” that the Petitioners sought actually amounted to a request to amend the census reporting requirement regulations to exempt non-FCC-licensed minimum-fee educational webcasters. The Judges thus determined that Petitioners' petition for clarification should be treated as a petition for rulemaking and made the Joint Petition subject to notice and public comment.5

    5 79 FR at 25039.

    On May 2, 2014, the Judges published the Proposal in the Federal Register seeking comments on the Petitioners' proposal.6 The Judges requested comments on not only the Petitioners' principal proposal, which would exempt non-FCC-licensed minimum fee educational webcasters from the census reporting requirement, but also on a broader alternative proposal that Petitioners proffered that would expand the census reporting exemption to entities that are noncommercial webcasters but that would not be considered educational entities under the Petitioners' proposal.

    6 79 FR 25038. In the interest of administrative efficiency, the Judges also sought comments in the same notice on an unrelated petition for rulemaking that SoundExchange submitted. SoundExchange's proposal, which requested a broad range of changes to CRB rules, is still pending. The current release addresses only the census reporting requirement proposal submitted by the Petitioners.

    In response to the Proposal, the Judges received approximately twenty-four comments.7 No commenter opposed the Petitioners' proposal for educational webcasters. SoundExchange did, however, oppose Petitioners' broader alternative proposal to exclude from the census reporting requirements noneducational noncommercial webcasters. As discussed below, the Judges are adopting the Petitioners' proposed exemption for non-FCC-licensed educational broadcasters, but are not adopting the broader noncommercial webcaster exemption.

    7 The Judges received comments that addressed in some fashion the Petitioners' proposal from the following: All-Campus Radio Network (ACRN), Andrea Baker, CBI, IBS, KBCU-FM, KBHU-FM, KNHC, KSSU, KUIW, KWSC-FM, KXUL, Lasell College Radio, the National Association of Broadcasters and Radio Music License Committee (NAB/RMLC), NPR, SCAD Atlanta Radio, SoundExchange, WBSU, WGSU-FM, WJCU, WKNC-FM, WRFL-FM, WSDP-FM, WSLX, and WSOU-FM (Seton Hall University).

    Petitioners' Rule Proposal

    Petitioners propose that the definition of a “minimum fee broadcaster” in 37 CFR 370.4(b)(3) be amended to include a nonsubscription service that: (1) Is directly operated by, or affiliated with and officially sanctioned by a domestically accredited primary or secondary school, college, university, or other post-secondary degree-granting educational institution; and (2) the digital audio transmission operations of which are, during the course of the year, staffed substantially by students enrolled in such institution; and (3) is not a “public broadcasting entity” (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(g)) qualified to receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) pursuant to the criteria set forth in 47 U.S.C. 396; and (4) is exempt from taxation under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, has applied for such exemption, or is operated by a State or possession or any governmental entity or subordinate thereof, or by the United States or District of Columbia, for exclusively public purposes. Joint Petition at 2 n.1. While the proposed language upon which the Judges requested comments did not incorporate CBI's singular reference to “Educational Stations,” the proposal retained the substance of the Petitioners' proposal.

    In the Proposal soliciting comment on the proposal, in addition to seeking comments on the proposal generally, the Judges also sought comments on certain specific issues. In particular, the Judges sought comment on how unlicensed minimum fee “Educational Stations,” as that term would be defined in Petitioners' proposal, have been reporting under the current regulations. The Judges also asked whether any such entities have ceased operations, as predicted by Petitioners and if so, how many. If none ceased operations, the Judges asked whether the need still exists for Petitioners' proposed amendment. The Judges also asked whether Petitioners have, in the first instance, made their case persuasively that the proposed amendment is warranted. If the change is warranted, the Judges asked whether they should adopt (1) Petitioners' preferred definition, which applies only to Educational Stations, or (2) the broader, alternate definition.8

    8 79 FR at 25040.

    Comment Summary

    Of the 24 comments the Judges reviewed, none opposed the specific language included in the Proposal, although, as discussed below, SoundExchange opposed adopting a more expansive exemption from the census reporting requirements for noncommercial webcasters that are not affiliated with an educational organization.

    All-Campus Radio Network's (ACRN) comment is illustrative of those that supported the proposal. Because it has no FCC license, ACRN cannot qualify as a “minimum fee broadcaster” under 37 CFR 370.4(b)(3).9 ACRN is, however, a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster (NEW) as defined in 37 CFR 380.21.10 As such, ACRN has a reporting waiver under 37 CFR 380.23(c) and (g)(1), which authorizes payment to the Collective of a $100 proxy fee in lieu of maintaining and delivering ROUs. ACRN would like to continue to report as a NEW indefinitely.11 In the alternative, ACRN supports the proposal to change 37 CFR 370.4(b)(2) so that ACRN would qualify as a minimum fee broadcaster.12 It views this option as less desirable, however.

    9 Section 370.4(b)(3) states that a minimum fee broadcaster is a nonsubscription service that meets the definition of a broadcaster pursuant to § 380.2(b) and the service's payments for eligible transmissions do not exceed the annual minimum fee established for licensees relying upon the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114. At the time of the motion for clarification 37 CFR 380.2 defined a broadcaster as a type of Licensee that owns and operates a terrestrial AM or FM radio station that is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission.

    10 Under § 380.21, a NEW is a noncommercial webcaster (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(E)(i)) that has obtained a compulsory license, complies with all applicable provisions of the license, is operated by or affiliated with and sanctioned by a primary or secondary school, college or university or other degree-granting educational institution, and is not a public broadcasting entity qualified to receive funding from the CPB. 17 CFR 380.21. As part of the supporting regulations for the Section 112 and 114 webcasting licenses, § 380.21, by its terms, expires at the end of each licensing period (currently December 31, 2020). See 37 CFR 380.20(a). The most recent iteration of § 380.21, which was adopted after comments in the current rulemaking proceeding were filed, includes an additional requirement that the noncommercial webcaster take affirmative steps not to make total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours on any individual channel or station in any month, if in any previous calendar year it has made total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours on any individual channel or station in any month. 37 CFR 380.21 (2015).

    11 As part of the supporting regulations for the webcasting licenses, the reporting waiver expires every five years, unless it is renewed.

    12 ACRN states that the proposed changes are “warranted only if the alternative to report under 380.23 were to not sunset [sic].” ACRN Comment at 3, emphasis in original. Read in the context of the ACRN letter as a whole, it appears that ACRN meant that the proposed changes would be warranted only if the alternative to report under 380.23 were to sunset.

    KBCU-FM, KBHU, KNHC, KSSU, KWSC-FM, and KXUL all generally concurred with the position of ACRN. KUIW and Lasell College Radio, which also support the proposal, state that they would probably have to cease broadcasting if the reporting provision for NEWs were to expire and they could not qualify as minimum fee broadcasters.13

    13 KUIW Comment at 1-2. Lasell Comment at 1-2. Each commenter recommends that the reporting requirements applicable to NEWs be made permanent. Such a recommendation is beyond the scope of the proposal upon which the Judges sought comment in the current proceeding. As such, the Judges do not have adequate support in the record to support adopting such a proposal.

    CBI supports continuing the reporting requirements in § 380.23, which were negotiated as part of a settlement with SoundExchange, because, according to CBI, those requirements are simpler to follow and impose fewer obstacles than the rules with which non-NEWS must comply. CBI Comment at 5. CBI states that it conducted a survey and determined that fewer than 13% of non-FCC-licensed stations are currently able to report actual total performance (ATP) data. According to CBI, fewer than 18% of those stations reported that they would be able to find a means to comply with full census ATP reporting should the requirements in § 380.23 be allowed to expire and the proposed regulations in the Joint Petition not be adopted.14 Neither CBI nor any other commenter provided data on any non-licensed entity that ceased operation due to the ROU reporting requirement. That being said, the great majority of commenters that are subject to the ROU reporting requirement appear to be paying the $100 proxy fee in lieu of reporting (an alternative that is now available through 2020). See Determination (final), Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings (Web-IV), Docket No. 14-CRB-0001-WR (2016-2020) (Mar. 2, 2016).

    14 Andrea Baker supports applying the Petitioner's preferred definition of “minimum fee broadcaster” because, according to Ms. Baker, the proposal is more likely to move users of sound recordings away from reporting of sampled data. The proposal would in fact allow more users to choose to report sampled data. Through 2020, however, to the extent they qualify to pay the proxy fee in lieu of reporting, the users that would benefit from the proposal are not reporting any sound recording play data.

    Not surprisingly, IBS also supports its Joint Petition. IBS adds that it agrees with SoundExchange's position that NEWs with fewer than 55,000 aggregate tuning hours (ATH) per month should be permitted to pay an annual $100 proxy fee in lieu of census reporting. IBS also contends that NEWs with fewer than 15,914 ATH monthly should pay a $50 proxy fee and NEWS with fewer than 6,365 ATH monthly should pay a $20 proxy fee. IBS believes that each of these categories should be exempt from the $500 annual minimum fee. Reply Comments of IBS at 1. Because IBS made its suggestions in Reply Comments, the Judges were unable to include them in the Proposal, and therefore have no basis upon which to adopt them.

    The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) advocate an exemption from all reporting requirements for broadcasters that currently pay the minimum fee of $500. They contend that many of these entities are already exempt from reporting requirements as long as they pay the $100 annual proxy fee (i.e., small broadcasters that stream no more than 27,777 aggregate tuning hours (ATH) and noncommercial educational webcasters that stream less than 55,000 annual ATH). Moreover, according to NAB, most of these entities play “mainstream” music that larger broadcasters play so the allocations of royalties paid by these entities could be made based on playlist data collected from larger broadcasters. NAB/RMLC Comment at 51-52.

    According to National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR), the current recordkeeping and reporting system is the result of a settlement agreement between SoundExchange and the CPB. NPR estimates that about 402 stations operate under the agreement. NPR Comment at 7. NPR notes that it aggregates the reports of each of these stations and reports directly to SoundExchange on behalf of all the stations. NPR states that it currently operates under the settlement agreement with SoundExchange, and, as a result, it is not subject to certain of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in the regulations. NPR believes, however, that the regulations should be flexible to allow parties that are not parties to agreements to be able to use the license in a manner that is not overly burdensome. NPR Comment at 1-3.

    SCAD Atlanta Radio 15 is a NEW under 37 CFR 380.21. It is a web-only, student-run station and does not have an FCC license so it cannot qualify as a minimum fee broadcaster under 37 CFR 370.4(b)(3). As a NEW, SCAD Atlanta pays the proxy fee in lieu of reporting, as permitted under 37 CFR 380.23. It would like to continue to report that way and therefore requests that the sunset provisions in the regulations be removed. In the alternative, SCAD Atlanta supports the proposed change to 37 CFR 370.4(b)(2), which would qualify SCAD Atlanta as a minimum fee broadcaster if the NEW designation sunsets. SCAD Atlanta states that if it lost the ability to report as a NEW and was forced to report monthly census data, the station would face considerable hardship and expense. SCAD Atlanta Comment at 2.

    15 SCAD Atlanta states that the station is produced by students at the Atlanta location of the Savannah College of Art and Design. The Judges also received a substantially identical comment from “SCAD Radio,” which states that the station is produced by students at the Savannah location of the Savannah College of Art and Design.

    In its initial comment, SoundExchange stated that the Joint Petition is moot through 2015 (and now presumably through 2020). According to SoundExchange, pursuant to 37 CFR 380.23(g)(2), a NEW with usage at a level covered by the minimum fee is currently permitted to provide ROUs on a sample basis as contemplated by proposed § 370.4(b)(2) and is even excused from reporting its ATH. SoundExchange Comment at 3. SoundExchange notes that such services report play frequency in lieu of reporting ATH or actual total performances.

    SoundExchange states that the vast majority of NEWs are not even required to provide sample ROUs. SoundExchange states that, pursuant to 37 CFR 380.23(g)(1), NEWs with the lowest intensity of usage may elect to pay a proxy fee of $100 and forgo providing ROUs altogether. According to SoundExchange, for 2013, 97% of NEWs elected this reporting waiver and were not required to provide any ROUs. As a result of the Web-IV Determination, § 380.23(g)(1) and (2) remain in effect through 2020, at which point the Judges will determine rates and terms for the next rate period (2021-2025) (Web-V).

    Nevertheless, SoundExchange does not oppose the Petitioners' proposed definition of “Minimum Fee Broadcaster” for § 370.4(b)(2). SoundExchange highlights certain technical errors in the proposal (i.e., SoundExchange opines that there should be a comma following the phrase “officially sanctioned by” in § 370.4(b)(2)(ii) and the reference in proposed § 370.4(b)(2)(iv) should be Section 118(f) (rather than 118(g)).16 SoundExchange also recommends changing the proposed term from “Minimum Fee Broadcaster” to “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster” (or the like) to more accurately reflect the fact that certain of the services covered are not broadcasters. SoundExchange Comment at n.2.17 According to SoundExchange, adoption of this proposal “seems like a reasonable deviation from the important principle of census reporting.” SoundExchange Comment at 4.

    16 The Judges adopted these technical corrections in the final regulation.

    17 The Judges believe that the term “eligible minimum fee webcaster” more accurately reflects the fact that some of the entities covered by the definition would not satisfy the applicable definition of broadcaster and therefore accept SoundExchange's suggestion in the adopted regulation.

    SoundExchange does not support the broader alternative proposal to include internet-only noncommercial webcasters that are not educational webcasters (which are not currently covered by § 380.23(g)(2)). For such webcasters, if they are staffed by professionals or use modern content management technology capable of readily generated ROUs on a census basis, they should not be exempted from census reporting just because they are low-intensity noncommercial users. SoundExchange does not believe that the Petitioners have made the case for a broader exemption. SoundExchange Comment at 4.

    While SoundExchange is not opposed to the narrow proposed definition of Minimum Fee Broadcaster in § 370.4(b) (with the technical corrections discussed above), SoundExchange notes that “NEWs would like to include in the notice and recordkeeping regulations the outright reporting waiver and play frequency reporting provisions of Section 380.23(g), but not the late fee for ROUs provided in Section 380.23(e) or the server log retention provisions of Section 380.23(i).” SoundExchange Reply Comments at 7. SoundExchange does not believe that NEWs should be given their requested “special exemption” in these regulations because, according to SoundExchange, “their concerns are addressed directly in the terms to which CBI agreed.” SoundExchange Reply Comments at 8.

    SoundExchange does not believe it is fair for NEWs to pick and choose their favorite provisions from § 380.23 that were negotiated by CBI. SoundExchange notes that the agreement to settle the Web IV proceeding as to NEWs on a basis that would generally extend the relevant provisions of § 380.23 moots the issues raised in the Joint Petition through 2020. Anticipating the adoption of such agreement, which the Judges adopted during the Web IV proceeding, SoundExchange found no reason for the Judges to adopt the proposals in the NPRM based on the Joint Petition. SoundExchange speculates that under such a scenario, the Judges could revisit the question of reporting by NEWs based on a fresh record in five years. Otherwise, SoundExchange recommends that the Judges either adopt the equivalent of all the relevant provisions of § 380.23 (i.e., the proposed late fee for ROUs and proposed recordkeeping provisions) or adopt only the changes to the definition of Minimum Fee Broadcaster proposed in the NPRM. SoundExchange Reply Comments at 9.

    SoundExchange Settlement With CBI

    In the context of the Web IV proceeding, the Judges were presented with two settlements that bear on the reporting requirements at issue in this rulemaking.18 In one settlement, SoundExchange and CBI requested that the Judges adopt their agreement as a partial settlement of rates and terms under Section 112(e) and 114 of the Copyright Act (Act) for eligible nonsubscription transmissions by NEWs over the internet, and related ephemeral recordings. In the Federal Register document adopting the SoundExchange/CBI settlement, the Judges noted:

    18See 80 FR 58201 (Sept. 28, 2015) (adopting proposed settlement between SoundExchange and CBI) and 80 FR 59588 (Oct. 2, 2015) (adopting proposed settlement between SoundExchange and NPR and the CPB).

    Commercial webcasters are required to make detailed, census reports of all sound recordings they transmit. NEWs with limited listenership may pay the Collective a proxy fee to avoid the burden of census reporting. . . . A NEW electing the reporting waiver in 37 CFR 380.23(g)(1) must pay a $100 annual proxy fee to the Collective. Proposed Rule 37 CFR 380.22(a).19

    19 80 FR at 58201.

    In adopting the SoundExchange/CBI Settlement, the Judges noted the relevance of the Settlement to the current rulemaking proceeding:

    Many if not most of the comments responsive to the proposed recordkeeping provisions were filed by NEWs that apparently would qualify under the proposed Settlement to pay the proxy fee in lieu of census reporting in the upcoming license period. Extension until December 31, 2020, of the proxy fee in lieu of census reporting does not, however, address the precise issue raised in that rulemaking proceeding. The Judges shall address this issue along with a number of other issues relating to Part 370 in a separate publication focused directly on the May 2, 2014, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.20

    20 80 FR 58201, 58205 (Sept. 28, 2015).

    In other words, although the SoundExchange/CBI settlement provided a means for qualifying NEWs to pay a $100 proxy fee in lieu of census reporting through December 31, 2020, it does not, as the current proposal would, provide a permanent means for entities that meet the proposed definition of noncommercial educational webcasters to pay the proxy fee in lieu of census reporting. In light of the overwhelming support in favor of such a reporting waiver and the lack of opposition, the Judges find that adopting the proposed alternative for a permanent exemption from census reporting requirements is beneficial and consistent with the Copyright Act.

    Given their adoption of the proposed exemption, the Judges decline to adopt a broader alternative proposed by Petitioners. Notwithstanding the unique stature of NEWs as noncommercial entities with an educational mission, the Judges do not believe extending the exemption to other noncommercial webcasters would be consistent with the policy intended to ease reporting obligations on NEWs. As discussed by some of the commenters, NEWs are often student-operated stations. The students generally perform station operations to supplement their academic pursuits during a given academic term. As a rule, with semester and summer breaks, the stations lack operational continuity.

    Without a paid administrative staff and adequate financial and technological support, census reporting would present a significant challenge for those stations that could cause the educational institution to discontinue the stations to avoid the administrative burdens. Neither the students, the educational entity, nor the artists would benefit from elimination of the campus stations. The Judges agree with SoundExchange, however, that noncommercial noneducational webcasters have not made the case that they face the same challenges. Therefore, the Judges decline to extend the reporting requirement exemption to noncommercial webcasters that do not have the requisite affiliation with an educational institution.

    SoundExchange contends that in light of the agreements SoundExchange, CPB, CBI, and NPR reached during the Web IV proceeding, which the Judges adopted, the current rulemaking is moot, at least through 2020. While the Judges agree that many webcasters that are eligible for either of the agreements will choose to pay the proxy fee in lieu of reporting, each such agreement has conditions and limitations that would not apply with respect to the proposal the Judges adopt today. Moreover, by adopting the proposal in the Petition as a permanent rule, the Judges provide certainty that, even if the current agreements are not extended in subsequent rate periods, eligible noncommercial educational webcasters will be able to avail themselves of the reduced reporting requirements in § 370.4, regardless of whether they are licensed with the FCC. Such certainty is sufficient justification for adopting the proposal.

    Final Regulations

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend 37 CFR part 370 as follows:

    PART 370—NOTICE AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR STATUTORY LICENSES 1. The authority citation for part 370 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    17 U.S.C. 112(e)(4), 114(f)(4)(A).

    2. Revise § 370.4(a) and (b) to read as follows:
    § 370.4 Reports of use of sound recordings under statutory license for nonsubscription transmission services, preexisting satellite digital audio radio services, new subscription services and business establishment services.

    (a) General. This section prescribes rules for the maintenance and delivery of Reports of Use of sound recordings under section 112(e) or section 114 of title 17 of the United States Code, or both, by nonsubscription transmission services, preexisting satellite digital audio radio services, new subscription services, and business establishment services.

    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

    Aggregate Tuning Hours means the total hours of programming that a nonsubscription transmission service, preexisting satellite digital audio radio service, new subscription service or business establishment service has transmitted during the reporting period identified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section to all listeners within the United States over the relevant channels or stations, and from any archived programs, that provide audio programming consisting, in whole or in part, of eligible nonsubscription service, preexisting satellite digital audio radio service, new subscription service or business establishment service transmissions, less the actual running time of any sound recordings for which the service has obtained direct licenses apart from 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2) or which do not require a license under United States copyright law. For example, if a nonsubscription transmission service transmitted one hour of programming to 10 simultaneous listeners, the nonsubscription transmission service's Aggregate Tuning Hours would equal 10. If 3 minutes of that hour consisted of transmission of a directly licensed recording, the nonsubscription transmission service's Aggregate Tuning Hours would equal 9 hours and 30 minutes. If one listener listened to the transmission of a nonsubscription transmission service for 10 hours (and none of the recordings transmitted during that time was directly licensed), the nonsubscription transmission service's Aggregate Tuning Hours would equal 10.

    AM/FM Webcast means a transmission made by an entity that transmits an AM/FM broadcast signal over a digital communications network such as the Internet, regardless of whether the transmission is made by the broadcaster that originates the AM/FM signal or by a third party, provided that such transmission meets the applicable requirements of the statutory license set forth in 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2).

    Broadcaster means an entity that:

    (i) Has a substantial business owning and operating one or more terrestrial AM or FM radio stations that are licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission;

    (ii) Has obtained a compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 and the implementing regulations therefor to make Eligible Transmissions and related ephemeral recordings;

    (iii) Complies with all applicable provisions of Sections 112(e) and 114 and applicable regulations; and

    (iv) Is not a noncommercial webcaster as defined in 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(E)(i).

    Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster means a nonsubscription transmission service whose payments for eligible transmissions do not exceed the annual minimum fee established for licensees relying upon the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114; and either:

    (i) Meets the definition of a broadcaster; or

    (ii) Is directly operated by, or affiliated with and officially sanctioned by, a domestically accredited primary or secondary school, college, university or other post-secondary degree-granting educational institution; and

    (A) The digital audio transmission operations of which are, during the course of the year, staffed substantially by students enrolled in such institution; and

    (B) Is not a “public broadcasting entity” (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(f)) qualified to receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting pursuant to the criteria set forth in 47 U.S.C. 396; and

    (C) Is exempt from taxation under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, has applied for such exemption, or is operated by a State or possession or any governmental entity or subordinate thereof, or by the United States or District of Columbia, for exclusively public purposes.

    Minimum fee broadcaster means a nonsubscription service that meets the definition of a broadcaster and the service's payments for eligible transmissions do not exceed the annual minimum fee established for licensees relying upon the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114.

    Performance means each instance in which any portion of a sound recording is publicly performed to a Listener by means of a digital audio transmission or retransmission (e.g., the delivery of any portion of a single track from a compact disc to one Listener) but excluding the following:

    (i) A performance of a sound recording that does not require a license (e.g., the sound recording is not copyrighted);

    (ii) A performance of a sound recording for which the service has previously obtained a license from the Copyright Owner of such sound recording; and

    (iii) An incidental performance that both:

    (A) Makes no more than incidental use of sound recordings including, but not limited to, brief musical transitions in and out of commercials or program segments, brief performances during news, talk and sports programming, brief background performances during disk jockey announcements, brief performances during commercials of sixty seconds or less in duration, or brief performances during sporting or other public events; and

    (B) Other than ambient music that is background at a public event, does not contain an entire sound recording and does not feature a particular sound recording of more than thirty seconds (as in the case of a sound recording used as a theme song).

    Play frequency means the number of times a sound recording is publicly performed by a Service during the relevant period, without respect to the number of listeners receiving the sound recording. If a particular sound recording is transmitted to listeners on a particular channel or program only once during the reporting period, then the play frequency is one. If the sound recording is transmitted 10 times during the reporting period, then the play frequency is 10.

    Dated: May 10, 2016. Suzanne M. Barnett, Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.

    Approved by:

    David S. Mao, Acting Librarian of Congress.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11746 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0353; FRL-9946-49-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska: Updates to Incorporation by Reference and Miscellaneous Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, and incorporating by reference, State Implementation Plan revisions submitted by Alaska on May 12, 2015. The revisions updated the incorporation by reference of certain Federal provisions, revised rules to reflect changes to Federal permitting requirements and the 2013 redesignation of the Mendenhall Valley area of Juneau, and made minor clarifications to Alaska air quality rules. We note that the May 12, 2015 submission also included transportation conformity and infrastructure requirements. These requirements are not being addressed in this action. We approved the transportation conformity revisions in a previous action on September 8, 2015, and we intend to address the infrastructure requirements in a separate, future action.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0353. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, [email protected], or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Final Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On May 12, 2015, Alaska submitted revisions to the Alaska SIP. On March 4, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve specific revisions in the submission (81 FR 11497). Please see our proposed rulemaking for further explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment period for the proposal ended on April 4, 2016. We received one comment, a letter from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation dated May 9, 2016, acknowledging our work and supporting the proposal. We received no other comments.

    II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference into the Alaska SIP, changes to the following provisions, state effective April 17, 2015:

    • 18 AAC 50.010 Ambient Air Quality Standards, except paragraphs (7) and (8);

    • 18 AAC 50.015 Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions;

    • 18 AAC 50.020 Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable Increases;

    • 18 AAC 50.035 Documents, Procedures and Methods Adopted by Reference, except paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(4);

    • 18 AAC 50.040 Federal Standards Adopted by Reference, except (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (i), (j), and (k); and

    • 18 AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods, except (a)(4).

    We note that we previously approved the submitted rule revisions related to transportation conformity at 18 AAC 50.700 through 18 AAC 50.750, and 18 AAC 50.990 on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53735). This action is being taken under section 110 and part C of title I of the CAA.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

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

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 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 this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 18, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 9, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart C—Alaska 2. In § 52.70, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising entries 18 AAC 50.010, 18 AAC 50.015, 18 AAC 50.020, 18 AAC 50.035, 18 AAC 50.040, and 18 AAC 50.215.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 52.70 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Alaska Regulations and Statutes State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations Alaska Administrative Code Title 18 Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50 Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50) *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.010 Ambient Air Quality Standards 4/17/15 5/19/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] except (7) and (8). 18 AAC 50.015 Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions 4/17/15 5/19/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] 18 AAC 50.020 Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable Increases 4/17/15 5/19/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.035 Documents, Procedures and Methods Adopted by Reference 4/17/15 5/19/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] except (a)(6) and (b)(4). 18 AAC 50.040 Federal Standards Adopted by Reference 4/17/15;
  • 11/9/14
  • 5/19/16, [Insert Federal Register citation]; 1/7/15, 80 FR 832 except (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (j), and (k).
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 18 AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods 4/17/15 5/19/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] except (a)(4). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. Section 52.96 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 52.96 Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (a) The State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Air Quality Control Regulations are approved as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 and part C for preventing significant deterioration of air quality. The specific provisions approved are: 18 AAC 50.010 except (7) and (8); 18 AAC 50.015; 18 AAC 50.020; 18 AAC 50.035(a)(4), (a)(5), and (b)(1); 18 AAC 50.040(h); and 18 AAC 50.215 except (a)(4) as in effect on April 17, 2015; 18 AAC 50.990 as in effect on November 9, 2014; 18 AAC 50.306 as in effect on January 4, 2013; 18 AAC 50.345 except (b), (c)(3), and (l) as in effect on September 14, 2012; and 18 AAC 50.250 as in effect on October 1, 2004.

    [FR Doc. 2016-11626 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0793; FRL-9946-58-Region 9] Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements To Address Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving in part and disapproving in part State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to address the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). We are approving the portion of the Arizona SIP pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another state and disapproving the portion of Arizona's SIP pertaining to interstate transport visibility requirements. Where EPA is disapproving a portion of the Arizona SIP revision, the deficiencies have already been addressed by a federal implementation plan (FIP).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0793 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3856, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Public Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP requirements to implement, maintain and enforce the NAAQS no later than three years after the promulgation of a new or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) outlines the specific requirements that each state is required to address in this SIP submission that collectively constitute the “infrastructure” of a state's air quality management program. SIP submittals that address these requirements are referred to as “infrastructure SIPs” (I-SIP). In particular, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” (prong 1) or “interfere with maintenance” (prong 2) of the applicable air quality standard in any other state. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIP provisions that prevent interference with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This action addresses the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements of prongs 1, 2 and 4 with respect to Arizona's I-SIP submissions.

    On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone.1 This action triggered a requirement for states to submit an I-SIP to address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the revised NAAQS. On December 27, 2012, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted its 2008 ozone NAAQS I-SIP. On December 3, 2015, ADEQ submitted a supplement to the 2012 submittal further addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 2, and 4.2

    1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final Rule, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).

    2 “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D) . . .” Signed December 3, 2015. Also see email from Heidi Haggerty of ADEQ: AZ 2015 Ozone Transport I-SIP Submittal Clarification. Sent December 9, 2015.

    On July 14, 2015, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Arizona's 2012 submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the I-SIP elements C, D, J, and K. EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the submittal for purposes of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 and partially approved and partially disapproved the submittal for purposes of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (relating to CAA sections 115 and 126).3 We subsequently took action on I-SIP elements A, B, E-H, L, and M for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on August 10, 2015.4 We also stated our intention to propose action on the I-SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 2, and 4 in an additional action.5 Additionally, pursuant to a judgment issued by the Northern District of California in Sierra Club vs. McCarthy, EPA must take final action on 110(a)(2)(D) prongs 1, 2, and 4 of Arizona's December 2012 SIP revision by June 7, 2016.6

    3 Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Lead and Ozone. 80 FR 40905 (July 14, 2015).

    4 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 80 FR 47859 (August 10, 2015).

    5Id.

    6 Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 4:14-cv-05091-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015).

    On March 22, 2016, EPA proposed to approve in part, and disapprove in part, the 2012 and 2015 SIP revisions addressing the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.7 The rationale supporting EPA's actions is explained in our proposal notice and the associated TSD and will not be restated here. The proposed rule and TSD are available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0793.

    7 Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements to Address Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 1520. (March 22, 2016).

    II. Public Comments

    EPA received no comments on the proposed action during the public comment period.

    III. Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and based on the evaluation and rationale presented in the proposed rule, the related TSD, and this final rule, EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part Arizona SIP revisions addressing the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    EPA is approving Arizona's SIP as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is disapproving Arizona's SIP with respect to the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, because EPA has issued Regional Haze FIPs addressing visibility requirements in Arizona, no additional FIP obligation is triggered by the disapproval of this portion of Arizona's infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to work with Arizona to incorporate emission limits to address the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule into the state SIP.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 July 18, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Incorporation by reference, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 6, 2016. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11744 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696; FRL-9944-26-OAR] RIN 2060-AS86 Technical Amendments to Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to make several minor technical amendments to the performance specifications and test procedures for hydrogen chloride (HCl) continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). This direct final rule also makes several minor amendments to the quality assurance (QA) procedures for HCl CEMS used for compliance determination at stationary sources. The performance specification (Performance Specification 18) and the QA procedures (Procedure 6) were published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2015. These amendments make several minor corrections and clarify several aspects of these regulations.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 17, 2016 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by July 5, 2016. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Candace Sorrell, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (Mail Code: E143-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1064; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The information presented in this rule is organized as follows:

    I. General Information A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule? B. Does this action apply to me? C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? D. Where can I obtain a copy of this document? E. Judicial Review II. This Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. This action makes minor technical amendments to Performance Specification 18 (PS 18) and Procedure 6. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to announce the EPA's intent to amend PS 18 and Procedure 6, if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule by July 5, 2016. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If the EPA receives adverse comment, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    B. Does this action apply to me?

    The major entities that would potentially be affected by the final PS 18 and the QA requirements of Procedure 6 for gaseous HCl CEMS are those entities that are required to install a new HCl CEMS, relocate an existing HCl CEMS, or replace an existing HCl CEMS under any applicable subpart of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60, 61, or 63. Table 1 of this preamble lists the current federal rules by subpart and the corresponding source categories to which the PS 18 and Procedure 6 potentially would apply.

    Table 1—Source Categories That Would Potentially Be Subject to PS 18 and Procedure 6 Subpart(s) Source category 40 CFR part 63 Subpart LLL Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. Subpart UUUUU Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. Subpart DDDDD Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.

    The requirements of PS 18 and Procedure 6 may also apply to stationary sources located in a state, district, reservation, or territory that adopts PS 18 or Procedure 6 in its implementation plan.

    Table 2 lists the corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for the source categories listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

    Table 2—NAICS for Potentially Regulated Entities Industry NAICS Codes Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 327310 a 921150 Portland Cement Manufacturing Plants 327310 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters 211 321 322 325 324 316, 326, 339 331 332 336 221 622 611 a Industry in Indian Country.

    Tables 1 and 2 are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather they provide a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the potential applicability of PS 18 and test procedures (Procedure 6) to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    a. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    D. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site. Following publication, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the promulgation and key technical documents at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/propperf.html.

    E. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit by July 18, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    II. This Action

    On July 7, 2015, the EPA promulgated PS 18, that includes requirements for the initial acceptance of CEMS to measure HCl emissions (80 FR 38628). In that same action, we promulgated Procedure 6 specifying the minimum QA requirements necessary for control and assessment of the quality of CEMS data submitted to the EPA. Performance Specification 18 is applicable to the evaluation of HCl continuous monitoring instruments for Portland cement facilities, electric generating units, and industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters. After publication of PS 18 and Procedure 6, we identified minor definition inconsistencies and unintended differences between the proposal and the final rule. In this action, we are making corrections to PS 18 and Procedure 6 as noted below to eliminate such inconsistencies and to remove unintended changes that occurred between the notice of proposed rulemaking and the final rulemaking.

    This action:

    (1) Adds definitions for beam attenuation and beam intensity to clarify the meaning of these terms (Section 3.0);

    (2) Clarifies which detection limits must be less than 20 percent of the applicable emission limit (Section 11.5.6.5);

    (3) Revises the requirements to determine zero gas calibration drift measurements by allowing either exclusion or inclusion of the measurement optical path (Section 11.8.6.2);

    (4) Revises definitions for terms Ci, and S, to make them consistent with other performance specifications (Section 12.1);

    (5) Corrects equation 2 in PS 18 to include the average measured concentration of HCl used to calculate CEMS interference. This change clarifies that single or multiple interferent gases are allowed to be evaluated in PS 18 (Section 12.2);

    (6) Revises equation 7 in PS 18 to include an additional term that allows correction for the measured native background HCl concentration. This revision permits calculations for either option in revised section 11.8.6.2 (Section 12.4.4);

    (7) Corrects appendix A, equation 3 in PS 18 for calculating dilution factors when dynamic spike quality control measurements are made (PS 18 appendix A, Section 11.2.3);

    (8) Clarifies, in Procedure 6, that QA for data above span is subject to the specific requirements in applicable rules or permits, that supersede the general requirements in Procedure 6 (Section 4.1.5 and 4.1.5.3);

    (9) Resolves, in Procedure 6, prior confusion between greater than two clock hours and greater than two consecutive 1-hour averages in the measurement period for exceedance of span before additional CEMS responses checks are required (Section 4.1.5.1);

    (10) Clarifies the units of measure (percent) required for Integrated Path CEMS beam intensity check (Section 4.2.1); and

    (11) Corrects the incomplete reference to the equations required to calculate dynamic spiking error (DSE) (Section 5.2.4.2).

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. These changes do not add information collection requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable regulations.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action makes minor technical correction and adds clarification in PS 18 and Procedure 6 and does not impose additional regulatory requirements on sources.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action adds additional language that clarifies several aspects for the performance standard and procedure and corrects some minor technical errors, but does not change the requirements for conducting the test method. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action does not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not cause emissions increases from these sources.

    K. Congressional Review Act

    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. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective August 17, 2016.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitoring systems, Hydrogen chloride, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.

    Dated: May 2, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In appendix B to part 60, Performance Specification 18: a. Revise Sections 3.1 through 3.23, 11.5.6.5, 11.8.6.2, 12.1, 12.2 and 12.4.4; b. Add Sections 3.24, 3.25, and 12.2.1; and c. Revise Section 11.2.3 in appendix A of Performance Specification 18.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Appendix B to Part 60—Performance Specifications PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 18-PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS AND TEST PROCEDURES FOR GASEOUS HYDROGEN CHLORIDE (HCl) CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEMS AT STATIONARY SOURCES 3.0 Definitions

    3.1 Beam attenuation is the reduction in electromagnetic radiation (light) throughput from the maximum beam intensity experienced during site specific CEMS operation.

    3.2 Beam intensity is the electromagnetic radiation (light) throughput for an IP-CEMS instrument measured following manufacturers specifications.

    3.3 Calibration cell means a gas containment cell used with cross stack or integrated path (IP) CEMS for calibration and to perform many of the test procedures required by this performance specification. The cell may be a removable sealed cell or an evacuated and/or purged cell capable of exchanging reference and other calibration gases as well as zero gas standards. When charged, it contains a known concentration of HCl and/or interference gases. The calibration cell is filled with zero gas or removed from the optical path during stack gas measurement.

    3.4 Calibration drift (CD) means the absolute value of the difference between the CEMS output response and an upscale reference gas or a zero-level gas, expressed as a percentage of the span value, when the CEMS is challenged after a stated period of operation during which no unscheduled adjustments, maintenance or repairs took place.

    3.5 Centroidal area means a central area that is geometrically similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no greater than 10 percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional area.

    3.6 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) means the total equipment required to measure the pollutant concentration or emission rate continuously. The system generally consists of the following three major subsystems:

    3.6.1 Sample interface means that portion of the CEMS used for one or more of the following: Sample acquisition, sample transport, sample conditioning, defining the optical measurement path, and protection of the monitor from the effects of the stack effluent.

    3.6.2 HCl analyzer means that portion of the HCl CEMS that measures the total vapor phase HCl concentration and generates a proportional output.

    3.6.3 Data recorder means that portion of the CEMS that provides a permanent electronic record of the analyzer output. The data recorder may record other pertinent data such as effluent flow rates, various instrument temperatures or abnormal CEMS operation. The data recorder may also include automatic data reduction capabilities and CEMS control capabilities.

    3.7 Diluent gas means a major gaseous constituent in a gaseous pollutant mixture. For combustion sources, either carbon dioxide (CO2) or oxygen (O2) or a combination of these two gases are the major gaseous diluents of interest.

    3.8 Dynamic spiking (DS) means the procedure where a known concentration of HCl gas is injected into the probe sample gas stream for extractive CEMS at a known flow rate to assess the performance of the measurement system in the presence of potential interference from the flue gas sample matrix.

    3.9 Independent measurement(s) means the series of CEMS data values taken during sample gas analysis separated by two times the procedure specific response time (RT) of the CEMS.

    3.10 Integrated path CEMS (IP-CEMS) means an in-situ CEMS that measures the gas concentration along an optical path in the stack or duct cross section.

    3.11 Interference means a compound or material in the sample matrix other than HCl whose characteristics may bias the CEMS measurement (positively or negatively). The interference may not prevent the sample measurement, but could increase the analytical uncertainty in the measured HCl concentration through reaction with HCl or by changing the electronic signal generated during HCl measurement.

    3.12 Interference test means the test to detect CEMS responses to interferences that are not adequately accounted for in the calibration procedure and may cause measurement bias.

    3.13 Level of detection (LOD) means the lowest level of pollutant that the CEMS can detect in the presence of the source gas matrix interferents with 99 percent confidence.

    3.14 Liquid evaporative standard means a reference gas produced by vaporizing National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable liquid standards of known HCl concentration and quantitatively diluting the resultant vapor with a carrier gas.

    3.15 Measurement error (ME) is the mean difference between the concentration measured by the CEMS and the known concentration of a reference gas standard, divided by the span, when the entire CEMS, including the sampling interface, is challenged.

    3.16 Optical path means the route light travels from the light source to the receiver used to make sample measurements.

    3.17 Path length means, for an extractive optical CEMS, the distance in meters of the optical path within a gas measurement cell. For an IP-CEMS, path length means the distance in meters of the optical path that passes through the source gas in the stack or duct.

    3.18 Point CEMS means a CEMS that measures the source gas concentration, either at a single point at the sampling probe tip or over a path length for IP-CEMS less than 10 percent of the equivalent diameter of the stack or duct cross section.

    3.19 Stack pressure measurement device means a NIST-traceable gauge or monitor that measures absolute pressure and conforms to the design requirements of ASME B40.100-2010, “Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17).

    3.20 Reference gas standard means a NIST-traceable gas standard containing a known concentration of HCl certified in accordance with an EPA traceability protocol in section 7.1 of this PS.

    3.21 Relative accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference between the gas concentration or the emission rate determined by the CEMS and the value determined by the RM, plus the confidence coefficient of a series of nine test runs, divided by the average of the RM or the applicable emission standard.

    3.22 Response time (RT) means the time it takes for the measurement system, while operating normally at its target sample flow rate, dilution ratio, or data collection rate to respond to a known step change in gas concentration, either from a low- or zero-level to a high-level gas concentration or from a high-level to a low or zero-level gas concentration, and to read 95 percent of the change to the stable instrument response. There may be several RTs for an instrument related to different functions or procedures (e.g., DS, LOD, and ME).

    3.23 Span value means an HCl concentration approximately equal to two times the concentration equivalent to the emission standard unless otherwise specified in the applicable regulation, permit or other requirement. Unless otherwise specified, the span may be rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.

    3.24 Standard addition means the addition of known amounts of HCl gas (either statically or dynamically) to the actual measurement path or measured sample gas stream.

    3.25 Zero gas means a gas or liquid with an HCl concentration that is below the LOD of the measurement system.

    11.0 Performance Specification Test Procedure

    11.5.6.5 If your system LOD field verification does not demonstrate a SAR greater than or equal to your initial controlled environment LOD, you must increase the SA concentration incrementally and repeat the field verification procedure until the SAR is equal to or greater than LOD. The site-specific standard addition detection level (SADL) is equal to the standard addition needed to achieve the acceptable SAR, and SADL replaces the controlled environment LOD. For extractive CEMS, the SADL is calculated as the ESA using Equation A7 in appendix A of this PS. For IP-CEMS, the SADL is the SA calculated using Equation A8 in appendix A of this PS. As described in section 13.1 of this PS, the LOD or the SADL that replaces an LOD must be less than 20 percent of the applicable emission limit.

    11.8.6.2 For IP-CEMS, you must include the source measurement optical path while performing the upscale CD measurement; you may exclude the source measurement optical path when determining the zero gas concentration. Calculate the CD for IP CEMS using equations 4, 5, 6B, and 7 in section 12.4.

    12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis 12.1 Nomenclature Ci = Zero or HCl reference gas concentration used for test i (ppmv); Ci,eff = Equivalent concentration of the reference gas value, Ci, at the specified conditions (ppmv); CC = Confidence coefficient (ppmv); CDextractive = Calibration drift for extractive CEMS (percent); CDIP = Calibration drift for IP-CEMS (percent); CD0 = Calibration drift at zero HCl concentrations for an IP-CEMS (percent); davg = Mean difference between CEMS response and the reference gas (ppmv); di = Difference of CEMS response and the RM value (ppmv); I = Total interference from major matrix stack gases, (percent); LSF = Line strength factor for IP-CEMS instrument specific correction for temperature and gas matrix effects derived from the HITRAN and/or manufacturer specific database (unitless); ΔMCavg = Average of the 3 absolute values of the difference between the measured HCl calibration gas concentrations with and without interference from selected stack gases (ppmv); MCi = Measured HCl reference gas concentration i (ppmv); MC i = Average of the measured HCl reference gas concentration i (ppmv); MCint = Measured HCl concentration of the HCl reference gas plus the individual or combined interference gases (ppmv); MEextractive = Measurement error for extractive CEMS (percent); MEIP = Measurement error for IP-CEMS (percent); MNavg = Average concentration at all sampling points (ppmv); MNbi = Measured native concentration bracketing each calibration check measurement (ppmv); MNi = Measured native concentration for test or run I (ppmv); n = Number of measurements in an average value; Pstack = Absolute stack pressure (mm Hg) Preference = Absolute pressure of the calibration cell for IP-CEMS (mm Hg) PLCell = Path length of IP-CEMS calibration cell (m); PLStack = Path length of IP-CEMS stack optical path (m); RA = Relative accuracy of CEMS compared to a RM (percent); RMi = RM concentration for test run i (ppmv); RMavg = Mean measured RM value (ppmv); S = Span value (ppmv); Sd = Standard deviation of the differences (ppmv); Sti = Stratification at traverse point i (percent); SADL = Standard addition detection level (ppmv); t0.975 = One-sided t-value at the 97.5th percentile obtained from Table 5 in section 17.0 for n-1 measurements; Treference = Temperature of the calibration cell for IP-CEMS (degrees Kelvin); Tstack = Temperature of the stack at the monitoring location for IP-CEM (degrees Kelvin).

    12.2 Calculate the difference between the measured HCl concentration with and without interferents for each interference gas (or mixture) for your CEMS as:

    ER19MY16.024

    Calculate the total percent interference as:

    ER19MY16.025

    12.2.1 Calculate the equivalent concentration Ci,eff using Equation 4:

    ER19MY16.026

    12.4.4 Calculate the zero CD as a percent of span for an IP-CEMS as:

    ER19MY16.027 PS-18 Appendix A Standard Addition Procedures 11.0 Calculations and Data Analysis. * * *

    11.2.3 If you determine your spike dilution factor using an independent stable tracer that is present in the native source emissions, calculate the dilution factor for dynamic spiking using equation A3:

    ER19MY16.028
    3. In appendix F to part 60, revise Sections 4.1.5, 4.1.5.1, 4.1.5.3, and 5.2.4.2 in Procedure 6 to read as follows: Appendix F to Part 60—Quality Assurance Procedures Procedure 6. Quality Assurance Requirements for Gaseous Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance Determination at Stationary Sources 4.0 Daily Data Quality Requirements and Measurement Standardization Procedures

    4.1.5 Additional Quality Assurance for Data above Span. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable rule or permit, this procedure must be used to assure data quality and may be used when significant data above span is being collected.

    4.1.5.1 Any time the average measured concentration of HCl exceeds 150 percent of the span value for two consecutive 1-hour averages, conduct the following `above span' CEMS response check.

    4.1.5.3 Unless otherwise specified in an applicable rule or permit, if the `above span' response check is conducted during the period when measured emissions are above span and there is a failure to collect at least one data point in an hour due to the response check duration, then determine the emissions average for that missed hour as the average of hourly averages for the hour preceding the missed hour and the hour following the missed hour

    5.0 Data Accuracy Assessment

    5.2.4.2 Calculate results as described in section 6.4. To determine CEMS accuracy you must calculate the dynamic spiking error (DSE) for each of the two upscale audit gases using equation A5 in appendix A to PS-18 and Equation 6-3 in section 6.4 of Procedure 6 in appendix B to this part.

    [FR Doc. 2016-10989 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853; FRL-9945-82] Maleic Anhydride; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of maleic anhydride (CAS Reg. No. 108-31-6) when used as an inert ingredient (stabilizer) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops at a maximum concentration not to exceed 3.5% by weight in the pesticide formulation. Exponent, on behalf of Cheminova A/S, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment to an existing requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of maleic anhydride.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 19, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 18, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.”

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 18, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of April 6, 2015 (80 FR 18327) (FRL-9924-00), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP) IN-10771 by Exponent on behalf of Cheminova A/S, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22209. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by modifying an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of maleic anhydride (CAS Reg. No. 108-31-6) when used as an inert ingredient (stabilizer) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops to allow for use at a maximum concentration not to exceed 5% in formulation. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Exponent, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the limitation on the maximum concentration in pesticide formulation from 5% to 3.5%. This limitation is based on the Agency's risk assessment which can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, Maleic Anhydride; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Products under 40 CFR 180.920, in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

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

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    Maleic anhydride exhibits relatively low toxicity via oral and dermal routes of exposure. Maleic anhydride has been reported to be severely irritating to the skin and eyes of rabbits, dermally sensitizing to guinea pigs, and is a possible respiratory sensitizer.

    In a six-month repeat dose inhalation study, CD rats, Engle hamsters, and Rhesus monkeys were exposed by inhalation (whole body) to 0, 1.1, 3.3 and 9.8 mg/m3 (0, 0.3, 0.8, and 2.4 ppm) maleic anhydride for six months. Body weights were decreased in rats at 3.3 and 9.8 mg/m3 (0.8, and 2.4 ppm) in the mid- and high-exposure groups at intervals during the study (<10%). However, at study termination, body weights were decreased only at the 9.8 mg/m3 exposure group (6-8%). These decreases in the body weights are not considered as an adverse effect. All other effects were limited to the respiratory tract and eye. All of these effects were considered indicative of irritation and judged to be reversible. The NOAEL for irritation in this study was 3.3 mg/m3 or 0.93 mg/kg/day based on localized eye/nasal irritation effects seen at the LOAEL of 9.8 mg/m3. The NOAEL for systemic toxicity in rats, hamsters and monkeys is 9.8 mg/m3, the highest dose tested.

    In a 28-day inhalation study with maleic anhydride in Sprague-Dawley rats, evidence of nasal and ocular irritation (concentration-dependent) occurred at 12, 32 and 86 mg/m3. Reduced body weight gain and food consumption as well as increased incidence of hemorrhagic lung foci occurred at 32 and 86 mg/m3. The NOAEL for the systemic toxicity is 12 mg/m3 (3 ppm) based on the reduced body weights and food consumption seen at the LOAEL of 32 mg/m3.

    In a 90-day oral (dietary) study in rats were fed in the diet 0, 100, 250, or 600 mg/kg/day maleic anhydride for 90 days. At 600 mg/kg/day, there was slight proteinuria in both sexes, increased relative liver weight in males, increased relative/absolute kidney weights in both sexes. Macroscopic and microscopic kidney changes, including nephrosis were seen in male rats at 100, 250, and 600 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL for this study is 100 mg/kg/day. In a separate study, rats were fed in the diet 0, 20, or 40 mg/kg/day maleic anhydride, seven days a week for 90 days. There were no treatment-related effects. The NOAEL for this study is 40 mg/kg/day.

    In a 183-day oral (dietary) study in rats there were renal lesions and an increase in the absolute and relative liver and kidney weights at 250 mg/kg/day and 600 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL for this study is 250 mg/kg/day. A NOAEL was not established.

    In a 2-year oral (dietary) study in rats only marginal toxicity was observed which was evidenced by small (<6%), but dose-related, decrease in body weights of rats. The LOAEL for this study is 32 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL for this study is 10 mg/kg/day.

    In a 90-day dietary study in dogs, there were no treatment related effects observed at doses up to 60 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.

    In an oral (gavage) developmental toxicity study in CD rats, no treatment related adverse effects were observed. The NOAEL for both maternal and developmental toxicity was 140 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.

    In a 2-generation oral (gavage) reproductive toxicity study in rats, significant mortality occurred in the F0 and F1 parental animals and maleic anhydride was toxic to parental animals in all dose groups (20, 55 and 150 mg/kg/day of maleic anhydride). There was no significant reduction in the percentage of pregnant females or the percentage of fertile males. Adverse effects on litter size and on pup survival were observed at the dose of 55 mg/kg/day and above in the F2 litters. Maleic anhydride was toxic to parental animals in all dose groups. For parental toxicity the LOAEL was 20 mg/kg/day. Although a NOAEL for parental toxicity was not established, the selected NOAEL (which is from the 2-year toxicity study in the rat) will be protective of the kidney and bladder effects seen at the lowest dose tested in this study, since the 2-year toxicity study examined those organs and found no effects. The NOAEL for offspring toxicity was 55 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup survival observed at 150 mg/kg/day.

    Maleic anhydride was negative for mutagenicity or chromosomal aberrations in a battery of tests of genotoxicity including a bacterial gene mutation test, an in vivo mammalian chromosomal aberration test using rat bone marrow and an in vitro chromosomal test.

    In the previously described 2-year dietary study, male and female rats were exposed to 0, 10, 32, or 100 mg/kg/day maleic anhydride in feed for two years. There were no increases in tumor incidence that were considered related to maleic anhydride exposure. Additionally in a two-year chronic feeding study on Osborne-Mendel rats fed 0, 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5% maleic acid in their diets for two years resulted in no treatment-related increases in tumors.

    A 1-hour neurotoxicity inhalation study exposed rats to 0.72 mg/L of maleic acid which produced generalized inactivity, hyperpnea and sedation within 15 minutes of exposure. Gross necropsy revealed no significant findings. No neurotoxic effects have been reported in the other available studies.

    No immunotoxicity studies on maleic anhydride or maleic acid were available in the database.

    In a metabolism study, dogs were fed 60 mg/kg/day maleic anhydride for 90 days. Using a one compartment model, uptake rate and elimination rate constants were calculated as 3.49 × 10−3 per day and 8.32 × 10−2 per day, respectively. Based on this model, 99% of steady state was reached by day 55 of the study.

    Maleic anhydride is readily hydrolyzed to maleic acid under aqueous conditions and is then hydroxylated to malic acid, which participates in the Krebs cycle or may be excreted unchanged or in conjugated form.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    An acute effect was not found in the database for maleic anhdyride.

    The 2-year oral toxicity study in rats was selected for dietary and dermal exposure scenarios (all non-acute durations) for this risk assessment. The NOAEL in this study was 10 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was 32 mg/kg/day based on slight to marginal decreases in body weight. The rationale for selecting this study for the dietary is based on the fact that this study provided the lowest and most conservative toxicity endpoint in the most sensitive species for oral after a long-term exposure. No repeat dose dermal toxicity studies are available for maleic anhydride; the dermal risk assessment was conducted using the most sensitive conservative oral endpoint. An uncertainty factor of 100x was applied, 10x for interspecies variability and 10x for intraspecies variability; the FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1x. No dermal absorption studies were available for maleic anhydride or maleic acid, therefore, a dermal absorption value was estimated using the ratio of an oral LD50 and a dermal LD50. The two studies used were the oral rabbit LD50 of 875 mg/kg and the dermal rabbit LD50 of 2,620 mg/kg. The resulting estimated dermal absorption was 33%. Therefore, a dermal absorption factor of 33% will be used for dermal exposure scenarios.

    The 6-month inhalation toxicity study in rats was selected for inhalation exposure scenarios (all durations) for this risk assessment. The NOAEL in this study was 3.3 mg/m3 or 0.93 mg/kg/day based on localized eye/nasal irritation effects seen at the LOAEL of 9.8 mg/m3. Since the major effect of maleic anhydride is irritation via inhalation, this endpoint is protective of any systemic toxicity seen at concentrations of 32 mg/m3 and above seen in the 28-day inhalation toxicity study. An uncertainty factor of 100x was applied, 10x for interspecies variability and 10x for intraspecies variability. The FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1x.

    C. Exposure Assessment

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

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide chemical, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for maleic anhydride therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. The chronic dietary exposure assessment for this inert ingredient utilizes the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM—FCID), Version 3.16, EPA, which includes food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, “What We Eat In America”, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. In the absence of actual residue data, the inert ingredient evaluation is based on a highly conservative model which assumes that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the highest established tolerance for an active ingredient on a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation between the active and inert ingredient (if any) and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient. The model assumes 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a person each day has tolerance-level residues. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738. In the case of maleic anhydride, EPA made specific adjustments to the dietary exposure assessment to account for the use limitation of maleic anhydride (as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to apples with a minimum preharvest interval of 21 days and at maximum concentration of 3.5% by weight in all other preharvest uses).

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

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

    Maleic anhydride may be used as inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for specific uses that may result in indoor or outdoor residential inhalation and dermal exposures. A screening-level residential exposure and risk assessment was completed utilizing conservative residential exposure assumptions. The Agency assessed short- and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation exposures for residential handlers that would result from low pressure handwand, hose end sprayer and trigger sprayer for outdoor scenarios of each pesticide type, herbicide, insecticide and fungicide and mopping, wiping and aerosol sprays for indoor scenarios. The Agency assessed post-application short-term dermal exposure for children and adults as well as short-term hand-to-mouth exposure for children from contact with treated lawns.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of rat fetuses to the effects of maleic anhydride. In the 2-generation reproduction study, the LOAEL for parental toxicity was 20 mg/kg/day. No adverse effects on litter size or pup survival were noted at doses up to 55 mg/kg/day.

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

    i. The toxicity database for maleic anhydride is adequate for characterizing the toxicity and assessing the risk from dietary exposure.

    ii. There is no indication that maleic anhydride is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no indication that maleic anhydride is an immunotoxic chemical and there is no need for an immunotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for immunotoxicity.

    iv. There is no evidence that maleic anhydride results in increased susceptibility in in utero in rats in the combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening studies and prenatal developmental studies.

    v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on highly conservative model that assumes 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a person each day has residues of inert ingredient equivalent to the residue level of the highest established tolerance for an active ingredient on a given commodity. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to maleic anhydride in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by maleic anhydride.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

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

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to maleic anhydride from food and water will utilize 72.4% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in this unit, regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of maleic anhydride is not expected.

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

    Maleic anhydride may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to maleic anhydride.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 112 for adults and 105 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for maleic anhydride is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

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

    Maleic anhydride is currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to maleic anhydride.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 178 for adults and 119 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for maleic anhydride is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the discussion in Unit IV.A., maleic anhydride is not expected to pose a cancer risk.

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

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Although EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of maleic anhydride that may be used in pesticide formulations, an analytical enforcement methodology is not necessary for this exemption. The limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide for sale or distribution for use on growing crops with concentrations of maleic anhydride exceeding 3.5% by weight of the formulation.

    B. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon an evaluation of the data included in the petition, EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of maleic anhydride when used in pesticide formulations as an inert ingredient (stabilizer), not to exceed 3.5% by weight of the formulation, instead of the 5% limit requested. The basis for this revision can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Maleic Anhydride; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pre-harvest Pesticide Products under 40 CFR 180.920 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0853.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, EPA is amending the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920 for maleic anhydride (CAS Reg. No. 108-31-6). In addition to the existing limitation for use as an inert ingredient (stabilizer) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops for use in pesticide formulations applied to apples with a minimum preharvest interval of 21 days, the Agency is extending the exemption for use in all pesticide formulations at a maximum concentration not to exceed 3.5% in the pesticide formulation. In order to clarify that this extension applies only to maleic anhydride, the Agency is separating the existing exemption for maleic anhydride from the existing maleic acid exemption.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 6, 2016. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.920: i. Remove the existing entry for “Maleic acid and maleic anhydride” from the table. ii. Add alphabetically the following entries “Maleic acid,” and “Maleic anhydride” to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * Maleic acid For pesticide formulations applied to apples with a minimum preharvest interval of 21 days Stabilizer. Maleic anhydride (CAS Reg. No. 108-31-6) Not to exceed 3.5% in pesticide formulations; or for pesticide formulations applied to apples with a minimum preharvest interval of 21 days Stabilizer. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-11837 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 48 CFR Parts 1501, 1505, 1516, 1528, 1529, 1532 and 1552 [EPA-HQ-OARM-2015-0799; FRL 9945-66-OARM] Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation; General, Publicizing Contract Actions, Types of Contracts, Bonds and Insurance, Taxes, Contract Financing, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a final rule to make administrative changes to the Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR). EPA does not anticipate any adverse comments.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 18, 2016 without further action, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 20, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2015-0799, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julianne Odend'hal, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-5218; email address: odend'[email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comment. EPAAR Parts 1501, 1505, 1516, 1528, 1529, 1532, and 1552 are being amended to make administrative changes to the EPAAR. If EPA receives adverse comment, a timely withdrawal will be published in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    II. Does this action apply to me?

    The EPAAR applies to contractors who have a contract with the EPA.

    III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    IV. Background

    EPAAR Parts 1501, 1505, 1516, 1528, 1529, 1532, and 1552 are being amended to make administrative changes.

    V. Final Rule

    This direct final rule makes the following changes: (1) Corrects references in EPAAR 1501.370 to read “1511.011-70 and 1511.011-72” instead of “1510.011-70 and 1510.011-72” and “1552.211-72” instead of “1552.210-72”; (2) corrects EPAAR 1505.203(a) to read “Government Point of Entry (GPE)” instead of “Commerce Business Daily (CBD)”; (3) corrects reference in EPAAR 1516.301-70 to read “1552.211-73” instead of “1552.212-70”; (4) deletes “(SEP 1995)” in EPAAR 1516.406(b); (5) corrects the title of EPAAR Part 1528 to read “Bonds and Insurance” instead of “Bonds of Insurance”; (6) removes “EPAAR Subpart 1529.4—Contract Clauses, 1529.401 Domestic contracts, 1529.401-70 [Reserved]”; (7) corrects EPAAR 1532.908 to read “non-commercial time and materials” instead of “fixed rate”; (8) corrects EPAAR 1552.211-78 to read “Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)” instead of “Project Officer”; (9) corrects the web address in EPAAR 1552.211-79(d) to read “http://www2.epa.gov/irmpoli8/current-information-directives” instead of “http://wpa.gov/docs/irmpoli8/policies/index.htlm”; (10) corrects the prescription in EPAAR 1552.216-70 to read “1516.406(a)” instead of “1516.405(a)”; (11) corrects the date in the clause title in EPAAR 1552.216-72 to read “(JUL 2014)” instead of “(__2014)”; (12) corrects the reference in the prescription in EPAAR 1552.216-75 to read “1516.406(b)” instead of “1516.405(b)”; (13) corrects the reference in the prescription in EPAAR 1552.216-77 to read “1516.406(c)” instead of “1515.406(c)”; (14) corrects the reference in the prescription in EPAAR 1552.216-78 to read “1516.406(c)” instead of “1515.406(c)”; (15) corrects the reference in the prescription in EPAAR 1552.216-79 to read “1516.406(c)” instead of “1515.406(c)”; (16) corrects EPAAR 1552.232-70 Alternate I prescription to read “non-commercial time and materials” instead of “fixed rate”; (17) increases the number of fill-in lines in paragraph (a) of EPAAR clause 1552.237-72 from two to 15; and (18) corrects the EPAAR 1552.242-70 prescription to add “and non-commercial time and materials” after “cost-reimbursement.”

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action amends EPAAR Parts 1501, 1505, 1516, 1528, 1529, 1532, and 1552 to make administrative changes. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communication between EPA and Tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this rule from Tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, (February 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

    K. Congressional Review

    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1501, 1505, 1516, 1528, 1529, 1532, and 1552

    Government procurement.

    Dated: May 2, 2016. John R. Bashista, Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 48 CFR parts 1501, 1505, 1516, 1528, 1529, 1532 and 1552 are amended as set forth below:

    PART 1501—GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 1501 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390 as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418B.

    1501.370 [Amended]
    2. Amend section 1501.370, table, by removing the text “1510.011-70 and 1510.011-72” and adding the text “1511.011-70 and 1511.011-72” in its place; and removing the text “1552.210-72” and adding the text “1552.211-72” in its place.
    PART 1505—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS 3. The authority citation for part 1505 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

    1505.203 [Amended]
    4. Amend section 1505.203, paragraph (a), by removing the words “Commerce Business Daily (CBD)” and adding the words “Government Point of Entry (GPE)” in their place.
    PART 1516—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 5. The authority citation for part 1516 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

    1516.301-70 [Amended]
    6. Amend section 1516.301-70 by removing the text “1552.212-70” and adding text “1552.211-73” in its place.
    1516.406 [Amended]
    7. Amend 1516.406, paragraph (b) by removing the text “(SEP 1995)”.
    PART 1528—BONDS AND INSURANCE 8. The authority citation for part 1528 is added to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

    9. The part 1528 heading is revised to read as set forth above. PART 1529—TAXES 10. The authority citation for part 1529 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

    Subpart 1529.4 [Removed and Reserved] 11. Remove and reserve subpart 1529.4. PART 1532—CONTRACT FINANCING 12. The authority citation for part 1532 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

    1532.908 [Amended]
    13. Amend section 1532.908 by removing the words “fixed-rate” and adding the words “non-commercial time and materials” in its place.
    PART 1552—SOLICATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 14. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

    1552.211-78 [Amended]
    15. Amend section 1552.211-78 by removing the words “EPA Project Officer” and adding the words “EPA Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)” in its place and removing the words “EPA Project Officer's” and adding “COR's” in its place; and removing the text “(JUL 2015)” and adding the text “(JUL 2016)” in its place.
    1552.211-79 [Amended]
    16. Amend section 1552.211-79, paragraph (d), by removing the text “http://epa.gov/docs/irmpoli8/policies/index/html” and adding the text “http://www2.epa.gov/irmpoli8/current-information-directives” in its place; and adding, after the clause heading, the text “(JUL 2016)”.
    1552.216-70 [Amended]
    17. Amend the introductory text of section 1552.216-70 by removing the text “1516.405(a)” and adding the text “1516.406(a)” in its place.
    1552.216-72 [Amended]
    18. Amend section 1552.216-72 by removing the text “(___2014)” and adding the text “(JUL 2014)” in its place.
    1552.216-75 [Amended]
    19. Amend the introductory text of section 1552.216-75 by removing the text “1516.405(b)” and adding the text “1516.406(b)” in its place.
    1552.216-77 [Amended]
    20. Amend the introductory text of section 1552.216-77 by removing the text “1515.406(c)” and adding the text “1516.406(c)” in its place.
    1552.216-78 [Amended]
    21. Amend the introductory text of section 1552.216-78 by removing the text “1515.406(c)” and adding the text “1516.406(c)” in its place.
    1552.216-79 [Amended]
    22. Amend the introductory text of section 1552.216-79 by removing the text “1515.406(c)” and adding the text “1516.406(c)” in its place.
    1552.232-70 [Amended]
    23. Amend section 1552.232-70, in the introductory text of Alternate 1, by removing the words “fixed-rate” and adding the words “non-commercial time and materials” in its place.
    1552.237-72 [Amended]
    24. Amend section 1552.237-72, paragraph (a), by adding 13 horizontal lines below the existing two horizontal lines. 25. Amend section 1552.242-70 by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
    1552.242-70 Indirect costs.

    As prescribed in 1542.705-70, insert the following clause in all cost-reimbursement and non-commercial time and materials type contracts. If ceilings are not being established, enter “not applicable” in paragraph (c) of the clause.

    [FR Doc. 2016-11838 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 175 [Docket No. PHMSA-2015-0165 (HM-262)] RIN 2137-AF12 Hazardous Materials: Carriage of Battery-Powered Electronic Smoking Devices in Passenger Baggage AGENCY:

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is issuing a final rule to prohibit passengers and crewmembers from carrying battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices (e.g., e-cigarettes, e-cigs, e-cigars, e-pipes, e-hookahs, personal vaporizers, electronic nicotine delivery systems) in checked baggage and from charging these devices and their batteries on board the aircraft. However, these devices may continue to be carried in carry-on baggage. This action is consistent with the interim final rule (IFR) published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2015, and a similar amendment in the 2015-2016 Edition of the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions). This final rule amends the Hazardous Materials Regulations to maintain alignment with the ICAO Technical Instructions. Furthermore, this final rule does not impact the existing rules on the transport of lithium batteries or other portable electronic devices that are transported for personal use in a passenger's checked or carry-on baggage.

    DATES:

    Effective: June 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin A. Leary, (202) 366-8553, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Comment Discussion III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures C. Executive Order 13132 D. Executive Order 13175 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act I. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis J. Environmental Assessment K. Privacy Act IV. List of Subjects I. Background

    On October 30, 2015, PHMSA published an IFR in the Federal Register [80 FR 66817] that prohibits passengers and crewmembers from carrying battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices (e.g., e-cigarettes, e-cigs, e-cigars, e-pipes, personal vaporizers, electronic nicotine delivery systems) in checked baggage and from charging these devices and their batteries on board the aircraft. The use of battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices has been rising substantially, and they have increasingly become a common item in passenger baggage. Prior to the issuance of this IFR, airline passengers and crewmembers were permitted to carry these devices in either checked or carry-on baggage under the provisions for portable electronic devices contained in § 175.10(a)(18) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). However, the provisions for portable electronic devices do not adequately address the safety risks posed by battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices, which include a heating element as a function of their design. Specifically, a battery-powered portable electronic smoking device contains a liquid, an atomizer or heating element, and a battery. When this device is operated the heating element vaporizes the liquid, so when in checked baggage, the device may lead to the generation of extreme heat with potential ignition of nearby contents.

    Recent fire incidents involving battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices in checked baggage and actions taken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and ICAO all of which are described in the October 30, 2015 IFR, prompted action to address this issue. The requirements in this final rule apply only to battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices (e.g., e-cigarettes, e-cigs, e-cigars, e-pipes, e-hookahs, personal vaporizers, electronic nicotine delivery systems). Notably, this final rule does neither prohibits passengers from transporting other devices containing batteries for personal use (such as laptop computers, cell phones, cameras, etc.) in checked or carry-on baggage, nor does it restrict passengers from transporting batteries for personal use in carry-on baggage.

    II. Comment Discussion

    PHMSA received eleven comments to the October 30, 2015 IFR: Four of the commenters supported the provisions of the IFR as written; four of the commenters suggested the prohibition of the carriage of battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices should be extended to carry-on baggage; one commenter suggested that the prohibition should also be extended to prohibit such devices to be transported as mail on passenger aircraft; and two commenters objected to all or part of the IFR.

    The four commenters who recommended that PHMSA extend the prohibition of the IFR to prohibit the carriage of battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices in carry-on and checked baggage noted that if these devices pose a fire risk they should not be permitted in the cabin of an aircraft either. PHMSA believes that prohibiting the carriage of these devices only in checked baggage best targets the safety issue that we are addressing. Permitting the carriage of these devices only in carry-on baggage or on the person would be the best alternative because when carried in the passenger cabin, the flight crew can quickly intervene in the case of overheating, short circuit, or fire.

    One commenter recommended that PHMSA amend the IFR to prohibit the transport of battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices in the mail because a package containing such devices could be carried as mail aboard a passenger aircraft. The HMR do not apply to any matter subject to the postal laws and regulations of the United States; therefore, this amendment is beyond the scope of PHMSA's regulatory authority (see § 171.1(d)(7)). However, we shared the comment with the United States Postal Service (USPS) for their consideration.

    Of the two commenters who objected to all or part of the IFR, one was opposed to the provisions and suggested that the devices should be made safer rather than restricting their use. PHMSA is taking this action to address a documented safety issue, and we do not believe the restrictions will place an undue burden on device manufacturers, aircraft passengers, crewmembers, or airlines. The other commenter recommended that PHMSA amend the IFR to eliminate the prohibition against the charging of standalone e-cigarette batteries, further providing information on one specific product that incorporates safety circuitry to prevent overcharge and evidence that it is intended to be charged only when removed from the heater cartridge. In the IFR, PHMSA noted that many of the documented device failures occurred while the device was charging, resulting in the ignition of nearby combustible materials. PHMSA restricted charging of the devices and their batteries during flight to address those concerns and to maintain consistency with the ICAO Technical Instructions. While the commenter provided information on one battery-powered portable electronic smoking device, there are many configurations, both with and without removable batteries, to consider. Additionally, users who modify their device may bypass the built-in safety circuitry designed to prevent overheating. PHMSA determined that the limited prohibition against the carriage of battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices in checked baggage and a prohibition against the charging of these devices and their batteries while on board the aircraft address the known risks in the narrowest possible way.

    III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is issued under the authority of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), which: (1) Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce (49 U.S.C. 5103(b)); (2) authorizes the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security (49 U.S.C. 44701); and (3) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that, to the extent practicable, regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce are consistent with standards adopted by international authorities (49 U.S.C. 5120(b)).

    In this final rule, PHMSA amends the HMR to maintain alignment with the ICAO Technical Instructions.

    B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) require Federal agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034].

    PHMSA does not anticipate that the actions in this final rule will impose a significant impact on airlines, airline passengers, crewmembers, or the Federal government. In fact, most U.S. airlines proactively notified airline passengers (e.g., Web sites, automated check-in facilities, signage, and verbal notifications from the operator) prior to the issuance of the October 30, 2015 IFR. PHMSA, the FAA, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) each updated its guidance to passengers on prohibited items, including battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices, to reflect the provisions of the IFR. Moreover, airline passengers and crewmembers are still permitted to carry battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices in their carry-on baggage or on their person. Spare lithium batteries must be individually protected by placement in original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals (e.g., by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch). However, as this is consistent with existing requirements for the carriage of spare lithium batteries for portable electronic devices, PHMSA does not anticipate this will have any impact on passengers. Some passengers may incur a non-quantifiable cost in the lost opportunity to charge their device while on board the aircraft, but PHMSA expects this will be a small number of passengers and the per-passenger cost will be small.

    C. Executive Order 13132

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”), published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1999 [64 FR 43255], and the President's memorandum (“Preemption”), published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 [74 FR 24693]. This final rule does not adopt any regulation that: (1) Has substantial direct effects on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; or (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. PHMSA is not aware of any State, local, or tribal requirements that would be preempted by amending the provisions for the carriage of battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices by airline passengers or crewmembers. In addition, this final rule does not have sufficient federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

    D. Executive Order 13175

    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”). This final rule does not have tribal implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, therefore the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities, unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although this final rule places a limited prohibition on the carriage of battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices by airline passengers and crewmembers in checked baggage, such individuals would still be permitted to carry these devices in carry-on baggage or on their person. The provisions of this final rule do not impose any direct or indirect adverse economic impacts for small units of government, businesses, or other organizations, and PHMSA did not receive any comments specifically relating to the impact of the IFR rule on small entities.

    F. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    I. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under Executive Order 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”), Federal agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

    Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

    PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards in order to protect the safety of the American public, and we have assessed the effects of this final rule to ensure that it does not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. Therefore, this rulemaking is consistent with Executive Order 13609 and PHMSA's obligations under the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.

    J. Environmental Assessment

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), requires that Federal agencies consider the consequences of major Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. This final rule only impacts how a passenger may carry battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices on aircraft, not whether a passenger may carry such devices. We find that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this final rule.

    K. Privacy Act

    Anyone may search the electronic form of 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.). The DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or by visiting http://www.regulations.gov/search/footer/privacyanduse.jsp.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 175

    Air carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, we amend 49 CFR Chapter I as follows:

    PART 175—CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT 1. The authority citation for part 175 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.

    2. In § 175.10, revise paragraph (a)(19) to read as follows:
    § 175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air operators.

    (a) * * *

    (19) Except as provided in § 173.21 of this subchapter, battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices (e.g., e-cigarettes, e-cigs, e-cigars, e-pipes, e-hookahs, personal vaporizers, electronic nicotine delivery systems) when carried by passengers or crewmembers for personal use must be carried on one's person or in carry-on baggage only. Spare lithium batteries also must be carried on one's person or in carry-on baggage only and must be individually protected so as to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch). Each lithium battery must be of a type which meets the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Subsection 38.3. Recharging of the devices and/or the batteries on board the aircraft is not permitted. Each battery must not exceed the following:

    (i) For lithium metal batteries, a lithium content of 2 grams; or

    (ii) For lithium ion batteries, a Watt-hour rating of 100 Wh.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 13, 2016, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97. Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11729 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
    81 97 Thursday, May 19, 2016 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51 [Docket Nos. PRM-51-30 and PRM-51-31; NRC-2014-0014 and NRC-2014-0055] Generic Determinations Regarding the Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal When Considering Nuclear Power Reactor License Applications AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petitions for rulemaking; denial.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying two petitions for rulemaking (PRMs), PRM-51-30 and PRM-51-31, submitted by Diane Curran on behalf of 34 environmental organizations (the petitioners). The petitioners request that the NRC revise certain regulations that concern the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage and disposal for nuclear power plant license applications. The NRC is denying the petitions because they provide an insufficient basis to consider a rulemaking to revise such regulations.

    DATES:

    The dockets for the petitions, PRM-51-30 and PRM-51-31, are closed on May 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket IDs NRC-2014-0014 and NRC-2014-0055, as appropriate, when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding these petitions. You can access publicly-available documents related to the petitions using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket IDs NRC-2014-0014 and NRC-2014-0055. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the Section IV, Availability of Documents.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jenny C. Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-2328, email: [email protected]; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. The Petitions II. Reasons for Denial III. Determination of Petitions IV. Availability of Documents I. The Petitions

    Section 2.802 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Petition for rulemaking,” provides an opportunity for any interested person to petition the Commission to issue, amend, or rescind any regulation. The NRC has consolidated its response to PRM-51-30 and PRM-51-31 because both petitions make similar rulemaking requests. The NRC did not request public comment on PRM-51-30 and PRM-51-31 because there was sufficient information for review and these issues have been well-vetted in past NRC proceedings.

    PRM-51-30

    The petitioners filed the first of their two petitions on December 20, 2013, as a part of their comments on the NRC's proposed Continued Storage Rule (formerly known as the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule) and that rule's associated generic environmental impact statement (Continued Storage Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)).1 The petitioners filed a corrected version of the first petition on January 7, 2014. The NRC published a notice of receipt of the first petition in the Federal Register (FR) on April 21, 2014, and assigned it Docket No. PRM-51-30 (79 FR 22055).

    1 The NRC published the Continued Storage Rule as a proposed rule on September 13, 2013 (78 FR 56776), and as a final rule on September 19, 2014 (79 FR 56238). As part of the final rule, all of the public comments on the proposed rule were addressed in NUREG-2157, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel.”

    The petition requests that the NRC revise certain regulations in 10 CFR part 51 that concern the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage and disposal for nuclear power plants. The NRC implements its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through its 10 CFR part 51 regulations. The petitioners assert that the NRC's 10 CFR part 51 regulations are “balkanized” and “disparate and inconsistent,” and that these regulations should be made into a “cohesive and consistent whole.” The petitioners identified the following NRC regulations as being within the scope of their request: 10 CFR 51.53(c),2 10 CFR 51.51 (Table S-3),3 10 CFR 51.71(d),4 and Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal on Nuclear Power Plants,” in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 (Table B-1), as well as the NRC's proposed amendments to 10 CFR 51.23, as set forth in its September 13, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 56776).5

    2 Section 51.53 is entitled “Post construction environmental reports.” Paragraph (c) describes the contents of the required environmental report submitted by an applicant in support of its application to renew a nuclear power plant's operating license.

    3 Table S-3 is entitled “Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data” and is set forth at 10 CFR 51.51. Table S-3 shows the maximum environmental effect per annual fuel requirement for an operating reactor and is the basis for evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing a nuclear power reactor.

    4 Section 51.71 is entitled “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” Paragraph (d) describes the analysis required to be included in draft EISs. For license renewal actions, the supplemental draft EIS relies on the findings and other supporting information in NUREG-1437, Revision 1, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants—Final Report” (2013).

    5 The proposed amendments to 10 CFR 51.23 were adopted in the final rule (79 FR 56238; September 19, 2014). Section 51.23 is entitled “Environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor” and states that the Commission “has generically determined that the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor are those impacts identified in NUREG-2157 [the Continued Storage GEIS]” (10 CFR 51.23(a)).

    Section 51.53(c) and a portion of 10 CFR 51.71(d) are premised upon NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” an environmental impact statement (EIS) initially published in May 1996 and then revised and updated in June 2013 (License Renewal GEIS).6 The License Renewal GEIS describes the potential environmental impacts of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. The NRC classifies the license renewal issues described in the License Renewal GEIS as either generic or site-specific. Generic issues concern environmental impacts that are common to all nuclear power plants. Site-specific issues are addressed initially by the license renewal applicant (i.e., a nuclear power plant licensee seeking a renewal of its operating license under the NRC's license renewal regulations in 10 CFR part 54) in its environmental report, which is required by 10 CFR 51.45, and then by the NRC, in its supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to the License Renewal GEIS prepared for each license renewal application.7 For any given license renewal action, the License Renewal GEIS together with the site-specific SEIS (along with any other applicable generic EISs) documents the NRC's NEPA analysis.

    6 The current version of the License Renewal GEIS is NUREG-1437, Revision 1.

    7 10 CFR 51.95(c).

    In Table B-1, generic issues are designated as “Category 1” issues and site-specific issues are designated as “Category 2” issues. Absent new and significant information, Category 1 issues are not required to be re-analyzed for an applicant's environmental report or the staff's SEIS. Table B-1 codifies the findings of the License Renewal GEIS and is wholly concerned with nuclear power plant license renewal.8

    8 Table B-1 was amended to reflect the June 2013 License Renewal GEIS update. The NRC rule amending Table B-1 and other 10 CFR part 51 regulations was published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37282).

    The purpose of Table S-3 is to support the environmental review for new reactor license applications. In addition to considering the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of a commercial nuclear power reactor, the NRC considers the contributions from the uranium fuel cycle activities.9 Table S-3 identifies the uranium fuel cycle impacts, generically, for new reactor license applications.

    9 Uranium fuel cycle activities include “uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, spent fuel storage and disposal” (44 FR 45362; August 2, 1979).

    The petitioners also assert that the NRC's proposed amendments to 10 CFR 51.23, as set forth in the NRC's proposed rule of September 13, 2013 (78 FR 56776), are “confusing” to the extent that the proposed continued storage regulation included safety findings, which should be placed in either 10 CFR parts 50 or 52, and because the proposed regulation no longer includes the “reasonable assurance” finding. The petitioners also assert that Table S-3 has been “repudiated” and that it is inconsistent with the findings in Table B-1. In addition, the petitioners assert that Table B-1 does not include a finding as to whether offsite spent fuel disposal impacts are significant or not.

    The petitioners further assert that 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 51.71(d) “excuse” license renewal applicants and the NRC, respectively, from addressing spent fuel storage impacts in individual license renewal cases. As both regulatory provisions are premised upon the findings in the License Renewal GEIS, the petitioners, essentially, object to the finding that impacts of spent fuel storage during the license renewal period are a Category 1, or generic, issue and have a “small” impact. Finally, the petitioners assert that the economic costs of spent fuel storage and disposal should be incorporated into reactor cost-benefit analyses and that the need for power should be considered in license renewal decisions.

    PRM-51-31

    The petitioners filed their second petition on February 18, 2014. The petitioners' second petition asserts that COMSECY-13-0030, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel” 10 (the expedited spent fuel transfer analysis), and NUREG-2161, “Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor,” 11 constitute new and significant information. The petitioners request that the NRC “duly modify NRC's regulations that make or rely on findings regarding the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage during reactor operation, including Table B-1 and all regulations approving standardized reactor designs.”

    10 COMSECY-13-0030, “Memorandum from Mark Satorius, Executive Director for Operations, to NRC Commissioners Re: Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel” (November 12, 2013), and documents cited therein.

    11 NUREG-2161, “Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor” (September 2014).

    The NRC published a notice of receipt of the second petition in the Federal Register on May 1, 2014, and assigned it Docket No. PRM-51-31 (79 FR 24595). The petitioners subsequently submitted an “amended petition” for rulemaking on June 26, 2014, seeking to add “the observations made by [former] Chairman Macfarlane in her dissenting comments” on the expedited spent fuel transfer analysis. The petitioners assert that the former Chairman's dissenting vote on the expedited spent fuel transfer analysis provides “new and significant” information that would affect the NRC's environmental reviews. The NRC treated the “amended petition” as a supplement to the February 18, 2014, petition and re-noticed the petition, along with the supplement, for informational purposes only (79 FR 42989; July 24, 2014).

    II. Reasons for Denial

    The NRC is denying the petitions because the petitioners have not presented a sufficient basis to amend the regulations. The petitioners largely contend that they present new and significant information that requires the agency to revisit its previous NEPA analyses that form the bases for the challenged regulations. Under Commission precedent, information that provides a “seriously different picture” of the environmental consequences than previously considered is new and significant information.12 As explained below, the NRC finds that the petitioners' information does not provide a “seriously different picture” of the environmental consequences of spent fuel storage. As a result, the NRC concludes that the current technical bases for those regulations challenged by the petitioners remain sound.

    12Hydro Res. Inc., CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999) (quoting Sierra Club v. Froehike, 816 F.2d 205, 210 (5th Cir. 1987)); see generally Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989).

    The petitioners assert that the NRC's environmental review regulations are “balkanized”

    The petitioners assert that “[t]he NRC's piecemeal and disjointed approach to the consideration of spent fuel storage and disposal impacts violates the NEPA principle that an agency may not segment its analysis in a manner that conceals the environmental significance of its action.” Segmentation refers to instances where a Federal agency splits a project into smaller components to avoid preparing an EIS, or where an agency does not consider related actions in a single EIS.13 The NRC does not agree that its approach to the consideration of spent fuel storage and disposal impacts is piecemeal and disjointed or that NRC's environmental review regulations in 10 CFR part 51 are “balkanized” or result in NEPA segmentation.

    13Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304, 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“An agency impermissibly `segments' NEPA review when it divides connected, cumulative, or similar federal actions into separate projects and thereby fails to address the true scope and impact of the activities that should be under consideration.”); see also Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation, 40 CFR 1508.25.

    While the petitioners have pointed to some instances where the agency relies on generic analyses as part of its overall NEPA review for certain licensing actions, the petitioners have not shown any case where the NRC artificially divided a licensing action into smaller components. Rather, as discussed below, the NRC fully considers the environmental impacts of each licensing action through a combination of site-specific EISs and, where appropriate, GEISs. The use of generic analyses by the NRC to support licensing decisions has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.14

    14 In a 1983 decision concerning a challenge to Table S-3, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he generic method chosen by the agency is clearly an appropriate method of conducting the hard look required by NEPA.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 101, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 2254 (1983).

    In addition to the License Renewal GEIS and the Continued Storage GEIS, the NRC prepares EISs for all new reactor and license renewal applications. Within the umbrella of both its generic and site-specific EISs, the NRC adequately considers the spent fuel storage impacts of its licensing decisions. The EISs for new nuclear power reactors describe the environmental impacts from the onsite storage and management of spent nuclear fuel and offsite disposal based on 40 years of reactor operation, which is the maximum initial term of a reactor license.15 The License Renewal GEIS describes the environmental impacts from the onsite storage and offsite disposal of spent nuclear fuel generated during an additional 20 years of reactor operation (i.e., 20 years beyond the expiration of the initial license).16 The Continued Storage GEIS describes the environmental impacts of the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor. Additionally, spent fuel storage and disposal impacts are considered by the NRC staff during each new reactor license and license renewal environmental review to determine if there is new and significant information that could alter the generic conclusions.

    15 10 CFR 52.104.

    16 10 CFR 54.31.

    Moreover, the underlying technical bases for the consideration of spent fuel storage and disposal impacts in EISs for new power reactor licenses and the License Renewal GEIS are the same. Combined with the Continued Storage GEIS, these NEPA documents provide a complete analysis of spent fuel storage and disposal environmental impacts. The regulations in 10 CFR part 51 are premised upon, and support, this NEPA framework of generic EISs supported by site-specific EISs.

    The NRC's approach improves the effectiveness of environmental reviews by generically resolving issues that are not substantially different from one proposed action to another, while still ensuring that those impacts are considered in subsequent licensing actions. The NRC conducts environmental and safety reviews for the issuance of licenses for the operation of nuclear power plants including the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel. The NRC has also conducted separate environmental and safety reviews for the issuance of specific licenses for the storage of spent nuclear fuel in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs).17 With respect to spent fuel disposal, an EIS would fully discuss the environmental impacts for any proposed action to dispose of spent fuel in a geologic repository. In addition, the NRC has previously determined the potential radiological effects of offsite spent fuel disposal in a permanent repository or some other permanent disposal scenario while evaluating the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle.18

    17 NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.3, defines an ISFSI as “a complex designed and constructed for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel.”

    18 See WASH-1248, “Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” April 1974, and NUREG-0116, “Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,” October 1976.

    The consideration of spent fuel storage and disposal environmental impacts builds upon the knowledge gained from previous environmental reviews and associated rulemakings and is consistent throughout the NRC's regulations in that the NRC relies on the same technical bases to make impact determinations. The only differences are the timeframes in which these impacts occur and whether the impacts occur during continued onsite storage or offsite disposal. In each of these regulatory situations, the technical bases remain the same.

    Tables S-3 and B-1 in the NRC's regulations were developed at separate times for different purposes but have common technical bases. The 2014 continued storage rule, and its supporting Continued Storage GEIS, updated the NRC's NEPA findings in Table B-1 for issues pertaining to “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” and “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.” In doing so, the NRC effectively incorporated the NEPA analysis of continued spent fuel storage into license renewal. For new reactors, 10 CFR 51.23(b) directs that the impact determinations in NUREG-2157 shall be deemed incorporated into the associated EIS. And for licensing actions for which an environmental assessment (EA) is being prepared (such as an ISFSI built under a specific license at a site occupied by a nuclear power reactor), 10 CFR 51.30(b) directs that the impacts determinations in NUREG-2157 regarding the continued storage of spent fuel shall be considered, if such impacts are relevant to the proposed action.

    For a given future reactor licensing action that relies on the Continued Storage GEIS and rule, the NRC will incorporate the environmental impacts analyzed in the Continued Storage GEIS into the overall licensing decision. The NRC's NEPA review for each licensing action that involves either a new reactor or a license renewal application will fully account for the reasonably foreseeable impacts of spent fuel storage and disposal, including, where applicable, the impacts that have been analyzed generically in the Continued Storage GEIS and License Renewal GEIS. The NRC concludes that its 10 CFR part 51 environmental review regulations are internally consistent and are not inappropriately segmented, and therefore, there is no reason to amend these regulations.

    The petitioners assert that Table S-3 has been repudiated

    The petitioners' expert, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, in a declaration attached to the petitioners' January 2014 submission, states that the Table S-3 finding regarding the impacts of spent fuel disposal is no longer valid because the finding is based upon the disposal of spent fuel in a bedded salt repository and that such disposal would result in zero releases of radioactive effluents, and therefore, zero radiological dose. Dr. Makhijani asserts that

    [m]oreover, we note that Table S-3 at 10 CFR 51.51 is invalid for estimating high-level waste disposal impacts. Among other things, its underlying assumption of disposal in a bedded salt repository for spent fuel disposal was repudiated by the NRC itself in 2008.19

    19 “Declaration of Dr. Arjun Makhijani Regarding the Waste Confidence Proposed Rule and Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement,” attached to PRM-51-30 (paragraph 2.8 on p. 6).

    The petitioners, through Dr. Makhijani's declaration, assert that the NRC must prepare a new analysis concerning the impacts of spent fuel disposal.

    Contrary to Dr. Makhijani's assertion, the NRC has never repudiated Table S-3; the original assumption of spent fuel disposal in a bedded salt repository is not germane to the overall purpose of Table S-3 nor does the change in media for storing spent fuel undermine the findings of Table S-3. Dr. Makhijani's statement evaluates Table S-3 in isolation and does not consider later developments in the NRC's regulatory policy and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor agency of the NRC, promulgated the initial version of Table S-3 on April 22, 1974 (39 FR 14188). Since the promulgation of Table S-3, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) adopted deep geologic disposal as the nation's solution for spent fuel disposal. Furthermore, in 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) decision,20 upheld both Table S-3 and the approach taken by the NRC in using Table S-3 data in individual licensing proceedings. In Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the purpose of Table S-3 was not to evaluate or select the most effective long-term waste disposal technology or develop site selection criteria.21 The Court noted that the NRC's intent, as stated in the 1979 rule revising Table S-3 (44 FR 45362; August 2, 1979), was to estimate the impact of the long-term waste disposal method conservatively.22

    20Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. National Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 103 S.Ct. 2246 (1983).

    21Id., 462 U.S. at 102, 103 S.Ct. at 2254-55.

    22Id., 462 U.S. at 102, 103 S.Ct. at 2255.

    This conservative analysis included the NRC's use of the zero release assumption.23 The Court also noted that other aspects of Table S-3 were premised upon the assumption that “all volatile materials in the fuel would escape to the environment” prior to the sealing of the geologic repository; this assumption balanced the zero-release assumption, an approach that the Court found acceptable.24 In addition to concluding that it was “not unreasonable” for the NRC to employ the zero release assumption, the Court stated that “the zero-release assumption is but a single figure in an entire Table, which the Commission expressly designed as a risk-averse estimate of the environmental impact of the fuel cycle . . . [a] reviewing court should not magnify a single line item beyond its significance as only part of a larger Table.” 25

    23Id. (“The zero-release assumption cannot be evaluated in isolation. Rather, it must be assessed in relation to the limited purpose for which the Commission made the assumption.”).

    24Id., 462 U.S. at 103, 103 S.Ct. at 2255.

    25Id., 462 U.S. at 102-03, 103 S.Ct. at 2255.

    Following the enactment of the NWPA and the Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC decision, the NRC issued a Waste Confidence decision in 1984 (49 FR 34658; August 31, 1984) and subsequently updated this decision in 1990 (55 FR 38472; September 18, 1990) and again in 2010 (75 FR 81032; December 23, 2010). In its 1990 revision, the Commission discussed the relationship of Table S-3 with its Waste Confidence decision. Specifically, the Commission noted that the promulgation of Table S-3 was the outgrowth of efforts to generically evaluate the environmental impacts of the operation of a light water reactor and in so doing, that Table S-3 assigned numerical values for environmental costs resulting from uranium fuel cycle activities to support 1 year of light water reactor operation. The number of curies indicated for spent fuel disposal in Table S-3 reflects the total volume of waste material, not the amount of radioactivity projected to be released from the repository—an issue that is to be addressed in the safety and environmental review for the actual geologic repository itself.

    Table S-3 lists environmental data to be used by applicants and the NRC staff for new reactor license applications under 10 CFR parts 50 and 52. Specifically, Table S-3 is the basis for evaluating the environmental effects of the portions of the uranium fuel cycle for light water reactors that occur before new fuel is delivered to the plant and after spent fuel is removed from the plant site. The NRC has made generic determinations that the radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle on individuals off-site will remain at or below the Commission's regulatory limits (e.g., the public dose limits set forth in 10 CFR part 20). The NRC described this generic determination and conclusion in the License Renewal GEIS.26 Additionally, as part of the new reactor EISs under 10 CFR part 52 and the License Renewal GEIS, the NRC concluded that the assumptions and methodology used in preparing Table S-3 were conservative enough that the impacts described by the use of Table S-3 would still be bounding. In these EISs, the staff discussed why the contemporary fuel cycle impacts are below those identified in Table S-3 and as such, Table S-3 remains bounding.27

    26 2013 GEIS section 4.12.1.1, p. 4-185.

    27 For example, see the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant EIS, NUREG 2179, vol. 1, section 6.1 (April 2015), for a discussion of the NRC determination that Table S-3 remains bounding.

    The NRC concludes that Table S-3 is bounding because, as reflected in Section 4.12.1.1 of the License Renewal GEIS, industry practice has shown that the current fleet of reactors uses nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher fuel burnup. Therefore, less uranium fuel per year of reactor operation is required than in the past to generate the same amount of electricity. Fewer spent fuel assemblies per reactor-year are generated, hence, the waste storage and deep geologic repository impacts are lessened. The petitioners have not provided any new and significant information that would cause the NRC to revisit these conclusions regarding Table S-3.

    While the NRC and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have, in the past, concentrated efforts regarding geologic repository research and licensing efforts on a non-bedded salt repository, characterizing the resulting analysis as confirming that there is a risk of “significant” radiation releases and radiation doses from deep geologic disposal is not accurate. As stated in Volume 1, Appendix B of the Continued Storage GEIS, “the consensus within the scientific and technical community engaged in nuclear waste management is that safe geologic disposal is achievable with currently available technology. After decades of research into various geological media, no insurmountable technical or scientific problem has emerged to challenge the conclusion that safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste can be achieved in a mined geologic repository.” 28

    28 NUREG-2157, pg. 2 of Appendix B, Section B.2.1.

    The issue of concern to the NRC in considering the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository has not been whether a zero-release assumption will be met or ultimately the type of environmental media (e.g., bedded salt, basalt, granite, etc.) selected for the repository but rather that the appropriate standards are established and met, thereby ensuring that any releases of radioactive materials to the environment would not be inimical to public health and safety. Radiation dose limits for disposal of radioactive materials are typically no greater than 100 mrem/yr (such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits for the proposed Yucca Mountain geologic repository). Although a geologic repository meeting such radiation dose limits is not a “zero” release facility, compliance with these dose limits would provide adequate protection of public health and safety. Given the substantial effort developing repositories, it is reasonable to assume geologic disposal facilities can be developed within a variety of geologic formations and types that would be protective of public health and safety. For example, the NRC-National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study, referred to by Dr. Makhijani, concludes on the overall performance of candidate repositories that “[a]ll radionuclides in unreprocessed spent fuel can be adequately contained.” 29 In conclusion, the NRC has determined that Table S-3 is still bounding and that the petitioners have not provided new and significant information that requires the NRC to amend Table S-3.

    29 NRC-NAS Report, “A Study of the Isolation System for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes,” p. 8 and 11.

    The petitioners assert that Table S-3 and Table B-1 are inconsistent with each other

    The petitioners assert that Table S-3 and Table B-1 are inconsistent with each other. The petitioners state in PRM-51-30, “[t]he inconsistencies and questions raised by comparing Table S-3 and Table B-1 are unacceptable under NEPA's standard for clarity and rigor of scientific analysis.” In his comments, Dr. Makhijani stated,

    Table S-3 summarizes the NRC's conclusion that the impacts of spent fuel disposal will be zero, based on the assumption that spent fuel will be disposed of in a bedded salt repository. Proposed Table B-1 contradicts Table S-3 by concluding that long-term doses could be as high as 100 millirem per year. But the NRC does not attempt to reconcile proposed Table B-1 and Table S-3. . . .30

    30 Makhijani Declaration attached to PRM-51-30, p. 9.

    The environmental effects of operating uranium fuel cycle facilities including radioactive waste disposal at a geologic repository were evaluated in two NRC documents, WASH-1248 and NUREG-0116. The results of these evaluations were summarized in and promulgated as Table S-3 in 10 CFR 51.51(b). Paragraph (a) in 10 CFR 51.51 states:

    [E]very environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage or early site permit stage or combined license stage of a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor. Table S-3 shall be included in the environmental report and may be supplemented by a discussion of the environmental significance of the data set forth in the table as weighed in the analysis for the proposed facility.

    The environmental effects or issues summarized in Table S-3 include: Land use; water consumption and thermal effluents; radioactive releases; burial of transuranic, high-level and low-level radioactive wastes; and radiation doses from transportation and occupational exposures. The contributions in Table S-3 for reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (i.e., a fuel cycle that includes spent fuel reprocessing and one that does not)—the cycle that results in the greater environmental impact, and thus the most conservative analysis, is used. The environmental impact values are expressed in terms normalized to show the potential impacts attributable to processing the fuel required for the operation of a 1,000-MWe nuclear power plant for 1 year at an 80 percent availability factor to produce about 800 MW-yr of electricity. This normalization is referred to as one reference reactor year. For each environmental consideration, Table S-3 presents a result that has been integrated over the entire uranium fuel cycle except during reactor operations.31 The environmental impacts of reactor operations are addressed in the EIS prepared for each individual reactor licensing action (i.e., an EIS for a new reactor licensing application or a SEIS for a license renewal application). Although certain fuel cycle operations and fuel management practices have changed over the years, the assumptions and methodology used in preparing Table S-3 were, and continue to be, conservative enough that the impacts described in Table S-3 are still bounding.

    31 The only exception is that the waste quantities listed under the entry called “solids (buried onsite)” also include wastes generated at the reactor.

    In similar fashion, the NRC assessed the generic environmental impacts of renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant in the License Renewal GEIS. Table B-1 summarizes the Commission's findings on the scope and magnitude of the environmental effects of renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant, based on technical bases documented in the 2013 update of the License Renewal GEIS. Subject to an evaluation of those Category 2 issues, which require further site-specific analysis, and the identification of possible new and significant information for any Category 1 or Category 2 issue, Table B-1 represents the analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the renewal of any operating license and is to be used in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c). On a 10-year cycle, the Commission intends to review the findings in Table B-1 and update the table if necessary. The latest review and update was completed in 2013.

    Both the License Renewal GEIS and Table B-1 incorporate Table S-3 by reference.32 Tables S-3 and B-1 were developed at separate times for different purposes. However, the technical bases for the consideration of spent fuel storage and disposal impacts for both tables are the same, and as such, the tables are consistent with each other. The impact of the spent nuclear fuel disposal finding in Table B-1 (i.e., “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal”) is consistent with the solid waste disposal information presented in Table S-3, as the findings in Table B-1 could not have been reached without the environmental effects evaluations conducted in WASH-1248 and NUREG-0116, which are summarized in Table S-3.

    32 Table B-1 references Table S-3 under the “Uranium Fuel Cycle” section of the table.

    Moreover, even if there were differences in the assumptions in Table S-3 and Table B-1, those differences are not significant from a NEPA perspective. As noted above, the issue of concern to the NRC in considering the environmental impacts of the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository has not been whether a zero-release assumption will be met or ultimately the type of environmental media (e.g., bedded salt, basalt, granite, etc.) selected for the repository but rather that the appropriate standards are established and met, thereby ensuring that any releases of radioactive materials to the environment would not be inimical to public health and safety. For NEPA purposes, such releases within regulatory limits are clearly not significant radiation releases and radiation doses. The NRC concludes that Tables B-1 and S-3 are consistent with each other and there is no technical or regulatory reason to amend either table.

    No significance determination for “off-site spent fuel disposal” in Table B-1

    The petitioners assert that Table B-1, which codifies the findings of the License Renewal GEIS, does not include a finding as to whether the impacts of spent fuel disposal are significant or not. The “significance determination” in NEPA is made by an agency in determining whether it is necessary to prepare an EIS for a given proposed action.33 With respect to the environmental review of reactor license renewal applications, the NRC has already prepared a GEIS, the License Renewal GEIS. In addition, for each site-specific license renewal action, the NRC prepares a SEIS. Therefore, the lack of a finding as to whether the impacts of spent fuel disposal are “significant” or “not significant” is irrelevant, as the NRC has already satisfied the “significance determination” by preparing a generic EIS and by its regulatory requirement to prepare a site-specific EIS for each reactor license renewal application it considers.

    33Lower Alloways Creek Tp. v. Public Service Elec. & Gas Co., 687 F.2d 732, 740 (3rd Cir. 1987) (“[A]n agency must undertake a comprehensive assessment of the expected effects of a proposed action before it can determine whether that action is `significant' for NEPA purposes . . . . [i]f, however, it is clear that the human environment will be `significantly' affected, then a full-scale EIS is mandatory.”); Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1211-14, and 1216 (9th Cir. 1998) (Forest Service made clear error of judgment in its decision to prepare an environmental assessment, rather than an environmental impact statement); see also Mandelker, NEPA Law and Litigation, 2d, §§ 8.48-8.58.

    Moreover, the NRC has extensively analyzed spent fuel storage and disposal environmental impacts in Table S-3, and in various EISs, namely, the License Renewal GEIS, the Continued Storage GEIS, and SEISs for individual license renewal actions. The License Renewal GEIS provides the regulatory and technical basis for the Commission's findings and the associated impact significance levels for each environmental NEPA issue listed in Table B-1. The NRC's evaluation of the environmental impacts of the issue, “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal,” 34 was documented in the 1996 License Renewal GEIS, which relied upon the findings of the NRC's 1990 Waste Confidence Decision and Rule. In addition, the NRC analyzed the EPA's generic repository standards and dose limits in existence at the time and concluded that offsite radiological impacts warranted a Category 1 (generic) determination (61 FR 28467; June 5, 1996). However, due to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in New York v. NRC and its remand of the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision and Rule (75 FR 81032; December 23, 2010), the NRC was not able to complete its review and update of the impact finding for this issue in the 2013 License Renewal GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 1) and update of Table B-1. As a result, the 2013 License Renewal GEIS and rule (78 FR 37282; June 20, 2013) reclassified the issue from Category 1 with no impact level assigned, to an uncategorized issue with an uncertain impact level.

    34 This issue was named “Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposal)” in the 1996 license renewal GEIS and rule.

    On August 26, 2014, the Commission approved the Continued Storage Rule and its associated GEIS (Continued Storage GEIS) amending 10 CFR part 51 to revise the generic determination on the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor. In making conforming changes to the Table B-1 entry for the issue “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal,” the final rule restored the Category 1 designation and references the existing radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain instead of making a single impact finding.

    The NRC's practice, once it has determined to prepare an EIS, has been to assign a significance level to most potential environmental impacts, by resource area or environmental issue, arising from the proposed action. These levels are “Small, Moderate, and Large.” The assigning of these levels to any given impact is not required by law; it is solely a matter of NRC practice. Neither the Council on Environmental Quality's nor the NRC's regulations for implementing NEPA under 10 CFR part 51 explicitly require an agency to assign a single significance level to environmental impact issues; CEQ regulations state that “[i]mpacts shall be discussed in proportion to their significance” in the context of preparing environmental impact statements for agency actions.35 Further, NRC does not assign such a level to every resource area or environmental issue covered by a given EIS. The NRC only assigns a single significance level for a generic issue where it is meaningful and appropriate to do so when considering both the context and intensity of a potential environmental impact.36

    35 40 CFR 1502.2(b).

    36See CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, which defines the term “significantly,” in relation to both “context” and “intensity.”

    In this regard, the NRC has never assigned a single impact significance level to the issue of “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.” Although the status of a repository, including a repository at Yucca Mountain, remains uncertain and beyond the control of the NRC, the NRC has adopted EPA's radiation protection standards (40 CFR part 197) for Yucca Mountain because they are the current standard for ensuring that the ultimate disposal of spent nuclear fuel will present no undue risk to public health and safety. As discussed in the Continued Storage GEIS, it is reasonable to believe that wherever a geologic repository is ultimately sited, radiological protection standards comparable to those established for Yucca Mountain will be issued if necessary. Given these considerations, the Commission's narrative finding in Table B-1 with respect to the issue of offsite disposal is appropriate. That finding states “[t]he Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is considered Category 1.” Therefore, the Commission, by rule, has determined that a single significance determination is not necessary.

    The NRC concludes that the petitioners' significance determination argument does not provide a “seriously different picture” of the environmental consequences of spent fuel storage and disposal. Instead, based on the above, the NRC concludes that the petitioners' assertion that NEPA requires an agency to assign a single level of significance to the issue in question is without merit and that the petitioners' proposed amendment to the NRC's finding for the issue, “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal,” in Table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 is not necessary.

    The petitioners assert that license renewal applicants in 10 CFR 51.53(c) and NRC staff in 10 CFR 51.71(d) are excused from addressing spent fuel storage impacts in license renewal environmental reviews

    The NRC disagrees with the petitioners' assertion that the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 51.71(d) “excuse license renewal applicants and the NRC from addressing spent fuel storage impacts in license renewal cases.” The NRC has determined that the potential environmental impacts of spent fuel storage are of a generic nature and as such, do not need to be re-analyzed for every license renewal action. As mentioned previously, for future reactor license renewal applications that rely on the Continued Storage and License Renewal GEISs, the NRC will incorporate the environmental impacts analyzed in the Continued Storage GEIS as well as in the License Renewal GEIS into the overall NEPA analysis supporting its licensing decision. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the use of generic environmental analyses by the NRC.37 Moreover, as part of its environmental review for each license renewal application, the NRC reviews both generic and site-specific issues for new and significant information. In the event that the NRC determines that there is new and significant information, the NRC will consider such information when preparing the SEIS for that particular licensing action and, if necessary, will also determine whether the License Renewal GEIS or Continued Storage GEIS should be revised accordingly.

    37Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. at 101, 103 S.Ct. at 2254 (“The generic method chosen by the agency is clearly an appropriate method of conducting the hard look required by NEPA.”).

    Moreover, the quality of the NRC's environmental analysis of spent fuel storage is not dependent on whether the NRC prepares a site-specific or generic analysis. In developing both the License Renewal GEIS and the Continued Storage GEIS, the NRC employed assumptions, including those based upon reactor licensee operating experience, that are sufficiently conservative to bound the predicted impacts such that any variances that may occur from site to site are unlikely to result in environmental impact determinations that are greater than those presented in both GEISs.38 In addition, recent spent fuel studies (including the expedited spent fuel transfer regulatory analysis included in COMSECY-13-0030 and NUREG-2161) continue to support the findings of the License Renewal GEIS. Though the studies may contain “new” information, the information is not “significant” for the purpose of the environmental analysis. The NUREG-2161 compared spent fuel pool accident consequences from previous research studies and determined that they were of the same magnitude. Finally, the Continued Storage GEIS reinforces the Commission's original determination that supports use of a generic analysis.

    38 Statements of Consideration for 1996 (61 FR 28467, 28479-480) and 2013 (78 FR 37282, 37310) License Renewal GEISs.

    The NRC concludes that the petitioners' arguments regarding 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 51.71(d) do not provide a “seriously different picture” of the environmental consequences of spent fuel storage and disposal. Instead, based on the above, the NRC concludes that spent fuel storage impacts are fully evaluated as part of the NRC's license renewal actions and that the petitioners' proposed amendments are not necessary.

    The petitioners assert that the need for power and economic costs were excluded in license renewal environmental reviews

    The petitioners assert that NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 51.71(d) excuse license renewal applicants and the NRC staff from addressing the need for power in license renewal cases. The petitioners state, “[b]y excluding need for power from consideration in re-licensing decisions, the [Continued Storage] GEIS cripples its ability to assess the environmental impacts of storing spent fuel. This results in an `unbounded' analysis of radiological risk.” The petitioners also assert that “it is essential to incorporate the economic costs of spent fuel storage and disposal in reactor cost-benefit analyses.” In conjunction with the issuance of the License Renewal GEIS in 1996, the Commission amended its regulations concerning environmental reviews for nuclear power plant license renewal actions.39 These amendments defined the generic environmental impacts addressed in the License Renewal GEIS and the environmental impacts for which nuclear plant site-specific analyses were to be performed. The Commission stated in the June 5, 1996, final rule for the “Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses,”

    39 61 FR 28467; June 5, 1996.

    [T]he NRC will neither perform analyses of the need for power nor draw any conclusions about the need for generating capacity in a license renewal review. [The] definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that, absent findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC has no role in the energy planning decisions of State regulators and utility officials. From the perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing an operating license is to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements beyond the term of the plant's current license.40

    40 61 FR at 28472.

    As stated in the 2013 License Renewal GEIS,

    The purpose and need for the proposed action (issuance of a renewed license) is to provide an option that allows for baseload power generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs. Such needs may be determined by other energy-planning decision-makers, such as State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal agencies (other than the NRC). Unless there are findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act or the NEPA environmental review that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate.41

    41 License Renewal GEIS, NUREG-1437, Revision 1 (2013), Section 1.3, p. 1-3-1-4.

    As shown by these statements, it has been the NRC's longstanding position not to consider the need for power or economic costs in making its license renewal decisions. Consideration of the need for power or the economic cost of renewing the operating license of a nuclear reactor is beyond the NRC's statutory and regulatory purview; rather, such consideration is the responsibility of State and local authorities and, where appropriate, Federal entities such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Tennessee Valley Authority. The petitioners' assertion that NRC's regulatory approach of excluding need for power from consideration in license renewal decisions “cripples” NRC's ability to assess the environmental impacts of storing spent fuel is not new and significant information and thus does not provide a basis for amending the regulations.

    “Reasonable assurance” findings not included in proposed 10 CFR 51.23

    In commenting upon the NRC's proposed Continued Storage rule (78 FR 56776; September 13, 2013), the petitioners asserted that the NRC's proposal to remove the “reasonable assurance” statement from 10 CFR 51.23(a) was improper. Prior to the promulgation of the Continued Storage final rule (79 FR 56238; September 19, 2014), 10 CFR 51.23(a) stated, in part, that “the Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mined geologic repository capacity will be available to dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel generated in any reactor when necessary.” 42 In the final Continued Storage rule, the NRC removed the “reasonable assurance” statement.43 The statements of consideration of the final Continued Storage rule explain that 10 CFR 51.23(a) sets forth the NRC's generic determination that the environmental impacts of the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor are those impacts identified in NUREG-2157 (the Continued Storage GEIS). In particular, the statements of consideration note that,

    42 10 CFR 51.23(a) (2013).

    43 79 FR at 56260.

    NEPA is a procedural statute directed at Federal agencies, and 10 CFR 51.23 (including the additional clarifying amendments) addresses the manner by which the NRC complies with NEPA with respect to the subject of continued storage. These amendments do not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC, nor do these amendments modify the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC.44

    44 79 FR at 56253.

    Consequently, there was no need to retain the “reasonable assurance” statement, which is a safety finding, as 10 CFR 51.23(a) stated only the generic environmental determination and the remainder of 10 CFR 51.23 concerns the NRC's NEPA compliance. In this regard, the statements of consideration explain,

    The [Continued Storage] GEIS fulfills the NRC's NEPA obligations and provides a regulatory basis for the rule rather than addressing the agency's responsibilities to protect public health and safety under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), of 1954 as amended. Further, Appendix B of the [Continued Storage] GEIS discusses the technical feasibility of continued safe storage. It is important to note that, in adopting revised 10 CFR 51.23 and publishing the [Continued Storage] GEIS, the NRC is not making a safety determination under the AEA to allow for the continued storage of spent fuel. AEA safety determinations associated with licensing of these activities are contained in the appropriate regulatory provision addressing licensing requirements and in the specific licenses for facilities. Further, there is not any legal requirement for the NRC to codify a generic safety conclusion in the rule text. By not including a safety policy statement in the rule text, the NRC does not imply that spent fuel cannot be stored safely. To the contrary, the analysis documented in the [Continued Storage] GElS is predicated on the ability to store spent fuel safely over the short-term, long-term, and indefinite timeframes. This understanding is based upon the technical feasibility analysis in Appendix B of the [Continued Storage] GElS and the NRC's decades-long experience with spent fuel storage and development of regulatory requirements for licensing of storage facilities that are focused on safe operation of such facilities, which have provided substantial technical knowledge about storage of spent fuel. Further, spent fuel is currently being stored safely at reactor and storage sites across the country, which supports the NRC's conclusion that it is feasible for spent fuel to be stored safely for the timeframes considered in the [Continued Storage] GEIS.45

    45 79 FR at 56254-55.

    The petitions do not present any new and significant information that would form a basis to amend 10 CFR 51.23, particularly in light of the September 19, 2014, Continued Storage rulemaking.

    The petitioners assert that expedited spent fuel transfer analysis is “new and significant information”

    The petitioners request that the NRC “consider, in all pending and future reactor licensing and re-licensing decisions, new and significant information bearing on the environmental impacts of high-density pool storage in reactor pools and alternatives for avoiding or mitigating those impacts.” The petitioners assert that the NRC generated new and significant information during its post-Fukushima Expedited Spent Fuel Transfer proceeding.

    On October 9, 2013, the NRC released NUREG-2161, “Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor” and, on November 12, 2013, the NRC delivered a regulatory analysis in COMSECY-13-0030, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel.” These documents concluded that spent fuel pools are very robust structures with large safety margins, and that proposed regulatory actions for spent fuel pool safety improvements were not warranted. This conclusion not only covers spent fuel pools at operating reactors applying for license renewal but also spent fuel pools that would be constructed at new reactor sites. Citing the low risk to public health and safety from spent fuel pool storage, the Commission subsequently concluded that regulatory action need not be pursued in Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), SRM-COMSECY-13-0030, issued on May 23, 2014.

    The petitioners contend that former Chairman Allison Macfarlane's comments on COMSECY-13-0030, also provide new and significant information that requires the NRC to reconsider its impact findings in the 2013 license renewal GEIS. The former Chairman's comments were considered by the other Commissioners in the development of the SRM on this issue. However, the Commission determined in SRM-COMSECY-13-0030, that no further generic assessments concerning the expedited transfer of spent fuel to dry cask storage should be pursued. Notably, the SRM supported the staff's approach of using the NRC's Safety Goal Policy Statement of 1986 as a screening metric. The SRM is the agency's determination on this issue.

    Nonetheless, the petitioners contend that NUREG-2161 and COMSECY-13-0030 constitute new and significant information based on those documents' discussion of the severity of the impact of a spent fuel pool accident, sensitivity studies showing that some mitigation measures could be cost beneficial, and the possibility that a reactor accident could impact the likelihood of a spent fuel pool fire. However, none of these sources of information provides “a seriously different picture” of the environmental consequences of spent fuel storage. First, as noted above, the NRC has frequently recognized that the consequences of a spent fuel pool accident could be large but has determined that the overall risk of spent fuel pool accidents is small in light of the low probability of such an event.46 Therefore, the petitioners have not shown that the magnitude of the consequences of a spent fuel pool accident constitute new and significant information. Rather, NUREG-2161 and COMSECY-13-0030's recognition that the consequences of a spent fuel pool accident could be large but that the overall risk from such an event is small in light of the very low probability of such an event comports with the agency's previous considerations of this issue. Second, while the sensitivity studies may have shown that some mitigation measures could be cost-beneficial, they are based on alternate assumptions that do not represent the NRC's analysis of the most likely impacts of a spent fuel pool accident. In any event, petitioners have not shown with specificity that any information in these sensitivity studies would undermine the agency's overall conclusion that despite potentially large consequences, the very low probability renders the overall risk of a spent fuel pool accident very low. Finally, contrary to petitioners' assertions, the NRC has frequently responded to claims that the probability of a reactor accident could impact the probability of a spent fuel pool accident and repeatedly found that such a probability is very low.47

    46 NUREG-1437, Rev.1, at E-34 to -339.

    47 73 FR at 46210; 2013 GEIS at E-38; NUREG-2157 at D-438 to D-440; COMSECY-13-0030, Enclosure 1 at 138.

    In conclusion, neither NUREG-2161, COMSECY-13-0030, nor SRM-COMSECY-13-0030 constitutes “new and significant information” requiring the NRC to supplement any of its prior EISs, whether generic or specific— or amend those “regulations that make or rely on findings regarding the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage during reactor operation, including Table B-1 and all regulations approving standardized reactor designs.”

    III. Determination of Petitions

    For the reasons cited in Section II of this document, the NRC has concluded that the petitioners have not provided new and significant information that would form a basis to amend the NRC regulations identified in the PRM-51-30 and PRM-51-31.

    Earlier 10 CFR Part 51 PRMs

    Several of the regulations identified by the petitioners have been the subject of prior rulemaking petitions (i.e., PRM-51-1, PRM-51-10, PRM-51-12, and PRMs-51-14 to 51-28) and issues similar to those raised by the petitioners were considered by the Commission in these prior petitions, therefore, these issues have been thoroughly evaluated by the Commission. The PRM-51-1 petitioner asserted that Table S-3 “seriously understate[d]” the impact on human health and safety from the uranium fuel cycle and that the Table S-3 values should be revised accordingly.48 The NRC denied PRM-51-1 based upon the Commission's “generic determination that the radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle on individuals off-site will remain at or below the Commission's regulatory limits, and as such, are of small significance.” 49 The NRC described this generic determination in Chapter 6 of the 1996 version of the License Renewal GEIS; the generic determination was based upon findings made in various NRC and EPA rulemakings.50

    48 73 FR 14946; March 20, 2008.

    49 73 FR at 14947.

    50Id. at 14948.

    The petitioners in PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12 challenged the generic findings for spent fuel storage impacts codified in Table B-1 and requested a rulemaking to remove this finding.51 The petitioners raised the prospect of a fire at a nuclear power reactor's spent fuel pool and the resulting release of radioactive material to the environment. According to the petitioners' scenario, the spent fuel pool fire would be initiated by either an accident or a successful terrorist strike that would cause a partial or complete drain of the cooling water in the spent fuel pool. The petitioners requested the amendment of several of the regulations that are the subject of PRM-51-30 and PRM-51-31, namely, Table B-1, 10 CFR 51.23, 51.53(c), and 51.95(c).52 The petitioners requested that the impacts of spent fuel storage be considered on a site-specific basis in license renewal cases, rather than generically, due to this potential threat. The Commission denied PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12 and concluded that the risk of such a spent fuel pool fire was very low and that, given the safety and security requirements that applied to all plants, as well as the physical robustness of spent fuel pools, the environmental impacts of spent fuel pool storage could be handled generically.53 The NRC's denial of PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12 was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.54

    51 73 FR 46204; August 8, 2008.

    52Id. at 46205.

    53Id. at 46206-12.

    54New York v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 589 F.3d 551 (2nd Cir. 2009).

    Finally, in a series of virtually identical petitions, docketed as PRM-51-14 through PRM-51-28, petitioners requested that the NRC rescind all regulations that reach generic environmental impact conclusions regarding severe reactor accidents and spent fuel pool accidents, which would include various provisions of Table B-1 and 10 CFR 51.53. The PRM-51-14 through PRM-51-28 petitions were filed shortly after the NRC issued its Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) report, “Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century, the NTTF Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,” dated July 12, 2011. The NTTF report provided the NRC staff's recommendations to enhance U.S. nuclear power plant safety following the March 11, 2011, Fukushima accident in Japan. After determining that the NTTF report did not constitute new and significant information and further, that the petitioners had provided insufficient technical or regulatory basis to amend any of the NRC regulations in question, the NRC denied the PRM-51-14 through PRM-51-28 petitions.55

    55 80 FR 48235 (August 12, 2015).

    IV. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated. For more information on accessing ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    Document ADAMS Accession No./Web Link/Federal Register citation CLI-99-22, Hydro Resources, Inc., July 23, 1999 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/1999/1999-022cli.pdf CLI-14-07, DTE Electric Co., et al., July 17, 2014 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2014/2014-07cli.pdf “Comments by Environmental Organizations on Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement [GEIS] and Proposed Waste Confidence Rule and Petition to Revise and Integrate All Safety and Environmental Regulations Related to Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal,” January 7, 2014 ML14029A124, ML14029A169, ML14029A154 COMSECY-13-0030, Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel, November 12, 2013 ML13273A601 COMSECY-13-0030 Vote Sheet, Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel, April 8, 2014 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/comm-secy/2013/2013-0030comvtr.pdf Federal Register notice—Waste Confidence—Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (proposed rule), September 13, 2013 78 FR 56776 Federal Register notice—Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, April 22, 1974 39 FR 14188 Federal Register notice—Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection; Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts From Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management, August 2, 1979 44 FR 45362 Federal Register notice—Waste Confidence Decision, August 31, 1984 49 FR 34658 Federal Register notice—Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, September 18, 1990 55 FR 38472 Federal Register notice—Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, June 5, 1996 61 FR 28467 Federal Register notice—Waste Confidence Decision Update, December 23, 2010 75 FR 81037 Federal Register notice—Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (final rule), September 19, 2014 79 FR 56238 Federal Register notice—Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, June 20, 2013 78 FR 37282 Federal Register notice—Revise and Integrate All Safety and Environmental Regulations Related to Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal, April 21, 2014 79 FR 22055 Federal Register notice—Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Storage During Reactor Operation, May 1, 2014 79 FR 24595 Federal Register notice—Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Storage During Reactor Operation, July 24, 2014 79 FR 42989 Federal Register notice—New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, March 20, 2008 73 FR 14946 Federal Register notice—The Attorney General of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, The Attorney General of California; Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking, August 8, 2008 73 FR 46204 Federal Register notice—Environmental Impacts of Severe Reactor and Spent Fuel Pool Accidents, August 12, 2015 80 FR 48235 Makhijani, Arjun, Comments of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Proposed Waste Confidence Rule Update and Proposed Rule Regarding Environmental Impacts of Temporary Spent Fuel Storage ML091310195 NRC-National Academies of Science Report, “A Study of the Isolation System for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes,” 1983 ML033040264 NUREG-0116, “Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,” October 1976 ML14098A013 NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” June 20, 2013 ML13107A023 NUREG-2161, “Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor,” October 9, 2013 ML13256A334 NUREG-2157, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” September 2014 ML14196A105 (vol. 1), ML14196A107 (vol. 2) NUREG-2179, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Combined License (COL) for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant (Draft Report for Comment),” April 2015 ML15103A012 (vol. 1) PRM-51-30, “Petition to Revise and Integrate All Safety and Environmental Regulations Related to Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal,” submitted by Diane Curran on behalf of 34 environmental organizations, January 7, 2014 ML14029A124 PRM-51-31, “Environmental Organizations' Petition to Consider New and Significant Information Regarding Environmental Impacts of High-Density Spent Fuel Storage and Mitigation Alternatives in Licensing Proceedings for New Reactors and License Renewal Proceedings for Existing Reactors and Duly Modify All NRC Regulations Regarding Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Storage During Reactor Operation,” February 18, 2014 ML14071A382 PRM-51-31, “Environmental Organizations' Amended Petition to Consider New and Significant Information Regarding Environmental Impacts of High-Density Spent Fuel Storage and Mitigation Alternatives in Licensing Proceedings for New Reactors and License Renewal Proceedings for Existing Reactors and Duly Modify All NRC Regulations Regarding Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Storage During Reactor Operation,” June 26, 2014 ML14177A660 Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants; Policy Statement; Republication, August 21, 1986 51 FR 30028 SRM-SECY-13-0030, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel,” May 23, 2014 ML14143A360 WASH-1248, “Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” April 1974 ML14092A628 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of May, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11820 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 [Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0018] RIN 1904-AD68 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Uninterruptible Power Supplies AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to revise its battery charger test procedure established under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended. These proposed revisions, if adopted, will add a discrete test procedure for uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs) to the current battery charger test procedure.

    DATES:

    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on Thursday, June 9, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section V, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than July 18, 2016. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Test Procedure for Battery Chargers, and provide docket number EE-2016-BT-TP-0018 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AD68. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected] Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.

    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public Participation).

    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2016-BT-TP-0018. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected]

    In the Office of the General Counsel, contact Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected]

    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule would incorporate by reference into 10 CFR part 430 the testing methods contained in the following commercial standard:

    IEC 62040-3, “Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)—Method of specifying the performance and test requirements,” Edition 2.0, Section 6 “UPS tests,” and Annex J “UPS efficiency—Methods of measurement.”

    Copies of the IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 standard are available from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036 or at http://webstore.ansi.org/.

    See section IV.M for further discussion of this standard.

    Table of Contents I. Authority and Background II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking III. Discussion A. Covered Products and Scope B. Existing Test Procedures and Standards Incorporated by Reference C. Definitions 1. Energy Storage System 2. Normal Mode 3. Reference Test Load 4. Uninterruptible Power Supplies D. Test Conditions 1. Accuracy and Precision of Measuring Equipment 2. Environmental Conditions 3. Input Voltage and Frequency E. Battery Configuration F. Product Configuration G. Average Power and Efficiency Calculation 1. Average Power 2. Efficiency H. Output Metric I. Effective Date and Compliance of Test Procedure J. Sampling Plan for Determination of Certified Rating K. Certification Reports IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Description of Material Incorporated by Reference V. Public Participation A. Attendance at Public Meeting B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution C. Conduct of Public Meeting D. Submission of Comments E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; “EPCA” or, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency.1 Part B 2 of title III, established the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” Battery chargers are among the consumer products affected by these provisions. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u))

    1 All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

    2 For editorial reasons, Part B was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified).

    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

    General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1))

    Background

    The “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers” in appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 specifies the testing requirements for battery chargers. DOE last amended this test method with the publication of a test procedure final rule on June 1, 2011, which codified a new active-mode test procedure and amended the existing standby and off-mode test procedures. 76 FR 31750. As federal standards for battery chargers have yet to be finalized, DOE has not required manufacturers to submit energy efficiency data for their products tested under the battery charger test procedure.

    DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on March 27, 2012, regarding energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies (March 2012 NOPR) where it proposed standards for battery chargers, including uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs). 77 FR 18478

    Following the publication of the 2011 battery charger test procedure final rule and the March 2012 NOPR, DOE explored whether to regulate UPSs as “computer systems.” See, e.g., 79 FR 11345 (Feb. 28, 2014) (proposed coverage determination); 79 FR 41656 (July 17, 2014) (computer systems framework document). DOE received a number of comments in response to those documents (and the related public meetings) regarding testing of UPSs, which are discussed in this NOPR. At the same time, DOE received questions and requests for clarification regarding the testing, rating, and classification of battery chargers.

    As part of the continuing effort to establish federal efficiency standards for battery chargers and to develop a clear and widely applicable test procedure, DOE published a notice of data availability (May 2014 NODA) on May 15, 2014. 79 FR 27774. This NODA sought comments from stakeholders concerning the repeatability of the test procedure when testing battery chargers with several consumer configurations and on the future market penetration of new battery charging technologies that may require revisions to the battery charger test procedure. DOE also sought comments on the reporting requirements for manufacturers attempting to comply with the California Energy Commission's (CEC's) efficiency standards for battery chargers in order to understand certain data discrepancies in the CEC database. These issues were discussed during DOE's NODA public meeting on June 3, 2014.

    Based upon discussions from the May 2014 NODA public meeting and written comments submitted by various stakeholders, DOE published a NOPR (August 2015 NOPR) to revise the current battery charger test procedure on August 6, 2015. 80 FR 46855. DOE received a number of stakeholder comments on the August 2015 NOPR and the computer systems framework document regarding regulation of battery chargers including UPSs. After considering these comments, DOE reconsidered its position and found that since a UPS meets the definition of a battery charger, it is more appropriate to regulate UPSs as part of the battery charger rulemaking. Therefore, in today's notice DOE proposes to amend the battery charger test procedure to include specific test provisions for UPSs.

    II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    This proposal seeks to add provisions for testing UPSs to the battery charger test procedure. Specifically, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference specific sections of IEC 62040-3 Ed 2.0 with additional instructions, into the current battery charger test procedure published at appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. Additionally, this proposal seeks to add formal definitions for uninterruptible power supply, voltage and frequency dependent UPSs, voltage independent UPSs, voltage and frequency independent UPSs, energy storage systems, normal mode and reference test load to appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 and revise the compliance certification requirements for battery chargers published at 10 CFR 429.39.

    III. Discussion

    In response to the August 2015 NOPR, DOE received written comments from 18 interested parties, including manufacturers, trade associations, standards development organizations and energy efficiency advocacy groups. Table III-1 below lists only the entities that commented on the proposed exclusion of UPSs, as battery chargers. These comments are discussed in further detail below. The full set of comments on the battery charger test procedure NOPR can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS;D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0044.

    Table III-1—Interested Parties That Provided Written Comments on Proposed Exclusion of UPSs as Battery Chargers in the August 2015 NOPR Commenter Acronym Organization type/affiliation Comment No.
  • (docket
  • reference)
  • California Investor Owned Utilities CA IOUs Utility Association 21 Natural Resources Defense Council, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NRDC, ASAP, and NEEA Energy Efficiency Advocacy Groups 20 Schneider Electric Schneider Electric Manufacturer 12

    Similarly, in response to the computer systems framework document, DOE received written comments from 9 interested parties, including manufacturers, trade associations, standards development organizations, and energy efficiency advocacy groups. Table III-2 below lists only the entities that commented on the inclusion of UPSs in the computer systems rulemaking. These comments are also discussed in detail below. The full set of comments on the computer systems framework document can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0025.

    Table III-2—Interested Parties That Provided Written Comments on the Inclusion of UPSs in the Computer Systems Framework Document Commenter Acronym Organization type/affiliation Comment No.
  • (docket
  • reference)
  • Information Technology Industry Council ITI Trade Association 10 National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMA Trade Association 15 Schneider Electric Schneider Electric Manufacturer 08
    A. Covered Products and Scope

    DOE has proposed several different methods of handling UPSs throughout the course of the battery chargers and computer systems rulemakings. Originally, DOE had proposed energy conservation standards for UPSs as part of the 2012 battery chargers NOPR. DOE proposed that UPSs be part of product class 10a and 10b and be regulated using the same energy consumption metric (annual unit energy consumption or “UEC”) and test procedure as all other battery chargers, using a usage profile assumption for those product classes that is typical of UPSs. 77 FR 18478. However, in 2014, DOE proposed that UPSs be included as part of the proposed coverage determination for computer systems. As outlined in the computer systems framework document, DOE sought stakeholder feedback of its consideration of referencing IEC 62040-3 Edition 2.0, “Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)—Method of specifying the performance and test requirements”, March 2011 (IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0), as the test procedure for UPSs with the inclusion of additional instructions from ENERGY STAR UPS Version 1.0, “ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Uninterruptible Power Supplies,” Rev. July 2012 (ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0). This test procedure would measure the average conversion efficiency of a UPS with test loads connected to the UPS.

    DOE received comments on the battery charger test procedure NOPR from Schneider Electric and the CA IOUs opposing the exclusion of UPSs from the scope of the battery charger test procedure. These stakeholders highlighted the usage of the current battery charger test procedure by CEC to regulate UPSs under the state's own battery charger energy conservation program. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0044, Schneider Electric, No, 12 at p. 1, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0044, CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 3) Their comments emphasize that UPSs are a type of backup battery charger and should remain in the scope of the battery charger test procedure. Similarly, NRDC, ASAP, and NEEA submitted comments recommending that battery backup systems be included in the scope of the battery charger test procedure. Further, NRDC, ASAP, and NEEA recommended that DOE exclude battery backup systems as a covered product in order to allow the CEC to continue to enforce its standards for these products until the computer systems standards become effective. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0044, NRDC, ASAP, and NEEA, No. 20, p. 2)

    After considering all related stakeholder comments, DOE believes that it is most appropriate to include UPSs within the scope of the battery charger test procedure. Although UPSs may provide various types of power conditioning and monitoring functionality depending on their architecture and input dependency, they primarily maintain the fully-charged state of lead acid batteries with relatively high self-discharge rates so that in the event of a power outage, they are able to provide backup power instantly to the connected load. Maintaining the lead acid battery therefore directly affects a UPS's overall energy efficiency. In 10 CFR 430.2, a battery charger is defined as a device that charges batteries for consumer products. Because UPSs that are in scope of this rulemaking have the primary task of maintaining a charged lead acid battery, DOE concludes that UPSs meet the definition of a battery charger and, as such, should be considered within the scope of the battery charger test procedure.

    UPSs are defined in IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 as a combination of convertors, switches and energy storage devices (such as batteries), constituting a power system for maintaining continuity of load power in case of input power failure. Today, DOE proposes to adopt this definition for UPSs; that is, only battery chargers that meet the above-stated definition of a UPS are subject to the testing requirements proposed in this NOPR. While UPSs with a variety of architectures, input dependency and input/output characteristics may meet IEC's definition, DOE is further proposing to limit the applicability of this test procedure to only those that have an AC output to help limit the scope of the UPS test procedure. DOE emphasizes that this proposal to include specific test provisions for UPSs in the battery charger test procedure only applies to products that meet the above stated definition of a UPS and have an AC output.

    DOE requests comment on the proposal to include specific test provisions for UPSs, as defined above, in the battery charger test procedure.

    B. Existing Test Procedures and Standards Incorporated by Reference

    DOE is proposing to add specific testing provisions for UPSs in the battery charger test procedure, as the Department believes that the specifications in the current battery charger test procedure are not appropriate for UPSs. Most battery chargers have four modes of operation: (1) Active mode (charging batteries that are at various stages of depletion); (2) maintenance mode (maintaining fully charged batteries); (3) standby mode (plugged in with no battery connected to charge and all manual on-off switches turned on); and (4) off mode (plugged in with no battery connected to charge and all manual on-off switches turned off). The current battery charger test procedure measures energy consumption in these modes because most battery chargers generally spend a significant amount of time in all four modes of operation. Most battery chargers are used to charge the batteries of products that are designed to be regularly operated using battery power. This makes the current test procedure output metrics appropriate for representing the energy consumption of most kinds of battery chargers during a representative average use cycle.

    In contrast, the current test procedure, which measures energy consumption of a battery charger as it charges a fully discharged battery, is inappropriate for a UPS since a UPS rarely has a fully discharged battery. The UPS's battery is only infrequently depleted during a power outage when a connected load discharges the energy stored within the UPS's battery in order to continue normal operation of the powered product. Likewise, it is only after power has been restored following an outage that the UPS charges depleted batteries. The vast majority of the time a UPS provides a small amount of charge necessary to maintain fully charged batteries and also delivers power to a connected load. Therefore, in order to accurately capture the energy consumption and energy efficiency of the normal operation of a UPS, the test procedure should measure the energy consumption of maintaining a fully charged battery and the conversion losses associated with delivering load power.

    The following subsections discuss each mode of operation that is currently included within the DOE battery charger test procedure, and the rationale for why each mode is not applicable to UPSs.

    1. Active mode: Section 2.1 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 defines active mode or charge mode as a state in which the battery charger system is connected to the main electricity supply, and the battery charger is delivering current, equalizing cells, and performing other one-time or limited-time functions in order to bring the battery to a fully charged state. In active mode, the battery charger is charging a battery that is partially or fully discharged. However, unlike other battery chargers, UPSs seldom have a fully-discharged battery. UPSs primarily maintain the fully-charged state of their internal batteries so that in the event of a power outage, the internal batteries are able to instantly provide backup power to a connected load. However, power outages are infrequent in the United States and therefore a UPS rarely switches to backup power and consumes its stored energy. Because the battery is maintained in a fully charged state during the majority of a UPS's service life, UPSs are almost never required to enter active mode to replenish a depleted battery. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to measure the active mode energy consumption of a UPS by the current battery charger test procedure because the resulting measured energy would not be representative for a UPS in typical use as required by 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). Two other outputs of the current test procedure, battery capacity and charge time, are related to measuring the energy consumption in active mode. Because the active mode is generally not common for a UPS, measuring battery capacity and charge time would typically not be representative.

    2. Maintenance mode: Once the batteries have been fully charged, a battery charger typically enters a maintenance mode intended to maintain the fully charged state of batteries with a finite self-discharge rate, while protecting it from overcharging. Although UPSs spend the majority of their service life in this mode, UPSs also continuously provide power to a connected load. This aspect is missing from the current battery charger test procedure, which does not require a load to be connected to the battery charger—only to a battery. UPSs are almost always connected to a load, such as a computer, because the primary purpose of a UPS is to provide power in the event of an unexpected power outage. Leaving the UPS unconnected to a load would not be representative of typical usage, and the resulting measured energy consumption would not be representative, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3).

    3. Standby and off modes: The current battery charger test procedure requires that, in addition to active and maintenance mode, a battery charger's energy consumption be measured in two other modes of operation; standby and off mode. In standby mode, the battery charger remains connected to the main electricity supply with the battery itself disconnected and all manual on-off switches (if applicable) turned on. In off mode, the battery charger remains connected to the main electricity supply with the battery itself disconnected and all manual on-off switches (if applicable) turned off. UPSs never experience these modes of operation in typical use since they are always connected to mains power and have batteries attached in order to service their loads in the event of a power outage. Therefore, testing UPSs in standby and off modes would not be representative of typical usage, and the resulting measured energy consumption would not be representative, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3).

    As each of the modes of operation discussed above is not directly applicable to UPSs, DOE proposes to amend the current battery charger test procedure to add auxiliary instructions for testing a UPS that will better capture the device's real world energy performance. More specifically, DOE proposes to define “normal mode” as a mode of operation where the UPS maintains a battery while simultaneously powering a connected load.

    In order to measure energy consumption during normal mode, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference Section 6 and Annex J of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 in the battery charger test procedure. This test method requires that power consumption of a UPS be measured in normal mode with reference test loads equal to 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the unit's rated power. Each of these individual efficiency data points is then weighted by a coefficient that is specific for each UPS architecture and combined to determine the overall average efficiency of the unit. DOE is aware that the IEC standard is under revision and will consider amending this test procedure to further harmonize with any finalized revision of this industry test procedure. Furthermore, DOE proposes to include additional instructions, some of which are provided in the ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0 specification. Discussion of these additional instructions is found in sections III.C and III.D of this proposed rule.

    DOE requests stakeholder comments on the type of changes that are being considered for the revised IEC 62040-3 standard and how it may impact the test procedure proposed today.

    Because DOE is proposing to adopt testing requirements for UPSs from IEC 62040-2 Ed. 2.0 with additional instructions where appropriate, the following sections discuss these proposed requirements including definitions, test conditions, battery and product configuration, average power and efficiency calculations, output metric, effective date and compliance requirements, sampling plan and certification reports.

    C. Definitions

    DOE proposes to include the following definitions, in alphabetical order, in section 2 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. DOE requests comment on all proposed definitions, particularly those that are not defined in existing industry standards.

    1. Energy Storage System

    DOE proposes the following definition for an Energy Storage System of a UPS: “Energy storage system is a system consisting of single or multiple devices designed to provide power to the UPS inverter circuitry.”

    2. Normal Mode

    Normal mode for UPSs is similar to the maintenance mode of other battery chargers as defined in appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 in that the UPS maintains the fully charged state of batteries with a finite self-discharge rate, while protecting it from overcharging. However, in addition to maintaining a battery, a UPS in normal mode also continuously provides power to a load. In order to highlight this distinction, DOE proposes the following definition for the normal mode of operation for a UPS.

    Normal mode is a mode of operation for a UPS in which:

    (i) The UPS provides required output power to the connected load without switching to battery power,

    (ii) the energy storage system is being maintained at full charge, and

    (iii) the load connected to the UPS is within the UPS's specified power rating.”

    3. Reference Test Load

    To describe the load that is used for testing UPSs, DOE proposes the following definition for reference test load.

    Reference test load is a load or condition with a power factor of greater than 0.99 in which the AC output socket of the UPS delivers the active power (W) for which the UPS is rated.”

    While IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 also provides a definition for reference test load, it does not explicitly address whether such a test load is linear or non-linear in nature. Similarly, section 4.2 of ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0 calls for the reference test load to be resistive without clearly defining the term `resistive'. DOE's proposed definition properly characterizes the test load to be used for UPS testing and removes ambiguity by requiring the test load to be linear and resistive through the power factor requirement.

    4. Uninterruptible Power Supplies

    DOE proposes the following definition for a UPS:

    Uninterruptible power supply or UPS means a battery charger consisting of a combination of convertors, switches and energy storage devices, constituting a power system for maintaining continuity of load power in case of input power failure.”

    DOE is also proposing to include definitions for voltage independent, voltage and frequency dependent, and voltage and frequency independent UPS architectures based on the definitions from section 1.0 of ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0 to differentiate between different UPS load ratings. The proposed definitions are as follows:

    Voltage and frequency dependent UPS or VFD UPS means a UPS that produces an alternating current (AC) output where the output voltage and frequency are dependent on the input voltage and frequency. This UPS architecture does not provide corrective functions like those in voltage independent and voltage and frequency independent systems.”

    A typical VFD UPS connects the protected load directly to the main electricity supply without performing any voltage or frequency conditioning. In the event the input voltage or frequency fails or simply falls outside a manufacturer-specified range, the VFD UPS shifts the source of the output power from the main electricity supply to the battery power by detecting the fault condition and turning on the internal DC to AC inverter circuitry. Because the detection of a fault condition and the subsequent turning on of the DC to AC inverter circuitry requires a finite amount of time, the switchover process is not instantaneous and generally requires tens of milliseconds. This UPS architecture may therefore not be suitable for protecting loads that are sensitive to brief dips and surges in the input power supply.

    Voltage independent UPS or VI UPS means a UPS that produces an AC output within a specific tolerance band that is independent of under-voltage or over-voltage variations in the input voltage. The output frequency of a VI UPS is dependent on the input frequency, similar to a voltage and frequency dependent system.”

    A VI UPS functions similarly to a VFD UPS in that it also powers the protected load using the main electricity supply. However, unlike a VFD UPS, a VI UPS is able to perform minor conditioning of the input voltage when it is marginally out of tolerance without switching to battery power. A VI UPS typically achieves this by using a Buck-boost transformer, a component that can detect dips and surges in the input voltage and adjust its winding ratio such that the output voltage remains constant. However, if the perturbation in the input voltage is greater than a predetermined range set by the manufacturer, the VI UPS will switch to the battery power similar to a VFD UPS. A VI UPS is unable to protect the load against fluctuations in the input frequency without switching to battery power.

    Voltage and frequency independent UPS or VFI UPS means a UPS where the device remains in normal mode producing an AC output voltage and frequency that is independent of input voltage and frequency variations and protects the load against adverse effects from such variations without depleting the stored energy source. The input voltage and frequency variations through which the UPS must remain in normal mode are as follows:

    i. ±10% of the rated input voltage or the tolerance range specified by the manufacturer, whichever is greater; and

    ii. ±2% of the rated input frequency or the tolerance range specified by the manufacturer, whichever is greater.”

    A VFI UPS consists of an AC to DC converter that charges the UPS battery and a DC to AC inverter that converts the DC battery voltage back to AC in order to power the connected load. However, unlike a VFD or a VI UPS where the DC to AC inverter is turned on only when a fault condition is detected, the inverter in a VFI UPS is always in operation ensuring that the connected load is always powered through the battery power, which is continuously charged using main electricity supply. The use of a VFI device is particularly important when the protected load is sensitive to the slightest change in input voltage and frequency.

    To help manufacturers determine whether a UPS is properly considered to be VFD, VI, or VFI, DOE is including tests to verify the input dependency of the UPS as follows: VI input dependency may be verified by performing the steady state input voltage tolerance test in section 6.4.1.1 of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 and observing that the output voltage remains within the specified limit during the test. VFD input dependency may be verified by performing the AC input failure test in section 6.2.2.7 of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 and observing that, at a minimum, the UPS switches from normal mode of operation to battery power while the input is interrupted. VFI input dependency may be verified by performing the steady state input voltage tolerance test and the input frequency tolerance test specified in sections 6.4.1.1 and 6.4.1.2 of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 and observing that, at a minimum, the output voltage and frequency remain within the specified output tolerance band during the test. These tests may be performed to determine the input dependency supported by the test unit.

    D. Test Conditions

    Although a majority of the test conditions are adopted from the IEC 62040-3 Ed 2.0 standard, DOE proposes certain supplementary instructions for the test conditions in appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 in order to eliminate the possibility of ambiguity. DOE requests comment on the proposed test conditions.

    1. Accuracy and Precision of Measuring Equipment

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes that the power meter and other equipment used during the test procedure must provide true root mean square (r. m. s.) measurements of the active input and output power, with an uncertainty at full rated load of less than or equal to 0.5 percent at the 95 percent confidence level notwithstanding that voltage and current waveforms can include a harmonic component. Further, DOE proposes that the power meter and other equipment must measure input and output values simultaneously.

    2. Environmental Conditions

    IEC 62040-3 Ed 2.0 requires that the ambient temperature must be in the range of 20 °C to 30 °C. In order to ensure repeatability, DOE proposes to increase the precision required for ambient temperature measurements, while keeping the same range. As a result, the ambient temperature must be 20.0 °C to 30.0 °C (i.e., increasing the required precision by one decimal place) and the measurement must include all uncertainties and inaccuracies introduced by the temperature measuring equipment. Extending the precision of IEC's ambient temperature range requirement by one decimal place allows DOE to minimize rounding errors and avoid scenarios where a temperature of 19.6  °C would be rounded to 20 °C during testing and potentially provide higher efficiency usage values than those obtained at or above 20.0 °C. The proposal also requires that the tests be carried out in a room with an air speed immediately surrounding the unit under test (UUT) of less than or equal to 0.5  m/s. There must be no intentional cooling of the UUT such as by use of separately powered fans, air conditioners, or heat sinks. The UUT must be tested on a thermally non-conductive surface.

    3. Input Voltage and Frequency

    DOE proposes that the AC input voltage to the UUT be within 3 percent of the highest rated voltage and the frequency be within 1 percent of the highest rated frequency of the device.

    E. Battery Configuration

    Section J.2.2 of the IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 standard requires that the UPS operate in normal mode during testing and that the transfer of energy to and from the energy storage system be prevented during the test. Further, IEC recommends disconnecting the energy storage system to prevent such transfer of energy. While this approach is appropriate for measuring the losses within the inverter components, disconnecting the energy storage system prevents the capturing of losses in the battery charger components of the UPS. UPSs covered under today's proposed scope most commonly use lead acid batteries as their energy storage systems, and these batteries have a relatively high self-discharge rate. Over time, these UPSs expend a considerable amount of cumulative energy countering the self-discharge of fully charged lead acid batteries in real life use under normal mode operation. Disconnecting the battery during testing as recommended by IEC will fail to account for this additional energy spent by the battery charging components. Because DOE intends to capture a complete picture of the energy performance of UPSs as part of today's rulemaking, DOE proposes that the energy storage systems must remain connected throughout the test.

    Batteries in UPSs must remain fully charged, standing by to provide backup power in the event of a power failure. Battery charging requirements must therefore be standardized such that the batteries are fully charged during testing and representative of the state of a UPS in real life use. Therefore, DOE proposes to standardize battery charging requirements for UPSs by including the following instructions in section 4.2.1 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. These requirements, which ensure that the battery is fully charged prior to testing, specify charging the battery for an additional 5 hours after the UPS has indicated that it is fully charged, or, if the product does not have a battery indicator but the user manual specifies a time, charging the battery for 5 hours longer than the manufacturer's estimate. Finally, the proposal requires charging the battery for 24 hours if the UPS does not have an indicator or an estimated charging time.

    F. Product Configuration

    For configuring UPSs for testing, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference Appendix J.2 of IEC 62040-3 Ed 2.0 in section 4.2.1 of the proposed appendix Y to subpart B of the 10 CFR part 430. In addition to the IEC test method, DOE proposes to include additional requirements for UPS operating mode conditions and energy storage system derived from ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0. DOE is not considering including requirements for back-feeding, which are specified in ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0 because back-feeding will not apply to the UPSs that are in the proposed scope of this rulemaking.

    G. Average Power and Efficiency Calculation 1. Average Power

    DOE proposes two different methods for calculating average power so that manufacturers have the option of using a method better suited to the testing equipment already available at their disposal without have to purchasing new equipment. DOE believes this will reduce testing burden. DOE proposes to specify these calculation methods in section 4.3.1 of the proposed appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. The first proposed method of calculating average power is to divide accumulated energy (Ei) by the specified period for each test (Ti) and recording the accumulated energy (Ei) in kWh. For this method, the average power is calculated using the following equation:

    EP19MY16.034

    Additionally, DOE proposes a second method to calculate average power by sampling the power at a rate of at least 1 sample per second and computing the arithmetic mean of all samples over the time period specified for each test (Ti). For this method, the average power (Pavg) is calculated using the following equation:

    EP19MY16.035

    Where Pavg represents average power, Pi represents measured power during a single measurement (i), and n represents total number of measurements.

    DOE requests comment on the proposed two different methods of calculating average power. DOE requests comment on the comparability of the results from the two methods.

    2. Efficiency

    DOE proposes to calculate the efficiency of UPSs at each loading point as specified in section J.3 of IEC 62040-3 Ed 2.0. DOE also proposes additional requirements from ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0 for the purpose of ensuring repeatable and reproducible tests. ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0 specifies requirements for ensuring the unit is at steady state and calculating the efficiency measurements. DOE also proposes to require that the input dependency of the UPS be determined as described in section III.C.4 of this NOPR. The proposed requirements are included in section 4.3 of the proposed appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

    H. Output Metric

    To capture the energy efficiency of a UPS, DOE proposes that the device be tested in normal mode. DOE further proposes to use an average load adjusted efficiency metric, rounded to one tenth of a percentage point, as the final output of this UPS test procedure. DOE's proposed output metric for UPSs matches the output metric utilized by ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0. DOE is also proposing to adopt the load weightings specified in ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0 for calculating load adjusted average efficiency of UPSs. These load weightings vary based on the ratio of the reference test load to the full rated load of the device, the UPS architecture and the output power rating of a UPS.

    These weightings are widely used by manufacturers to certify their UPSs to ENERGY STAR specifications and indicate the typical amount of time a UPS spends at each loading point. Therefore, DOE believes the use of load weightings allow the proposed final metric to capture the real world energy performance of UPSs accurately and representatively. The requirements for calculating the final metric, shown in Table III-3, are proposed to be incorporated in section 4.3.5 of appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. The proposed equation to calculate the average load adjusted efficiency of UPSs is as follows:

    Effavg = (t 25% × Eff|25%) + (t 50% × Eff|50%) + (t 75% × Eff|75%) + (t 100% × Eff|100%) Where: Effavg = average loading-adjusted efficiency tn% = proportion of time spent at the particular n% of the reference test load Effn% = efficiency at the particular n% of the reference test load Table III-3—UPS Load Weightings for Calculating Average Efficiency Rated output power
  • (W)
  • Input dependency characteristic Portion of time spent at reference load 25% 50% 75% 100%
    P ≤ 1500 W VFD 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 VI or VFI 0 0.3 0.4 0.3 P > 1500 W VFD, VI, or VFI 0 0.3 0.4 0.3

    EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require DOE to implement a standby and off mode energy consumption measurement, if technically feasible, in new or existing test procedures that do not have this measurement. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) EISA 2007 also requires any final rule establishing energy conservation standards for a covered product, adopted after July 1, 2010, to incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single amended or new standard, if feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A))

    EPCA defines the three modes that consumer products can be in as: (1) Active mode, (2) standby mode, and (3) off mode. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)) DOE incorporated EPCA's definitions for active, standby, and off modes into 10 CFR 430.2. Each of these definitions requires that the product be “connected to a main power source.” DOE is proposing a test procedure under which UPSs would be tested in normal mode, the only mode that a UPS is in when connected to a power source, except in the rare occasions that it is in “charge mode.” EPCA requires that any prescribed or amended test procedure shall be designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency or energy use during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)). As discussed in section III.B, a UPS is almost never in charge mode, and therefore measured energy for this mode would not be representative for a UPS in typical use as required by 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). Thus, measuring the energy use of a UPS in normal mode effectively captures the energy used during the entirety of the time that a UPS is connected to mains power. As such, the test procedure proposed here incorporates measurement of energy use during active, standby, and off modes, as EPCA defines those terms.

    DOE requests comment on the proposed output metric for UPSs.

    I. Effective Date and Compliance of Test Procedure

    If adopted, the effective date for this UPS test procedure would be 30 days after publication of the test procedure final rule in the Federal Register. At that time, the new metrics and any other measure of energy performance which depends on these metrics may be represented pursuant to the final rule. On or after 180 days after the date of publication of the test procedure final rule, any such representations, including those made on marketing materials and product labels would be required to be based upon results generated under the final test procedure.

    J. Sampling Plan for Determination of Certified Rating

    For any covered product, manufacturers are required to determine the represented value, which includes the certified rating, for each basic model of the product in accordance with the DOE test procedure. Because today's proposed test procedure for UPSs and resulting metric differs from other battery chargers, DOE proposes that UPSs would certify the average load adjusted efficiency metric (Effavg) described in section III.H, as the representative value of efficiency for UPSs. In order to determine a rating for certifying compliance or making energy use representations, DOE typically requires manufacturers to test each basic model in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure and apply the appropriate sampling plan. DOE proposes that the sampling provisions and certified rating requirements for battery chargers be applicable to UPSs.

    K. Certification Reports

    In addition to the requirements specified in 10 CFR 429.12, which are applicable to each basic model of a covered product, DOE proposes the following additional product specific public information be included in the battery charger certification report for UPSs in 10 CFR 429.39:

    1. Active power, in Watts, and apparent power, in Volt-Amperes, of the UPS 2. Rated input and output voltage, in Volts, of the UPS 3. Efficiency at 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent, and average normal mode loading efficiency of UPS IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget.

    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

    DOE reviewed the test procedure considered in this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. DOE has concluded that the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows.

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. These size standards and codes are established by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS classification code 335999, which applies to “all other miscellaneous electrical equipment and component manufacturing” and includes UPSs, is 500 employees.

    To estimate the number of companies that could be small business manufacturers of the equipment affected by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a market survey using available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved reviewing the SBA database, marketing research tools (i.e., Hoover's reports), and company profiles on public Web sites (i.e., LinkedIn and Glassdoor) to create a list of all domestic small business manufacturers of battery chargers affected by this rulemaking. DOE identified 12 manufacturers of battery chargers as domestic small business manufacturers.

    To determine the costs of the proposed test procedure on small manufacturers, DOE obtained quotations from two laboratories for testing UPSs and found the range to be from $1,400 to $2,000. While DOE performed the analysis using the highest quotation it received to estimate the maximum possible testing cost, DOE understands that a majority of UPS manufacturers are able to perform these tests with their own testing equipment. UPS manufacturers can significantly reduce testing costs by conducting their own testing instead of using third party labs to test their products. Under the proposed test procedure, manufacturers would be required to test each UPS basic model individually; that is, a minimum of two units per basic model. DOE estimated the average number of basic models produced per manufacturer to be six. DOE determined the average number of basic models per manufacturer by examining product listings, product features, and model names from DOE's Compliance Database, EPA's ENERGY STAR,3 and retailer Web sites to estimate the total number of basic models in the industry. DOE then divided the estimation by the total number of UPS manufacturers identified to find an average number of basic models per manufacturer. Therefore, to test two units of each basic model at a cost of $2,000 per unit, the average total cost of testing is $24,000 per manufacturer. From Hoovers, DOE estimated the average revenue of a small business manufacturer of battery chargers to be $22.2M. That is, the total cost of testing is approximately 0.11 percent of the average annual revenue.

    3 ENERGY STAR. Energy Star Certified Products. Last accessed May 4, 2015. <http://www.energystar.gov/>.

    Based on this analysis, DOE concludes that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOE will provide its certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    DOE seeks comment on whether the proposed test procedure changes will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    If DOE adopts energy conservation standards for battery chargers, manufacturers will be required to certify that their products comply with those standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the applicable DOE test procedure, including any amendments adopted for that test procedure. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, and is proposing specific requirements for battery chargers in this rule. See 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. This information collection was renewed in January 2015 to include certification requirements for battery chargers. 80 FR 5099 (January 30, 2015). Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Manufacturers would not be required to submit a certification report until such time as compliance with an energy conservation standard is required.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for UPSs. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this proposed rule would amend the existing test procedures without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

    The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of UPSs is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.

    This proposed rule incorporates testing methods contained in Section 6 and Annex J of the IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0, “Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)—Method of specifying the performance and test requirements” standard. DOE has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, (i.e., that they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.

    M. Description of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The proposed rule incorporates Section 6 and Annex J of the IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0, “Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)—Method of specifying the performance and test requirements” standard. This standard is used to specify the testing requirements for UPSs and is available from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036 or at http://webstore.ansi.org/.

    V. Public Participation A. Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or [email protected]

    Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary procedures can be completed.

    DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as tablets, checked upon entry into the building. Any person wishing to bring these devices into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through security.

    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required. DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.

    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=26&action=viewlive. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

    C. Conduct of Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the public meeting and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.

    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.

    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.

    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

    D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this proposed rule.

    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:

    1. DOE requests comment on the proposal to include specific test provisions for UPSs in the battery charger test procedure. See section III.A for further detail.

    2. DOE requests stakeholder comments on the type of changes that are being considered for the revised IEC 62040-3 standard and how it may impact the test procedure proposed today. See section III.B for further detail.

    3. DOE requests comment on all proposed definitions, particularly those that are not defined in existing industry standards. See section III.C for further detail.

    4. DOE requests comment on the proposed test conditions. See section III.D for further detail.

    5. DOE requests comment on the proposed two different methods of calculating average power. DOE requests comment on the comparability of the results from the two methods. See section III.G for further detail.

    6. DOE requests comment on the proposed output metric for UPSs. See section III.H for further detail.

    7. DOE seeks comment on whether the proposed test procedure changes will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. See section IV.B for further detail.

    VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 429

    Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend parts 429 and 430 of chapter II of title 10, subchapter D of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 429—CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

    2. Revise § 429.39 to read as follows:
    § 429.39 Battery chargers.

    (a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers must determine a represented value, which includes the certified rating, for each basic model of battery charger in accordance with the following sampling provisions.

    (1) Represented values include: Battery discharge energy in watt hours (Wh), 24-hour energy consumption in watt hours (Wh), maintenance mode power in watts (W), standby mode power in watts (W), and off mode power in watts (W) for all battery chargers other than UPSs; and average load adjusted efficiency (Effavg) for UPSs.

    (2) Units to be tested. (i) The general requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to battery chargers; and

    (ii) For each basic model, a sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--

    (A) Any represented value of annual energy consumption, power, or other measure of energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values is greater than or equal to the higher of:

    (1) The mean of the sample, where:

    EP19MY16.036

    And, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and x i is the ith sample; or,

    (2) The upper 97.5-percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.05, where:

    EP19MY16.037

    And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the number of samples; and t 0.975 is the t-statistic for a 97.5-percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from appendix A of this subpart). And,

    (B) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values is less than or equal to the lower of:

    (1) The mean of the sample, where:

    EP19MY16.038

    And, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and x i is the ith sample; or,

    (2) The lower 97.5-percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.95, where:

    EP19MY16.039

    And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the number of samples; and t 0.975 is the t-statistic for a 97.5-percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from appendix A of this subpart).

    (b) Certification reports. (1) The requirements of § 429.12 are applicable to battery chargers.

    (2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report must include the following public product-specific information for all battery chargers other than UPSs: The manufacturer and model of the test battery, the nameplate battery voltage of the test battery in volts (V), the nameplate charge capacity of the test battery in ampere-hours (Ah), the nameplate charge energy, if available, of the battery in watt hours (Wh), the manufacturer and model, when applicable, of the external power supply used for testing; the average duration of the charge and maintenance mode test in hours (hr) for the units sampled; battery discharge energy in watt hours (Wh); 24-hour energy consumption in watt hours (Wh); maintenance mode power in watts (W); standby mode power in watts (W); and off made power in watts (W). For UPSs, a certification report must include the following public product-specific information: active power in watts (W); apparent power in volt-amperes (VA); rated input and output voltages in volts (V); efficiencies at 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent of the reference test load; and average normal mode efficiency.

    PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    4. Section 430.3 is amended, as amended at 81 FR 25600 (April 29, 2016), effective May 31, 2016, by: a. Redesignating paragraphs (p)(3) through (p)(5) as paragraphs (p)(4) through (p)(6) respectively; and b. Adding new paragraph (p)(3) to read as follows:
    § 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.

    (p) * * *

    (3) IEC Standard 62040-3 Ed. 2.0, (“IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0”), Uninterruptible Power Systems (UPS)—Part 3: Method of Specifying the Performance and Test Requirements, Edition 2.0, Section 6 “UPS tests,” and Annex J “UPS efficiency,” March 2011, IBR approved for appendix Y to subpart B.

    5. Section 430.23(aa) is revised to read as follows:
    § 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water consumption.

    (aa) Battery chargers. Measure the energy consumption or energy efficiency of a battery charger in accordance with appendix Y to this subpart.

    6. Appendix Y to subpart B of part 430 is amended by: a. Revising section 1, Scope; b. Amending section 2 as follows: 1. Redesignating section 2.24 as section 2.28; 2. Adding a new section 2.24; 3. Redesignating sections 2.22 and 2.23 as sections 2.25 and 2.26, respectively; 4. Adding sections 2.27, 2.27.1, 2.27.2, and 2.27.3; 5. Redesignating sections 2.18 through 2.21 as sections 2.20 through 2.23, respectively; 6. Adding a new section 2.19; 7. Redesignating sections 2.12 through 2.17 as sections 2.13 through 2.18, respectively; 8. Adding a new section 2.12; c. Revising sections 3 and 4; and d. Removing section 5.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers 1. Scope

    This appendix covers the testing requirements used to measure the energy consumption for battery chargers operating at either DC or United States AC line voltage (115V at 60Hz). This appendix also covers the testing requirements used to measure the energy efficiency for uninterruptible power supplies as defined in section 2 of this appendix with an AC output.

    2. Definitions

    2.12. Energy storage system is a system consisting of single or multiple devices designed to provide power to the UPS inverter circuitry.

    2.19. Normal mode is a mode of operation for a UPS in which:

    (1) The UPS provides required output power to the connected load without switching to battery power,

    (2) The energy storage system is being maintained at full charge, and

    (3) The load connected to the UPS is within the UPS's specified power rating.

    2.24. Reference test load is a load or a condition with a power factor of greater than 0.99 in which the AC output socket of the UPS delivers the active power (W) for which the UPS is rated.

    2.27. Uninterruptible power supply or UPS means a battery charger consisting of a combination of convertors, switches and energy storage devices, constituting a power system for maintaining continuity of load power in case of input power failure.

    2.27.1. Voltage and frequency dependent UPS or VFD UPS means a UPS that produces an AC output where the output voltage and frequency are dependent on the input voltage and frequency. This UPS architecture does not provide corrective functions like those in voltage independent and voltage and frequency independent systems.

    Note to 2.27.1: VFD input dependency may be verified by performing the AC input failure test in section 6.2.2.7 of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3 of this chapter) and observing that, at a minimum, the UPS switches from normal mode of operation to battery power while the input is interrupted.

    2.27.2. Voltage and frequency independent UPS or VFI UPS means a UPS where the device remains in normal mode producing an AC output voltage and frequency that is independent of input voltage and frequency variations and protects the load against adverse effects from such variations without depleting the stored energy source. The input voltage and frequency variations through which the UPS must remain in normal mode is as follows:

    (1) ±10% of the rated input voltage or the tolerance range specified by the manufacturer, whichever is greater; and

    (2) ±2% of the rated input frequency or the tolerance range specified by the manufacturer, whichever is greater.”

    Note to 2.27.2: VFI input dependency may be verified by performing the steady state input voltage tolerance test and the input frequency tolerance test in sections 6.4.1.1 and 6.4.1.2 of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3 of this chapter) respectively and observing that, at a minimum, the output voltage and frequency remain within the specified output tolerance band during the test.

    2.27.3. Voltage independent UPS or VI UPS means a UPS that produces an AC output within a specific tolerance band that is independent of under-voltage or over-voltage variations in the input voltage. The output frequency of a VI UPS is dependent on the input frequency, similar to a voltage and frequency dependent system.

    Note to 2.27.3: VI input dependency may be verified by performing the steady state input voltage tolerance test in section 6.4.1.1 of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3 of this chapter) and observing that the output voltage remains within the specified limit during the test.

    3. Testing Requirements for All Battery Chargers Other Than Uninterruptible Power Supplies 3.1. Standard Test Conditions

    3.1.1. General. The values that may be measured or calculated during the conduct of this test procedure have been summarized for easy reference in Table 3.1.1 of this appendix.

    Table 3.1.1—List of Measured or Calculated Values Name of measured or calculated value Reference 1. Duration of the charge and maintenance mode test Section 3.3.2. 2. Battery Discharge Energy Section 3.2.6. 3. Initial time and power (W) of the input current of connected battery Section 3.3.8. 4. Active and Maintenance Mode Energy Consumption Section 3.3.8. 5. Maintenance Mode Power Section 3.3.9. 6. 24 Hour Energy Consumption Section 3.3.10. 7. Standby Mode Power Section 3.3.11. 8. Off Mode Power Section 3.3.12.

    3.1.2. Verifying Accuracy and Precision of Measuring Equipment

    (a) Measurements of active power of 0.5 W or greater shall be made with an uncertainty of ≤2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. Measurements of active power of less than 0.5 W shall be made with an uncertainty of ≤0.01 W at the 95 percent confidence level. The power measurement instrument shall, as applicable, have a resolution of:

    (1) 0.01 W or better for measurements up to 10 W;

    (2) 0.1 W or better for measurements of 10 to 100 W; or

    (3) 1 W or better for measurements over 100 W.

    (b) Measurements of energy (Wh) shall be made with an uncertainty of ≤2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. Measurements of voltage and current shall be made with an uncertainty of ≤1 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. Measurements of temperature shall be made with an uncertainty of ≤2 °C at the 95 percent confidence level.

    (c) All equipment used to conduct the tests must be selected and calibrated to ensure that measurements will meet the above uncertainty requirements. For suggestions on measuring low power levels, see IEC 62301, (Reference for guidance only, see § 430.4 of this chapter) especially section 5.3.2 and Annexes B and D.

    3.1.3. Setting Up the Test Room. All tests, battery conditioning, and battery rest periods shall be carried out in a room with an air speed immediately surrounding the UUT of ≤0.5 m/s. The ambient temperature shall be maintained at 20 °C ±5 °C throughout the test. There shall be no intentional cooling of the UUT such as by use of separately powered fans, air conditioners, or heat sinks. The UUT shall be conditioned, rested, and tested on a thermally non-conductive surface. When not undergoing active testing, batteries shall be stored at 20 °C ±5 °C.

    3.1.4. Verifying the UUT's Input Voltage and Input Frequency

    (a) If the UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage input in the United States, it shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. If the UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage input but cannot be operated at 115 V at 60 Hz, it shall not be tested.

    (b) If a charger is powered by a low-voltage DC or AC input, and the manufacturer packages the charger with a wall adapter, sells, or recommends an optional wall adapter capable of providing that low voltage input, then the charger shall be tested using that wall adapter and the input reference source shall be 115 V at 60 Hz. If the wall adapter cannot be operated with AC input voltage at 115 V at 60 Hz, the charger shall not be tested.

    (c) If the UUT is designed for operation only on DC input voltage and the provisions of section 3.1.4(b) of this appendix do not apply, it shall be tested with one of the following input voltages: 5.0 V DC for products drawing power from a computer USB port or the midpoint of the rated input voltage range for all other products. The input voltage shall be within ±1 percent of the above specified voltage.

    (d) If the input voltage is AC, the input frequency shall be within ±1 percent of the specified frequency. The THD of the input voltage shall be ≤2 percent, up to and including the 13th harmonic. The crest factor of the input voltage shall be between 1.34 and 1.49.

    (e) If the input voltage is DC, the AC ripple voltage (RMS) shall be:

    (1) ≤0.2 V for DC voltages up to 10 V; or

    (2) ≤2 percent of the DC voltage for DC voltages over 10 V.

    3.2. Unit Under Test Setup Requirements

    3.2.1. General Setup

    (a) The battery charger system shall be prepared and set up in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, except where those instructions conflict with the requirements of this test procedure. If no instructions are given, then factory or “default” settings shall be used, or where there are no indications of such settings, the UUT shall be tested in the condition as it would be supplied to an end user.

    (b) If the battery charger has user controls to select from two or more charge rates (such as regular or fast charge) or different charge currents, the test shall be conducted at the fastest charge rate that is recommended by the manufacturer for everyday use, or, failing any explicit recommendation, the factory-default charge rate. If the charger has user controls for selecting special charge cycles that are recommended only for occasional use to preserve battery health, such as equalization charge, removing memory, or battery conditioning, these modes are not required to be tested. The settings of the controls shall be listed in the report for each test.

    3.2.2. Selection and Treatment of the Battery Charger. The UUT, including the battery charger and its associated battery, shall be new products of the type and condition that would be sold to a customer. If the battery is lead-acid chemistry and the battery is to be stored for more than 24 hours between its initial acquisition and testing, the battery shall be charged before such storage.

    3.2.3. Selection of Batteries To Use for Testing

    (a) For chargers with integral batteries, the battery packaged with the charger shall be used for testing. For chargers with detachable batteries, the battery or batteries to be used for testing will vary depending on whether there are any batteries packaged with the battery charger.

    (1) If batteries are packaged with the charger, batteries for testing shall be selected from the batteries packaged with the battery charger, according to the procedure in section 3.2.3(b) of this appendix.

    (2) If no batteries are packaged with the charger, but the instructions specify or recommend batteries for use with the charger, batteries for testing shall be selected from those recommended or specified in the instructions, according to the procedure in section 3.2.3(b) of this appendix.

    (3) If no batteries are packaged with the charger and the instructions do not specify or recommend batteries for use with the charger, batteries for testing shall be selected from any that are suitable for use with the charger, according to the procedure in section 3.2.3(b) of this appendix.

    (b) From the detachable batteries specified in section 3.2.3(a), the technician shall use Table 3.2.1 of this appendix to select the batteries to be used for testing depending on the type of charger being tested. Each row in the table represents a mutually exclusive charger type. The technician shall find the single applicable row for the UUT, and test according to those requirements.

    (c) A charger is considered as:

    (1) Single-capacity if all associated batteries have the same rated charge capacity (see section 2.22) and, if it is a batch charger, all configurations of the batteries have the same rated charge capacity.

    (2) Multi-capacity if there are associated batteries or configurations of batteries that have different rated charge capacities.

    (d) The selected battery or batteries will be referred to as the “test battery” and will be used through the remainder of this test procedure.

    Table 3.2.1—Battery Selection for Testing Type of charger Multi-voltage Multi-port Multi-capacity Tests to perform Number of tests Battery selection (from all configurations of all
  • associated batteries)
  • No No No 1 Any associated battery. No No Yes 2 Lowest charge capacity battery.
  • Highest charge capacity battery.
  • No Yes Yes or No 2 Use only one port and use the minimum number of batteries with the lowest rated charge capacity that the charger can charge.
  • Use all ports and use the maximum number of identical batteries of the highest rated charge capacity the charger can accommodate.
  • Yes No No 2 Lowest voltage battery.
  • Highest voltage battery.
  • Yes Yes to either or both 3 Of the batteries with the lowest voltage, use the one with the lowest charge capacity. Use only one port.
  • Of the batteries with the highest voltage, use the one with the lowest charge capacity. Use only one port.
  • Use all ports and use the battery or the configuration of batteries with the highest total rated energy capacity.
  • 3.2.4. Limiting Other Non-Battery-Charger Functions

    (a) If the battery charger or product containing the battery charger does not have any additional functions unrelated to battery charging, this subsection may be skipped.

    (b) Any optional functions controlled by the user and not associated with the battery charging process (e.g., the answering machine in a cordless telephone charging base) shall be switched off. If it is not possible to switch such functions off, they shall be set to their lowest power-consuming mode during the test.

    (c) If the battery charger takes any physically separate connectors or cables not required for battery charging but associated with its other functionality (such as phone lines, serial or USB connections, Ethernet, cable TV lines, etc.), these connectors or cables shall be left disconnected during the testing.

    (d) Any manual on-off switches specifically associated with the battery charging process shall be switched on for the duration of the charge, maintenance, and no-battery mode tests, and switched off for the off mode test.

    3.2.5. Accessing the Battery for the Test

    (a) The technician may need to disassemble the end-use product or battery charger to gain access to the battery terminals for the Battery Discharge Energy Test in section 3.3.6 of this appendix. If the battery terminals are not clearly labeled, the technician shall use a voltmeter to identify the positive and negative terminals. These terminals will be the ones that give the largest voltage difference and are able to deliver significant current (0.2 C or 1/hr) into a load.

    (b) All conductors used for contacting the battery must be cleaned and burnished prior to connecting in order to decrease voltage drops and achieve consistent results.

    (c) Manufacturer's instructions for disassembly shall be followed, except those instructions that:

    (1) Lead to any permanent alteration of the battery charger circuitry or function;

    (2) Could alter the energy consumption of the battery charger compared to that experienced by a user during typical use, e.g., due to changes in the airflow through the enclosure of the UUT; or

    (3) Conflict requirements of this test procedure.

    (d) Care shall be taken by the technician during disassembly to follow appropriate safety precautions. If the functionality of the device or its safety features is compromised, the product shall be discarded after testing.

    (e) Some products may include protective circuitry between the battery cells and the remainder of the device. If the manufacturer provides a description for accessing the connections at the output of the protective circuitry, these connections shall be used to discharge the battery and measure the discharge energy. The energy consumed by the protective circuitry during discharge shall not be measured or credited as battery energy.

    (f) If the technician, despite diligent effort and use of the manufacturer's instructions, encounters any of the following conditions noted immediately below, the Battery Discharge Energy and the Charging and Maintenance Mode Energy shall be reported as “Not Applicable”:

    (1) Inability to access the battery terminals;

    (2) Access to the battery terminals destroys charger functionality; or

    (3) Inability to draw current from the test battery.

    3.2.6. Determining Charge Capacity for Batteries With No Rating.

    (a) If there is no rating for the battery charge capacity on the battery or in the instructions, then the technician shall determine a discharge current that meets the following requirements. The battery shall be fully charged and then discharged at this constant-current rate until it reaches the end-of-discharge voltage specified in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix. The discharge time must be not less than 4.5 hours nor more than 5 hours. In addition, the discharge test (section 3.3.6 of this appendix) (which may not be starting with a fully-charged battery) shall reach the end-of-discharge voltage within 5 hours. The same discharge current shall be used for both the preparations step (section 3.3.4 of this appendix) and the discharge test (section 3.3.6 of this appendix). The test report shall include the discharge current used and the resulting discharge times for both a fully-charged battery and for the discharge test.

    (b) For this section, the battery is considered as “fully charged” when either: It has been charged by the UUT until an indicator on the UUT shows that the charge is complete; or it has been charged by a battery analyzer at a current not greater than the discharge current until the battery analyzer indicates that the battery is fully charged.

    (c) When there is no capacity rating, a suitable discharge current must generally be determined by trial and error. Since the conditioning step does not require constant-current discharges, the trials themselves may also be counted as part of battery conditioning.

    3.3. Test Measurement

    The test sequence to measure the battery charger energy consumption is summarized in Table 3.3.1 of this appendix, and explained in detail below. Measurements shall be made under test conditions and with the equipment specified in sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this appendix.

    Table 3.3.1—Test Sequence Step Description Data
  • taken?
  • Equipment needed Test
  • battery
  • Charger Battery
  • analyzer or constant-
  • current load
  • AC power
  • meter
  • Thermometer
  • (for flooded
  • lead-acid
  • battery
  • chargers only)
  • 1 Record general data on UUT; Section 3.3.1 Yes X X 2 Determine test duration; Section 3.3.2 No 3 Battery conditioning; Section 3.3.3 No X X X 4 Prepare battery for charge test; Section 3.3.4 No X X 5 Battery rest period; Section 3.3.5 No X X 6 Conduct Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode Test; Section 3.3.6 Yes X X X 7 Battery Rest Period; Section 3.3.7 No X X 8 Battery Discharge Energy Test; Section 3.3.8 Yes X X 9 Determining the Maintenance Mode Power; Section 3.3.9 Yes X X X 10 Calculating the 24-Hour Energy Consumption; Section 3.3.10 No 11 Standby Mode Test; Section 3.3.11 Yes X X 12 Off Mode Test; Section 3.3.12 Yes X X

    3.3.1. Recording General Data on the UUT. The technician shall record:

    (a) The manufacturer and model of the battery charger;

    (b) The presence and status of any additional functions unrelated to battery charging;

    (c) The manufacturer, model, and number of batteries in the test battery;

    (d) The rated battery voltage of the test battery;

    (e) The rated charge capacity of the test battery; and

    (f) The rated charge energy of the test battery.

    (g) The settings of the controls, if battery charger has user controls to select from two or more charge rates.

    3.3.2. Determining the Duration of the Charge and Maintenance Mode Test.

    (a) The charging and maintenance mode test, described in detail in section 3.3.8 of this appendix, shall be 24 hours in length or longer, as determined by the items below. Proceed in order until a test duration is determined.

    (1) If the battery charger has an indicator to show that the battery is fully charged, that indicator shall be used as follows: If the indicator shows that the battery is charged after 19 hours of charging, the test shall be terminated at 24 hours. Conversely, if the full-charge indication is not yet present after 19 hours of charging, the test shall continue until 5 hours after the indication is present.

    (2) If there is no indicator, but the manufacturer's instructions indicate that charging this battery or this capacity of battery should be complete within 19 hours, the test shall be for 24 hours. If the instructions indicate that charging may take longer than 19 hours, the test shall be run for the longest estimated charge time plus 5 hours.

    (3) If there is no indicator and no time estimate in the instructions, but the charging current is stated on the charger or in the instructions, calculate the test duration as the longer of 24 hours or:

    EP19MY16.040

    (b) If none of the above applies, the duration of the test shall be 24 hours.

    3.3.3. Battery Conditioning.

    (a) No conditioning is to be done on lead-acid or lithium-ion batteries. The test technician shall proceed directly to battery preparation, section 3.3.4 of this appendix, when testing chargers for these batteries.

    (b) Products with integral batteries will have to be disassembled per the instructions in section 3.2.5 of this appendix, and the battery disconnected from the charger for discharging.

    (c) Batteries of other chemistries that have not been previously cycled are to be conditioned by performing two charges and two discharges, followed by a charge, as below. No data need be recorded during battery conditioning.

    (1) The test battery shall be fully charged for the duration specified in section 3.3.2 of this appendix or longer using the UUT.

    (2) The test battery shall then be fully discharged using either:

    (i) A battery analyzer at a rate not to exceed 1 C, until its average cell voltage under load reaches the end-of-discharge voltage specified in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the relevant battery chemistry; or

    (ii) The UUT, until the UUT ceases operation due to low battery voltage.

    (3) The test battery shall again be fully charged as in step (c)(1) of this section.

    (4) The test battery shall again be fully discharged as per step (c)(2) of this section.

    (5) The test battery shall be again fully charged as in step (c)(1) of this section.

    (d) Batteries of chemistries other than lead-acid or lithium-ion that are known to have been through at least two previous full charge/discharge cycles shall only be charged once per step (c)(5), of this section.

    3.3.4. Preparing the Battery for Charge Testing. Following any conditioning prior to beginning the battery charge test (section 3.3.6 of this appendix), the test battery shall be fully discharged for the duration specified in section 3.3.2 of this appendix, or longer using a battery analyzer.

    3.3.5. Resting the Battery. The test battery shall be rested between preparation and the battery charge test. The rest period shall be at least one hour and not exceed 24 hours. For batteries with flooded cells, the electrolyte temperature shall be less than 30 °C before charging, even if the rest period must be extended longer than 24 hours.

    3.3.6. Testing Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode

    (a) The Charge and Battery Maintenance Mode test measures the energy consumed during charge mode and some time spent in the maintenance mode of the UUT. Functions required for battery conditioning that happen only with some user-selected switch or other control shall not be included in this measurement. (The technician shall manually turn off any battery conditioning cycle or setting.) Regularly occurring battery conditioning or maintenance functions that are not controlled by the user will, by default, be incorporated into this measurement.

    (b) During the measurement period, input power values to the UUT shall be recorded at least once every minute.

    (1) If possible, the technician shall set the data logging system to record the average power during the sample interval. The total energy is computed as the sum of power samples (in watts) multiplied by the sample interval (in hours).

    (2) If this setting is not possible, then the power analyzer shall be set to integrate or accumulate the input power over the measurement period and this result shall be used as the total energy.

    (c) The technician shall follow these steps:

    (1) Ensure that the user-controllable device functionality not associated with battery charging and any battery conditioning cycle or setting are turned off, as instructed in section 3.2.4 of this appendix;

    (2) Ensure that the test battery used in this test has been conditioned, prepared, discharged, and rested as described in sections 3.3.3 through 3.3.7 of this appendix;

    (3) Connect the data logging equipment to the battery charger;

    (4) Record the start time of the measurement period, and begin logging the input power;

    (5) Connect the test battery to the battery charger within 3 minutes of beginning logging. For integral battery products, connect the product to a cradle or wall adapter within 3 minutes of beginning logging;

    (6) After the test battery is connected, record the initial time and power (W) of the input current to the UUT. These measurements shall be taken within the first 10 minutes of active charging;

    (7) Record the input power for the duration of the “Charging and Maintenance Mode Test” period, as determined by section 3.3.2 of this appendix. The actual time that power is connected to the UUT shall be within ±5 minutes of the specified period; and

    (8) Disconnect power to the UUT, terminate data logging, and record the final time.

    3.3.7. Resting the Battery. The test battery shall be rested between charging and discharging. The rest period shall be at least 1 hour and not more than 4 hours, with an exception for flooded cells. For batteries with flooded cells, the electrolyte temperature shall be less than 30 °C before charging, even if the rest period must be extended beyond 4 hours.

    3.3.8. Battery Discharge Energy Test

    (a) If multiple batteries were charged simultaneously, the discharge energy is the sum of the discharge energies of all the batteries.

    (1) For a multi-port charger, batteries that were charged in separate ports shall be discharged independently.

    (2) For a batch charger, batteries that were charged as a group may be discharged individually, as a group, or in sub-groups connected in series and/or parallel. The position of each battery with respect to the other batteries need not be maintained.

    (b) During discharge, the battery voltage and discharge current shall be sampled and recorded at least once per minute. The values recorded may be average or instantaneous values.

    (c) For this test, the technician shall follow these steps:

    (1) Ensure that the test battery has been charged by the UUT and rested according to the procedures above.

    (2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant discharge current of 0.2 °C and the end-of-discharge voltage in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the relevant battery chemistry.

    (3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer and begin recording the voltage, current, and wattage, if available from the battery analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage is reached or the UUT circuitry terminates the discharge, the test battery shall be returned to an open-circuit condition. If current continues to be drawn from the test battery after the end-of-discharge condition is first reached, this additional energy is not to be counted in the battery discharge energy.

    (d) If not available from the battery analyzer, the battery discharge energy (in watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the voltage (in volts), current (in amperes), and sample period (in hours) for each sample, and then summing over all sample periods until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached.

    3.3.9. Determining the Maintenance Mode Power. After the measurement period is complete, the technician shall determine the average maintenance mode power consumption by examining the power-versus-time data from the charge and maintenance test and:

    (a) If the maintenance mode power is cyclic or shows periodic pulses, compute the average power over a time period that spans a whole number of cycles and includes at least the last 4 hours.

    (b) Otherwise, calculate the average power value over the last 4 hours.

    3.3.10. Determining the 24-Hour Energy Consumption. The accumulated energy or the average input power, integrated over the test period from the charge and maintenance mode test, shall be used to calculate 24-hour energy consumption.

    Table 3.3.2—Required Battery Discharge Rates and End-of-Discharge Battery Voltages Battery chemistry Discharge rate
  • C
  • End-of-
  • discharge
  • voltage
  • volts per cell
  • Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) 0.2 1.75 Flooded Lead Acid 0.2 1.70 Nickel Cadmium (NiCd) 0.2 1.0 Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) 0.2 1.0 Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) 0.2 2.5 Lithium Polymer 0.2 2.5 Rechargeable Alkaline 0.2 0.9 Nanophosphate Lithium Ion 0.2 2.0 Silver Zinc 0.2 1.2

    3.3.11. Standby Mode Energy Consumption Measurement. The standby mode measurement depends on the configuration of the battery charger, as follows.

    (a) Conduct a measurement of standby power consumption while the battery charger is connected to the power source. Disconnect the battery from the charger, allow the charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time series integral of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period, divided by the period of measurement. If the battery charger has manual on-off switches, all must be turned on for the duration of the standby mode test.

    (b) Standby mode may also apply to products with integral batteries. If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power conversion and charging, then “disconnecting the battery from the charger” will require disconnection of the end-use product, which contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and standby mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or adapter alone.

    (c) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry, then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and standby mode power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero watts).

    (d) Finally, if the product contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain connected to mains, and standby mode measurement is not applicable.

    3.3.12. Off Mode Energy Consumption Measurement. The off mode measurement depends on the configuration of the battery charger, as follows.

    (a) If the battery charger has manual on-off switches, record a measurement of off mode energy consumption while the battery charger is connected to the power source. Remove the battery from the charger, allow the charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time series integral of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period, divided by the period of measurement, with all manual on-off switches turned off. If the battery charger does not have manual on-off switches, record that the off mode measurement is not applicable to this product.

    (b) Off mode may also apply to products with integral batteries. If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power conversion and charging, then “disconnecting the battery from the charger” will require disconnection of the end-use product, which contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and off mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or adapter alone.

    (c) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry, then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and off mode power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero watts).

    (d) Finally, if the product contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain connected to mains, and off mode measurement is not applicable.

    4. Testing Requirements for Uninterruptible Power Supplies 4.1. Standard Test Conditions

    4.1.1. Measuring Equipment.

    (a) The power meter must provide true root mean square (r.m.s.) measurements of the active input and output power, with an uncertainty at full rated load of less than or equal to 0.5% at the 95% confidence level notwithstanding that voltage and current waveforms can include harmonic components. The power meter must measure input and output values simultaneously.

    (b) All measurement equipment used to conduct the tests must be calibrated within the past year of the test date by a standard traceable to International System of Units such that measurements meet the above uncertainty requirements.

    4.1.2. Test Room Requirements. All portions of the test must be carried out in a room with an air speed immediately surrounding the UUT of ≤0.5 m/s. Maintain the ambient temperature in the range of 20.0 °C to 30.0 °C, including all inaccuracies and uncertainties introduced by the temperature measurement equipment, throughout the test. No intentional cooling of the UUT, such as by use of separately powered fans, air conditioners, or heat sinks, is permitted. Test the UUT on a thermally non-conductive surface.

    4.1.3. Input Voltage and Input Frequency. The AC input voltage and frequency to the UPS during testing must be within 3 percent of the highest rated voltage and within 1 percent of the highest rated frequency of the device.

    4.2. Unit Under Test Setup Requirements

    4.2.1. General Setup. Configure the UPS according to Appendix J.2 of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3 of this chapter) with the following additional requirements:

    (a) UPS Operating Mode Conditions. If the UPS can operate in two or more distinct normal modes as more than one UPS architecture, conduct the test in its lowest input dependency as well as in its highest input dependency mode where VFD represents the lowest possible input dependency, followed by VI and then VFI.

    (b) Energy Storage System. The UPS must not be modified or adjusted to disable energy storage charging features. Minimize the transfer of energy to and from the energy storage system by ensuring the energy storage system is fully charged (at the start of testing) as follows:

    (1) If the UUT has a battery charge indicator, charge the battery for 5 hours after the UUT has indicated that it is fully charged.

    (2) If the UUT does not have a battery charge indicator but the user manual shipped with the UUT specifies a time to reach full charge, charge the battery for 5 hours longer than the time specified.

    (3) If the UUT does not have a battery charge indicator or user manual instructions, charge the battery for 24 hours.

    4.3. Test Measurement and Calculation.

    4.3.1. Average Power Calculations. Perform all average power measurements and calculations in this section using one of the following methods:

    (a) Record the accumulated energy (Ei) in kilowatt hours (kWh) consumed over the time period specified for each test (Ti). Calculate the average power consumption as follows:

    EP19MY16.041
    Where: P avg = average power E i = accumulated energy measured during time period of test T i = time period of test

    (b) Record the average power consumption (Pavg) by sampling the power at a rate of at least 1 sample per second and computing the arithmetic mean of all samples over the time period specified for each test as follows:

    EP19MY16.042 Where: P avg = average power P i = power measured during individual measurement (i) n = total number of measurements

    4.3.2. Steady State. Operate the UUT and the load for a sufficient length of time to reach steady state conditions. To determine if steady state conditions have been attained, perform the following steady state check, in which the difference between the two efficiency calculations must be less than 1 percent:

    (a) Simultaneously measure the UUT's input and output power for at least 5 minutes, as specified in section 4.3.1 of this appendix, and record the average of each over the duration as PAVG_IN and PAVG_OUT, respectively.

    (b) Calculate the UUT's efficiency, Eff 1, using the following equation:

    EP19MY16.043 Where: Eff is the UUT efficiency P AVG_OUT is the average output power in watts P AVG_IN is the average input power in watts

    (c) Wait a minimum of 10 minutes.

    (d) Repeat the steps listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 4.3.1 of this appendix to calculate another efficiency value, Eff 2.

    (e) Determine if the product is at steady state using the following equation:

    EP19MY16.044

    If the percentage difference of Eff 1 and Eff 2 as described in the above equation, is less than 1 percent, the product is at steady state.

    (f) If the percentage difference is greater than or equal to 1 percent, the product is not at steady state. Repeat the steps listed in paragraphs (c) to (e) of section 4.3.1 of this appendix until the product is at steady state.

    4.3.3. Power measurements and efficiency calculations. Measure input and output power of the UUT for efficiency calculations according to Section J.3 of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3 of this chapter), with the following exceptions:

    (a) Test the UUT at the following reference test load conditions, in the following order: 100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of the rated output power.

    (b) Perform the test at each of the reference test loads by simultaneously measuring the UUT's total input and output energy in watt-hours (Wh) over a 15 minute test period with a total energy accumulation rate of at least 1 Hz. Calculate the UUT's average input power and output power for the period using the method in section 4.3.1 of this appendix, and the efficiency for that reference load using the following equation:

    EP19MY16.045 Where: Eff n = the efficiency at reference test load n% P avgOut n % = the average output power at reference load n % P avgIn n % = the average input power at reference load n %

    4.3.4. UUT Classification. Determine the UPS architecture by performing the tests specified in the definitions of VI, VFD, and VFI (sections 2.27.1 through 2.27.3 of this appendix).

    4.3.5. Output Efficiency Calculation.

    (a) Use the load weightings from Table 4.3.1 of this appendix to determine the average normal mode loading efficiency as follows:

    Effavg = (t 25 % × Eff|25%) + (t 50 % × Eff|50 %) + (t 75 % × Eff|75 %) + (t 100 % × Eff|100 %) Where: Effavg = the average normal mode loading efficiency t n % = the portion of time spent at reference test load n% as specified in Table 4.3.1 of this appendix Eff|n% = the measured efficiency at reference test load n% Table 4.3.1—Load Weightings Rated output power
  • (W)
  • UPS architecture Portion of time spent at reference load 25% 50% 75% 100%
    P ≤1500 W VFD 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 VI or VFI 0 0.3 0.4 0.3 P >1500 W VFD, VI, or VFI 0 0.3 0.4 0.3

    (b) Round the calculated efficiency value to one tenth of a percentage point.

    [FR Doc. 2016-11205 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 [Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0044] RIN 1904-AC37 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps; Withdrawal AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) withdraws its proposal for establishing test procedures for high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps in light of the fact that DOE published a final determination on December 9, 2015 concluding that energy conservation standards for HID lamps are not justified, thereby negating the need for an HID test procedure.

    DATES:

    The proposed rule published on December 15, 2011 (76 FR 77914) and updated on May 22, 2014 (79 FR 29632) is withdrawn as of May 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected] Ms. Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (703) 887-7971. Email: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Authority

    Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.), Public Law 94-163, sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part C of title III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment,” a program covering certain industrial equipment, which include the HID lamps that are the subject of this notice. Pursuant to EPCA, DOE must prescribe test procedures and energy conservation standards for HID lamps for which DOE has determined that standards would be technologically feasible, economically justified, and would result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1))

    II. Discussion

    On December 15, 2011, DOE published a Notice of Proposed rulemaking to establish test procedures for HID lamps under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA). 76 FR 77914. Subsequently, on May 22, 2014, DOE published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed rulemaking, updating the earlier NOPR test procedure. 79 FR 29632.

    Today, DOE is withdrawing its test procedure proposal because on December 9, 2015 it published a final determination that energy conservation standards for HID lamps are not justified, consequently negating the need for an HID test procedure. 80 FR 76355.

    III. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this withdrawal.

    List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities, Business and industry, Energy conservation, Grants programs—energy, Housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technical assistance.

    10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 13, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. 2016-11912 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 310 [Docket ID: DoD-2016-OS-0059] Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to exempt records maintained in DUSDI 01-DoD “Department of Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System,” from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H), and (I), (5), and (8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy Act. A system of records notice for this system has been published today in the Federal Register.

    In addition, in the course of carrying out collections and analysis of information in connection with the operations of the DITMAC and DoD Component insider threat programs, exempt records received from other systems of records may become part of this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those other systems of records are maintained in this system, the Department also claims the same exemptions for the records from those other systems that are maintained in this system, as claimed for the original primary system of which they are a part.

    DATES:

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment. Therefore, please submit any comments by June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Allard, Director of the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division, 703-571-0070.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The DITMAC was established by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in order to consolidate and analyze insider threat information reported by the DoD Component insider threat programs mandated by Presidential Executive Order 13587, issued October 7, 2011, which required Federal agencies to establish an insider threat detection and prevention program to ensure the security of classified networks and the responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information consistent with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. For purposes of this system of records, the term “insider threat” is defined in the Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Task Force based on direction provided in Section 6.3(b) of Executive Order 13587. The DITMAC helps prevent, deter, detect, and/or mitigate the potential threat that personnel, including DoD military personnel, civilian employees, and contractor personnel, who have or had been granted eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position may harm the security of the United States. This threat can include damage to the United States through espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of national security information, or through the loss or degradation of departmental resources or capabilities.

    The system of records will be used to analyze, monitor, and audit insider threat information for insider threat detection and mitigation within DoD on threats that persons who have or had been granted eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive positions may pose to DoD and U.S. Government installations, facilities, personnel, missions, or resources. The system of records will support the DITMAC and DoD Component insider threat programs, enable the identification of systemic insider threat issues and challenges, and provide a basis for the development and recommendation of solutions to deter, detect, and/or mitigate potential insider threats. It will assist in identifying best practices among other Federal Government insider threat programs, through the use of existing DoD resources and functions and by leveraging existing authorities, policies, programs, systems, and architectures.

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

    It has been determined that this rule is not a significant rule. This rule does not (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive orders.

    Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C Chapter 6)

    It has been certified that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within DoD. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.

    Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    It has been determined that this rule does not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Section 202, Public Law 104-4, “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act”

    It has been determined that this rule does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”

    It has been determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. This rule does 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.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 310

    Privacy.

    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 310 [Amended] 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 310 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552a.

    §§ 310.30 through 310.53 [Redesignated as §§ 310.31 through 310.54]
    2. Redesignate § 310.30 through § 310.53 as § 310.31 through § 310.54. 3. In Subpart F, add a new § 310.30 to read as follows:
    § 310.30 DoD-wide exemptions.

    (a) Use of DoD-wide exemptions. DoD-wide exemptions for DOD-wide systems of records are established pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k) of the Privacy Act.

    (b) Promises of confidentiality. (1) Only the identity of sources that have been given an express promise of confidentiality may be protected from disclosure under paragraphs (d)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) and (d)(4) of this section. However, the identity of sources who were given implied promises of confidentiality in inquiries conducted before September 27, 1975, also may be protected from disclosure.

    (2) Ensure promises of confidentiality are not automatically given but are used sparingly. Establish appropriate procedures and identify fully categories of individuals who may make such promises. Promises of confidentiality shall be made only when they are essential to obtain the information sought (see 5 CFR part 736).

    (c) Access to records for which DOD-wide exemptions are claimed. Deny the individual access only to those portions of the records for which the claimed exemption applies.

    (d) DoD-wide exemptions. The following exemptions are applicable to all components of the Department of Defense for the following system(s) of records:

    (1) System identifier and name: DUSDI 01-DoD “Department of Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System.” Exemption: This system of records is exempted from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G)(H) and (I), (5) and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) (2) and (k)(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), and (7).

    (2) Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent that such provisions have been identified and an exemption claimed for the record and the purposes underlying the exemption for the record pertain to the record.

    (3) Exemption from the particular subsections is justified for the following reasons:

    (i) Subsection (c)(3). To provide the subject with an accounting of disclosures of records in this system could inform that individual of the existence, nature, or scope of an actual or potential law enforcement or counterintelligence investigation, and thereby seriously impede law enforcement or counterintelligence efforts by permitting the record subject and other persons to whom he might disclose the records to avoid criminal penalties, civil remedies, or counterintelligence measures. Access to the accounting of disclosures could also interfere with a civil or administrative action or investigation which may impede in those actions or investigations. Access also could reveal the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations.

    (ii) Subsection (c)(4). This subsection is inapplicable to the extent that an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d).

    (iii) Subsection (d)(1). Disclosure of records in the system could reveal the identity of confidential sources and result in an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of others. Disclosure may also reveal information relating to actual or potential criminal investigations. Disclosure of classified national security information would cause damage to the national security of the United States. Disclosure could also interfere with a civil or administrative action or investigation; reveal the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations; and reveal the confidentiality and integrity of Federal testing materials and evaluation materials used for military promotions when furnished by a confidential source.

    (iv) Subsection (d)(2). Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing criminal or civil law enforcement proceedings and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated.

    (v) Subsections (d)(3) and (4). These subsections are inapplicable to the extent exemption is claimed from (d)(1) and (2).

    (vi) Subsection (e)(1). It is often impossible to determine in advance if investigatory records contained in this system are accurate, relevant, timely and complete, but, in the interests of effective law enforcement and counterintelligence, it is necessary to retain this information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide investigative leads.

    (vii) Subsection (e)(2). To collect information from the subject individual could serve notice that he or she is the subject of a criminal investigation and thereby present a serious impediment to such investigations.

    (viii) Subsection (e)(3). To inform individuals as required by this subsection could reveal the existence of a criminal investigation and compromise investigative efforts.

    (ix) Subsection (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I). These subsections are inapplicable to the extent exemption is claimed from (d)(1) and (2).

    (x) Subsection (e)(5). It is often impossible to determine in advance if investigatory records contained in this system are accurate, relevant, timely and complete, but, in the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary to retain this information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide investigative leads.

    (xi) Subsection (e)(8). To serve notice could give persons sufficient warning to evade investigative efforts.

    (xii) Subsection (g). This subsection is inapplicable to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.

    (4) In addition, in the course of carrying out analysis for insider threats, exempt records from other systems of records may in turn become part of the case records maintained in this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those other systems of records are maintained into this system, the DoD claims the same exemptions for the records from those other systems that are entered into this system, as claimed for the original primary system of which they are a part.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11702 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0286] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Allegheny River Mile 44.1 to 45.1, Kittanning, Pennsylvania AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Allegheny River mile 44.1 to mile 45.1. This action is needed to protect personnel, spectators, participants, and vessels from potential hazards associated with boat races. Access to this safety zone would be limited to those participating in or working with the race sponsors unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Pittsburgh or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0287 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected].

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

    On March 24, 2016, the Three Rivers Outboard Racing Association notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting boat races from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily beginning on August 19, 2016 and through August 21, 2016. The boat races are scheduled to take place on the Allegheny River from mile 44.1 to 45.1. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels, participants, race spectators, and those working in the boat racing event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily beginning on August 19, 2016 and through August 21, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Allegheny River from mile 44.1 to mile 45.1. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels, participants, race spectators, and those working the boat racing event on navigable waters. Access to this safety zone would be limited to those participating in or working with the race sponsors. No other vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration, of the safety zone and the low traffic nature of this area. The safety zone will close a small section of the Allegheny River for ten hours a day for three days; however, there is little traffic in the area. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow other waterway users to seek permission to enter the zone. Requests to transit the safety zone area would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T08-0286 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0286 Safety Zone; Allegheny River Mile 44.1 to Mile 45.1, Kittanning, PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Allegheny River mile 44.1 to mile 45.1.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23 of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative at 412-221-0807. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. beginning on August 19, 2016 and through August 21, 2016.

    (e) Informational Broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: April 27, 2016. L. McClain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11822 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 35 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0120; FRL-9946-59-Region 9] Clean Air Act Grant: South Coast Air Quality Management District; Opportunity for Public Hearing AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed action; determination with request for comments and notice of opportunity for public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a proposed determination that the reduction in expenditures of non-Federal funds for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in support of its continuing air program under section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the calendar year 2015 is a result of non-selective reductions in expenditures. This determination, when final, will permit the SCAQMD to receive grant funding for FY2016 from the EPA under section 105 of the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Comments and/or requests for a public hearing must be received by the EPA at the address stated below by June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0120] at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gary Lance, EPA Region IX, Grants and Program Integration Office, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; phone: (415) 972-3992, fax: (415) 947-3579 or email address at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides grant support for the continuing air programs of eligible state, local, and tribal agencies. In accordance with 40 CFR 35.145(a), the Regional Administrator may provide air pollution control agencies up to three-fifths of the approved costs of implementing programs for the prevention and control of air pollution. Section 105 contains two cost-sharing provisions which recipients must meet to qualify for a CAA section 105 grant. An eligible entity must meet a minimum 40% match. In addition, to remain eligible for section 105 funds, an eligible entity must continue to meet the minimum match requirement as well as meet a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement under section 105(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405.

    Program activities relevant to the match consist of both recurring and non-recurring (unique, one-time only) expenses. The MOE provision requires that a state or local agency spend at least the same dollar level of funds as it did in the previous grant year, but only for the costs of recurring activities. Specifically, section 105(c) (1), 42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1) provides that “no agency shall receive any grant under this section during any fiscal year when its expenditures of non-Federal funds for recurrent expenditures for air pollution control programs will be less than its expenditures were for such programs during the preceding fiscal year.” Pursuant to CAA section 105(c)(2), however, the EPA may still award a grant to an agency not meeting the requirements of section 105(c)(1), “if the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, determines that a reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-selective reduction in the expenditures in the programs of all Executive branch agencies of the applicable unit of Government.” These statutory requirements are repeated in the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 35.140 through 35.148. The EPA issued additional guidance to recipients on what constitutes a nonselective reduction on September 30, 2011. In consideration of legislative history, the guidance clarified that a non-selective reduction does not necessarily mean that each Executive branch agency need be reduced in equal proportion. However, it must be clear to the EPA, from the weight of evidence, that a recipient's CAA-related air program is not being disproportionately impacted or singled out for a reduction.

    A section 105 recipient must submit a final financial status report no later than 90 days from the close of its grant period that documents all of its federal and non-federal expenditures for the completed period. The recipient seeking an adjustment to its MOE for that period must provide the rationale and the documentation necessary to enable the EPA to make a determination that a nonselective reduction has occurred. In order to expedite that determination, the recipient must provide details of the budget action and the comparative fiscal impacts on all the jurisdiction's executive branch agencies, the recipient agency itself, and the agency's air program. The recipient should identify any executive branch agencies or programs that should be excepted from comparison and explain why. The recipient must provide evidence that the air program is not being singled out for a reduction or being disproportionately reduced. Documentation in key areas will be needed: Budget data specific to the recipient's air program, and comparative budget data between the recipient's air program, the agency containing the air program, and the other executive branch agencies. The EPA may also request information from the recipient about how impacts on its program operations will affect its ability to meet its CAA obligations and requirements; and documentation which explains the cause of the reduction, such as legislative changes or the issuance of a new executive order.

    In FY-2015, the EPA awarded the SCAQMD $5,082,526, which represented approximately 5% of the SCAQMD budget. In FY-2016, the EPA intends to award the SCAQMD approximately $5,039,863, which represents roughly 5% of the SCAQMD budget.

    SCAQMD's final Federal Financial Report for FY-2014 indicated that SCAQMD's maintenance of effort (MOE) level was $106,315,128. SCAQMD's final Federal Financial Report for FY-2015 indicates that SCAQMD's maintenance of effort (MOE) level was $105,858,708. The reduced MOE is not sufficient to meet the MOE requirements under the CAA section 105 because it is not equal to or greater than the MOE for the previous fiscal year.

    In order for the SCAQMD to be eligible to receive its FY-2016 CAA section 105 grant, the EPA must make a determination, (after notice and an opportunity for a public hearing), that the reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-selective reduction in the expenditures in the programs of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

    The South Coast Air Quality Management District is a single-purpose air pollution control agency whose primary source of funding is from stationary sources of emissions. It is the “unit of government for section 105 (c)(2) purposes.”

    The Maintenance of Effort (MOE) level for FY-2015 is higher than the last MOE adjustment in FY 2013. Specifically, the MOE for FY-2015 is $762,655 higher than the FY-2013 level, the last time a non-selective reduction was approved. As compared to the FY-2014 level, the FY-2015 MOE is $456,420 or 0.43% lower.

    The FY-2015 MOE was lower than the FY-2014 level due to relatively high uncollectible accounts receivable expenditures in FY-2014. Without this higher level of uncollectible accounts receivable in FY-2014, the MOE level would have been met in FY-2015.

    Also, in FY 2014-15, “Other Revenue” decreased by $10.5 million from FY 2013-14 and total revenue (Stationary Sources and Other Revenue) for this time period decreased by $9.3 million. This unpredictable revenue decrease, combined with lower levels of Stationary Source revenues since FY-2009-10, results in SCAQMD budget reductions. This may cause fluctuations in the MOE level from year to year. Stationary Source Revenues and Other Revenue for FY-2012-13 through 2014-15 is detailed below.

    Year Stationary
  • sources
  • Other revenue
    2013 $83,307,359 $49,624,690 2014 84,341,483 60,438,706 2015 85,546,869 49,962,777

    The request for a reset of SCAQMD's MOE meets the criteria for a non-selective reduction determination based on: 1. SCAQMD's inability to levy taxes, 2. regulated and voluntary emissions reductions, 3. agency-wide expenditure cuts, and 4. use of financial reserves to balance the budget.

    Although SCAQMD receives less than 5 percent of its support from the section 105 grant, the loss of that funding would seriously impact SCAQMD's ability to carry out its clean air program.

    The SCAQMD's MOE reduction resulted from a loss of revenues due to circumstances beyond its control. The EPA proposes to determine that lowering SCAQMD's FY-2015 MOE level to $105,858,708 meets the CAA section 105(c)(2) criteria as resulting from a non-selective reduction of expenditures.

    This notice constitutes a request for public comment and an opportunity for public hearing as required by the Clean Air Act. All written comments received by June 20, 2016 on this proposal will be considered. The EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal only if a written request for such is received by the EPA at the address above by June 20, 2016. If no written request for a hearing is received, the EPA will proceed to the final determination. While notice of the final determination will not be published in the Federal Register, copies of the determination can be obtained by sending a written request to Gary Lance at the above address.

    Dated: May 10, 2016. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11843 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0240; FRL-9946-45-Region 9] Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on five permitting rules submitted as a revision to the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD or District) portion of the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of California pursuant to requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). We are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of two rules; we are proposing to approve the remaining three permitting rules; and we are proposing to repeal three rules. The submitted revisions include amended rules governing the issuance of permits for stationary sources, including review and permitting of minor sources, and major sources and major modifications under part C of title I of the Act. The intended effect of these proposed actions is to update the applicable SIP with current NSCAPCD permitting rules and to set the stage for remedying certain deficiencies in these rules; this proposal also seeks to remedy specific deficiencies identified in our recent action on the California Infrastructure SIP. If finalized as proposed, the limited disapproval actions would trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan for the specific New Source Review (NSR) program deficiencies unless California submits and we approve SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies within two years of the final action.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0240 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura Yannayon, by phone: (415) 972-3534 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittals A. Which rules did the State submit? B. What are the existing NSCAPCD rules governing stationary source permits in the California SIP? C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule? II. EPA's Evaluation A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? 1. Minor Source Permits 2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 3. Nonattainment New Source Review 4. Section 110(l) of the Act 5. Conclusion III. Proposed Action and Public Comment IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittals A. Which rules did the State submit?

    On October 16, 1985 and December 11, 2014, California submitted amended regulations to EPA for approval as revisions to the NSCAPCD portion of the California SIP under the Clean Air Act. Collectively, the submitted regulations comprise the District's current program for preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified stationary sources. These SIP revision submittals, referred to herein as the “SIP submittal” or “submitted rules,” represent a significant update to the District's preconstruction review and permitting program and are intended to satisfy the requirements under part C (prevention of significant deterioration) (PSD) of title I of the Act as well as the general preconstruction review requirements for minor sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act (minor NSR).

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the District and submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board, which is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals.

    Table 1—Submitted NSR Rules Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 130 Definitions 11/14/14 12/11/14 200 Permit Requirements 11/14/14 12/11/14 220 New Source Review 11/14/14 12/11/14 230 Action on Applications 11/14/14 12/11/14 240 Permit to Operate 2/22/84 10/16/85

    The submittal of Rule 240 was deemed complete by operation of law six months after the date of submittal. 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The remaining rule submittals were determined to meet the completeness criteria 40 CFR part 51, appendix V on February 20, 2015. A completeness finding must be made before formal EPA review. Each of these submittals includes evidence of public notice and adoption of the regulation. Our technical support document (TSD) provides additional background information on each of the submitted rules.

    B. What are the existing NSCAPCD rules governing stationary source permits in the California SIP?

    Table 2 lists the rules that make up the existing SIP-approved rules for new or modified stationary sources in NSCAPCD. All of these rules would be replaced or deleted from the SIP if EPA takes final action on the proposed approval of the submitted set of rules listed in Table 1.

    Table 2—Existing SIP Rules Rule No. Rule title SIP Approval
  • date
  • Federal Register
  • citation
  • 10 Permits Required 9/22/72 37 FR 19812. 12 Transfer 9/22/72 37 FR 19812. 18 Conditional Approval 9/22/72 37 FR 19812. 130 Definitions 5/6/11 76 FR 26192. 200 Permitting Requirements 7/31/85 50 FR 30943. 220a New Source Review 7/31/85 50 FR 30943. 220b New Source Review 7/31/85 50 FR 30943. 220c New Source Review 7/31/85 50 FR 30943. 230 Action on Applications 7/31/85 50 FR 30943. 240 Permit to Operate 10/31/80 45 FR 72148. 240e Mandatory Monitoring Requirements 12/21/78 43 FR 59489.
    C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to present our evaluation under the CAA and EPA's regulations of the submitted rules adopted by the District as identified in Table 1. We provide our reasoning in general terms below but provide more detailed analysis in our TSD, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

    II. EPA's Evaluation A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    EPA has reviewed the rules submitted by NSCAPCD governing PSD and minor NSR for stationary sources for compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA's regulations for stationary source permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, § 51.160 through § 51.164 and § 51.166, and the CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l).1 As described below, EPA is proposing a combination of actions consisting of limited approval and limited disapproval of Rules 130 (Definitions) and 220 (New Source Review); full approval of Rules 200 (Permit Requirements), 230 (Action on Applications), and 240 (Permit to Operate); and replacement of Rules 10 (Permits Required), 12 (Transfer) and 18 (Conditional Approval).

    1 CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal by States to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the various submittals, we find that NSCAPCD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearings prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to EPA.

    With respect to substantive requirements, we have evaluated each submitted rule in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements that apply to: (1) General preconstruction review programs for minor sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.160-164, and (2) PSD permit programs under part C of title I of the Act and 40 CFR 51.166. For the most part, the submitted rules satisfy the applicable requirements for these permit programs and would strengthen the applicable SIP by updating the regulations and adding requirements to address new or revised PSD permitting requirements promulgated by EPA in the last several years; however the submitted rules also contain specific deficiencies which prevent full approval of Rules 130 and 220. Below, we discuss generally our evaluation of NSCAPCD's submitted rules and the deficiencies that are the basis for our proposed action on these rules. Our TSD contains a more detailed evaluation and recommendations for program improvements.

    1. Minor Source Permits

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires that each SIP include a program to provide for “regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D” of title I of the Act. Thus, in addition to the permit programs required in parts C and D of title I of the Act, which apply to new or modified “major” stationary sources of pollutants, each SIP must include a program to provide for the regulation of the construction and modification of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are achieved. These general pre-construction requirements are commonly referred to as “minor NSR” and are subject to EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.

    Rules 130—Definitions, 200—Permit Requirements, 220—New Source Review, 230—Action on Applications, and 240—Permit to Operate, contain the requirements for review and permitting of individual minor stationary sources in NSCAPCD. These rules satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for minor NSR programs. The changes the District made to the rules listed above as they pertain to the minor source program were largely administrative in nature and provide additional clarity to the rules.

    2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration

    Part C of title I of the Act contains the provisions for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in areas designated “attainment” or “unclassifiable” for the NAAQS, including preconstruction permit requirements for new major sources or major modifications proposing to construct in such areas. EPA's regulations for PSD permit programs are found in 40 CFR 51.166. NSCAPCD is currently designated as “attainment” or “unclassifiable/attainment” for all NAAQS pollutants.

    The submitted rules contain the requirements for review and permitting of minor and PSD sources in NSCAPCD. The rules satisfy most of the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs, but Rules 130 and 220 also contain some deficiencies that form the basis for our proposed limited disapproval, as discussed below.

    First, 40 CFR 51.161(d) specifies that a public notice must be provided for all lead point sources, as defined in 40 CFR 51.100(k). The provisions of Rule 220 (b) cross-reference the definition of the term Significant in Rule 130 to provide specific public notice emission rate thresholds used to determine when public notice is required. Rule 130 provides thresholds for all NAAQS pollutants except lead. To correct this deficiency, the District should add an emission threshold for lead by revising the definition of the term “Significant” in Rule 130.

    Second, Rule 220 does not contain any provisions specifying that required air quality modeling shall be based on the applicable models, databases, and other requirements specified in Part 51 Appendix W, as required by 40 CFR 51.160(f) and 51.166(f). Provisions pertaining to modeling requirements must also specify the requirements for using any alternative models. To correct the deficiency, the District should add the required modeling provisions to Rule 220.

    Third, text in Rule 220, Subsection (b)(3) contains a significant typo concerning the requirements pertaining to stack height. This deficiency may be corrected by adding the missing word “not”.

    Finally, Rule 230 does not contain any provisions to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2) which require permit programs to include specific language providing that (1) “. . . approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, State or Federal law” and (2) that if “. . . a particular source or modification becomes a major stationary source or major modification solely by virtue of a relaxation in any enforceable limitation which was established after August 7, 1980, on the capacity of the source or modification otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on hours of operation, then the requirements . . .” of the PSD program shall apply to the source or modification as though construction had not yet commenced on the source or modification. This deficiency can be corrected by adding the language found in 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2).

    Compared to the existing SIP approved PSD program in Rule 220 (approved July 31, 1985), however, submitted Rules 130 and 220 represent an overall strengthening of the District's PSD program, in large part because the rule includes updated PSD provisions to regulate new or modified major stationary sources of PM2.5 emissions, which are unregulated under the existing SIP PSD program. Because submitted Rules 130 and 220 strengthen the SIP, we are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval based on the deficiencies listed above.

    3. Nonattainment New Source Review

    The CAA defines “nonattainment areas” as air quality planning areas that exceed the primary or secondary NAAQS for the given criteria pollutant. The NSCAPCD is not designated nonattainment for any NAAQS. Because the NSCAPCD is not currently classified nonattainment for any NAAQS, we are not evaluating the submitted rules for approval under 40 CFR 51.165, which contains the requirements for nonattainment NSR programs.

    4. Section 110(l) of the Act

    Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a revision of a plan if the revision would “interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].”

    NSCAPCD is currently designated attainment or unclassifiable/attainment for all NAAQS pollutants. We are unaware of any reliance by the District on the continuation of any aspect of the permit-related rules in the NSCAPCD portion of the California SIP for the purpose of continued attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Our approval of the NSCAPCD SIP submittal (and supersession of the existing SIP rules) would strengthen the applicable SIP. Therefore we find that this SIP revision represents a strengthening of NSCAPCD's minor NSR and PSD programs compared to the existing SIP rules that we previously approved, and that our approval of the SIP submittal would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

    Given all these considerations and in light of the air quality improvements in NSCAPCD, we propose that our approval of these updated NSR regulations into the California SIP would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

    5. Conclusion

    For the reasons stated above and explained further in our TSD, we find that the submitted rules satisfy most of the applicable CAA and regulatory requirements for the District's minor NSR and PSD permit programs under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and part C of title I of the Act. However, Rules 130 and 220 contain certain deficiencies that prevent us from proposing a full approval and we are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of these two rules. We do so based on our finding that, while these rules do not meet all of the applicable requirements, the rules represent an overall strengthening of the SIP by clarifying and enhancing the permitting requirements for major and minor stationary sources in NSCAPCD. Finally, we are proposing a full approval of Rules 200, 230, and 240, which will replace existing SIP Rules 10, 12 and 18. Our TSD, which is available in the docket for today's action, contains additional information on this rulemaking.

    III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA and for the reasons provided above, EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rules 130 and 220, and approval of the remaining revisions to the NSCAPCD portion of the California SIP that governs the issuance of permits for stationary sources under the jurisdiction of NSCAPCD, including review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under part C of title I of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is proposing an action on NSCAPCD rules listed in Table 1, above, as a revision to the NSCAPCD portion of the California SIP.

    EPA is proposing this action because, although we find that the new and amended rules meet most of the applicable requirements for such permit programs and that the SIP revisions improve the existing SIP, we have found certain deficiencies that prevent full approval of Rules 130 and 220, as explained further in this preamble and in the TSD for this rulemaking. The intended effect of the proposed approval and limited approval and limited disapproval portions of this action is to update the applicable SIP with current NSCAPCD permitting regulations 2 and to set the stage for remedying deficiencies in these regulations.

    2 Final approval of the rules in Table 1 would supersede all of the rules in the existing California SIP as listed in Table 2.

    In addition, on April 1, 2016 (81 FR 18766), EPA partially disapproved California's Infrastructure SIP Submittal for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to Northern Sonoma County APCD because it did not include requirements for a baseline date for PSD increments for PM2.5. If we finalize our proposed action, this Infrastructure SIP deficiency pertaining to the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) will be remedied, and we will update the approved SIP for California accordingly.

    If finalized as proposed, the limited disapproval of Rules 130 and 220 would trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan unless the State of California corrects the deficiencies, and EPA approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the final action.

    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the NSCAPCD rules as described in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document generally electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (Air-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105-3901.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 3, 2016. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11621 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0472; FRL-9946-20-Region 9] Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) as meeting the requirements of Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CAA section 110(a)(1) requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, and that EPA act on such SIPs. We refer to such SIPs as “infrastructure” SIPs because they are intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS including, but not limited to, legal authority, regulatory structure, resources, permit programs, monitoring, and modeling necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. In addition to our proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of Arizona's infrastructure SIP, we are proposing to reclassify one region of the state for SO2 emergency episode planning. EPA is also proposing to approve Arizona Revised Statutes related to conducting air quality modeling and providing modeling data to EPA into the Arizona SIP. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0472] at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3856, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submissions II. Background A. Statutory Framework B. Regulatory Background C. Changes to the Application of PSD Permitting Requirements With GHGs III. State Submittals IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals B. Proposed Disapprovals and Partial Disapprovals C. Proposed Approval of Arizona Revised Statutes Into the State SIP D. Proposed Reclassification of an Air Quality Control Region E. Request for Public Comments V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submissions

    EPA is acting upon several SIP submittals from Arizona that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submittal of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submittals “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submittals are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submittals, and the requirement to make the submittals is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submittal must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submittals. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment SIP” submittals to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submittals required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submittals, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submittals. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.1 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submittal.

    1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submittal must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.2 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submittals to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submittal of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.3 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submittal.

    2See, e.g., Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule. 70 FR 25162, at 25163-25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

    3 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submittal of certain types of SIP submittals in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submittal of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submittal, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submittal in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submittals separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submittals to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submittals either individually or in a larger combined action.4 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submittal for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submittal. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submittal.5

    4See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting, 78 FR 4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA's final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013 (EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    5 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 2007 submittal.

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submittal requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submittals for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submittal for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.6

    6 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submittals required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submittals, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submittals. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submittals required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submittals must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submittals required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the air quality prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submittal may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.

    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submittal. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submittals against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.

    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submittals for particular elements.7 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance).8 EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submittals to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submittals.9 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submittals need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submittal for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

    7 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submittals. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submittals. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

    8 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    9 EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Circuit 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submittals because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.

    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submittals with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C, title I of the Act and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.

    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has a SIP-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submittal, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.

    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186, December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submittal without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submittal even if it is aware of such existing provisions.10 It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described.

    10 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submittal that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submittals is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submittal. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submittal is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submittal. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.

    For example, EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.11 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submittals.12 Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.13

    11 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011.

    12 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submittals related to PSD programs. See Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule, 75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR 34641, June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009 (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

    13 See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submittal from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344, July 21, 2010 (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540, January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such provisions).

    II. Background A. Statutory Framework

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP submission within 3 years after the promulgation of a new or revised primary NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must include. Many of the section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general information and authorities that constitute the “infrastructure” of a state's air quality management program and SIP submittals that address these requirements are referred to as “infrastructure SIPs.” These infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as follows:

    • Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international pollution abatement.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government agencies.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal of modeling data.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

    • Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under part D (nonattainment NSR), and Section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure for the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).

    B. Regulatory Background

    In 2010 EPA promulgated revised NAAQS for NO2 and SO2, triggering a requirement for states to submit infrastructure SIPs. The NAAQS addressed by this infrastructure SIP proposal include the following:

    • 2010 NO2 NAAQS, which revised the primary 1971 NO2 annual standard of 53 parts per billion (ppb) by supplementing it with a new 1-hour average NO2 standard of 100 ppb, and retained the secondary annual standard of 53 ppb.14

    14 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010. The annual NO 2 standard of 0.053 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-hour standard.

    • 2010 SO2 NAAQS, which established a new 1-hour average SO2 standard of 75 ppb, retained the secondary 3-hour average SO2 standard of 500 ppb, and established a mechanism for revoking the primary 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards.15

    15 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The annual SO 2 standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-hour standard.

    C. Changes to the Application of PSD Permitting Requirements With GHGs

    With respect to Elements (C) and (J), EPA interprets the Clean Air Act to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of Element D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants.

    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions.16 The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision, EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to EPA regulations and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

    16Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427.

    III. State Submittals

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has submitted several infrastructure SIP submittals pursuant to EPA's promulgation of specific NAAQS, including:

    • January 18, 2013—“Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2010 NO2 NAAQS.” (2013 NO2 I-SIP Submittal)

    • July 23, 2013—“Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); Implementation of the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality.” (2013 SO2 I-SIP Submittal)

    • December 3, 2015—“Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D) and Revision for All Previous and Future NAAQS under CAA Section 11(a)(2)(K).” (2015 Submittal)

    We find that these submittals meet the procedural requirements for public participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. We are proposing to act on all of these submittals, except the part of the 2015 Submittal addressing the 2008 ozone standard which will be acted on separately. The submittals collectively address the infrastructure SIP requirements for the NO2 and SO2 NAAQS as described by this proposed rule. We refer to them collectively herein as “Arizona's Infrastructure SIP Submittals.”

    IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals

    We have evaluated Arizona's Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the existing provisions of the Arizona SIP for compliance with the infrastructure SIP requirements (or “elements”) of CAA section 110(a)(2) and applicable regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (“Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation Plans”). The Technical Support Document (TSD), which is available in the docket to this action, includes our evaluation for these infrastructure SIP elements, as well as our evaluation of various statutory and regulatory provisions identified and submitted by Arizona. For some elements, our analysis refers to older TSDs for prior NAAQS, which have also been included in the docket.

    Based upon this analysis, we propose to approve the 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 Arizona Infrastructure SIP with respect to the following Clean Air Act requirements:

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new stationary sources (ADEQ and Pinal County for both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate Pollution Transport.

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(in part)—significant contribution to nonattainment, or prongs 1 and 2 (all jurisdictions for the NO2 NAAQS).

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (in part)—interference with maintenance, or prong 3 (ADEQ and Pinal County for both pollutants).

    110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)—interstate pollution abatement § 126 (ADEQ and Pinal County for both pollutants) and international air pollution § 115 (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary solderurce monitoring and reporting (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government officials, § 121 (all jurisdictions, both pollutants); public notification of exceedances, § 127 (all jurisdictions, both pollutants); and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection (ADEQ and Pinal County, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    EPA is taking no action on Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals

    EPA proposes to disapprove Arizona's NO2 and SO2 Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:

    • 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources (Maricopa County and Pima County, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate pollution transport,

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)—interference with maintenance, or prong 3 (Maricopa County and Pima County, both pollutants).

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—visibility transport or prong 4 (all jurisdictions, both pollutants).

    110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)—interstate pollution abatement § 126 (Maricopa County and Pima County, both pollutants).

    • 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): PSD and visibility protection (Maricopa County and Pima County, both pollutants)

    As explained more fully in our TSD, we are proposing to disapprove the Maricopa County and Pima County portions of Arizona's Infrastructure Submittals with respect to the PSD-related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and the PSD requirements of 110(a)(2)(J). The Arizona SIP does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs under part C, title I of the Act, because Maricopa County and Pima County currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with EPA. Accordingly, although the Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements in both the Maricopa County and Pima County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are adequately addressed in both areas by the federal PSD program and do not create new FIP obligations.

    We are also proposing to disapprove all jurisdictions in Arizona for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protecting visibility from interstate transport or prong 4. Because Arizona relies on a FIP to control sources under the Regional Haze Rule, they do not meet the requirements of this portion of 110(a)(2)(D) for NO2 and SO2. However, because a FIP is already in place to meet the requirements, no additional FIP obligation is triggered by our disapproval of this portion of Arizona's infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to work with Arizona to incorporate FIP emission limits and control technologies into the state SIP.

    C. Proposed Approval of Arizona Revised Statutes Into the State SIP

    Included in ADEQ's 2015 Submittal was a request to approve Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) § 49-104(A)(3) and (B)(1) into the state SIP. Arizona has requested that these statutes be included in order to meet the air quality modeling and data submission requirements of 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and past and future NAAQS, including previous Infrastructure SIP disapprovals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, and 2008 lead NAAQS.

    110(a)(2)(K) requires states to provide for the performance of air quality modeling and the submission of air quality modeling to EPA upon request. On November 5, 2012, EPA disapproved 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to ADEQ's submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 66398). EPA again disapproved this I-SIP element for the 2008 Pb and 2008 O3 NAAQS on July 14, 2015 (80 FR 40906). EPA disapproved those submissions because ADEQ, Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties did not submit adequate provisions or narrative information related to the 110(a)(2)(K) requirements.

    EPA has reviewed the SIP approved provisions, narrative information, and ARS §§ 49-104(A)(3) and (B)(1) contained within the 2015 Submittal. EPA is proposing to approve 110(a)(2)(K) as described in part A of this section, and detailed further in the docket for this action, based upon that review. EPA is also proposing to approve ARS §§ 49-104(A)(3) and (B)(1) into the state SIP. If approval of these statutes into the Arizona SIP is finalized, previous disapprovals for this element, found at 77 FR 66398 and 80 FR 40906, will be corrected.

    D. Proposed Reclassification for Emergency Episode Planning

    The priority thresholds for classification of air quality control regions are listed in 40 CFR 51.150 while the specific classifications of air quality control regions in Arizona are listed at 40 CFR 52.121. Consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of an air quality control region must rely on the most recent three years of air quality data. Regions classified Priority I, IA, or II are required to have SIP-approved emergency episode contingency plans, while those classified Priority III are not required to have plans.17 We interpret 40 CFR 51.153 as establishing the means for states to review air quality data and request a higher or lower classification for any given region and as providing the regulatory basis for EPA to reclassify such regions, as appropriate, under the authorities of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(G) and 301(a)(1).

    17 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152.

    For SO2, the Pima Intrastate region is classified as Priority II while the Central Arizona and Southeast Arizona Intrastate regions are classified as Priority IA. All other areas of the state are Priority III. After reviewing Arizona's 2013-2015 air quality data for the Pima air quality control region (AQCR), we are proposing to reclassify this region from Priority II to priority III, thus relieving the AQCR of the emergency episode plan requirement for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    The classification thresholds for SO2 are unique in that thresholds are prescribed for three different averaging periods. The thresholds and ranges for Priority II classification are as follows:

    • 3-hour: Greater than 0.5 ppm,

    • 24-hour: 0.10-0.17 ppm, and

    • Annual arithmetic mean: 0.02-0.04 ppm.

    Areas with ambient air concentrations that are below the Priority II threshold are classified as Priority III. There is one SO2 monitor within the Pima Intrastate region, located in Tucson and operated and maintained by Pima County. The highest SO2 levels at the Tucson monitor were 1.1 ppb (.0011 ppm) for the 24-hour average and .24 ppb (.00024 ppm) for the annual arithmetic mean. Both occurred in 2013. In addition, the highest 1-hour SO2 concentration at the Tucson monitor during this period was 9.6 ppb (.0096 ppm), which occurred in 2014. Monitored levels in 2015 were even lower than the previous two years. The highest 1 hour level was 5.1 ppb (.0051 ppm) and the annual arithmetic mean was .16 ppb (.00016 ppm) While there are no 1-hour SO2 classification thresholds in 40 CFR 51.150(b), by definition these concentrations reinforce the fact that 3-hour and 24-hour levels have not exceeded the respective Priority II classification thresholds because they are lower than such thresholds.

    Thus, we propose to reclassify the Pima Intrastate AQCR to Priority III for SO2. Should we finalize this reclassification, the Pima Intrastate region would no longer be required to have an emergency episode contingency plan in place for SO2.

    E. Request for Public Comments

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these comments before taking final action.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: April 29, 2016. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-10985 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696; FRL-9944-28-OAR] RIN 2060-AS86 Technical Amendments to Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make several minor technical amendments to the performance specifications and test procedures for hydrogen chloride (HCl) continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). The EPA is also proposing to make several minor amendments to the quality assurance (QA) procedures for HCl CEMS used for compliance determination at stationary sources. The performance specification (Performance Specification 18) and the QA procedures (Procedure 6) were published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2015. These proposed amendments make several minor corrections and clarify several aspects of these regulations. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, the EPA is amending Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6 as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

    DATES:

    Comments: Written comments must be received by July 5, 2016.

    Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on this rule if requested. Requests for a hearing must be made by May 24, 2016. Requests for a hearing should be made to Ms. Candace Sorrell via email at [email protected] or by phone at (919) 541-1064. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on June 3, 2016 at the EPA facility in Research Triangle Park, NC.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Candace Sorrell, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (Mail Code: E143-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1064; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    The EPA is proposing to take action to make minor technical amendments to Performance Specification 18 (PS 18) and Procedure 6. In addition, we have published a direct final rule making these amendments in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register because we view this as non-controversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained the amendments and our reasons for this action in the preamble of the direct final rule. The regulatory text for this proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule, and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    II. Does this action apply to me?

    The major entities that would potentially be affected by the final PS 18 and the QA requirements of Procedure 6 for gaseous HCl CEMS are those entities that are required to install a new HCl CEMS, relocate an existing HCl CEMS, or replace an existing HCl CEMS under any applicable subpart of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63. Table 1 of this preamble lists the current federal rules by subpart and the corresponding source categories to which PS 18 and Procedure 6 potentially would apply.

    Table 1—Source Categories That Would Potentially Be Subject to PS 18 and Procedure 6 Subpart(s) Source category 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. Subpart UUUUU Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. Subpart DDDDD Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.

    The requirements of PS 18 and Procedure 6 may also apply to stationary sources located in a state, district, reservation, or territory that adopts PS 18 or Procedure 6 in its implementation plan.

    Table 2 lists the corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for the source categories listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

    Table 2—NAICS for Potentially Regulated Entities Industry NAICS
  • Codes
  • Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 327310
  • a 921150
  • Portland Cement Manufacturing Plants 327310 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters 211
  • 321
  • 322
  • 325
  • 324 316, 326, 339 331 332 336 221 622 611 a Industry in Indian Country.

    Tables 1 and 2 are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather they provide a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the potential applicability of PS 18 and test procedures (Procedure 6) to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. These quality assurance procedures do not add information collection requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable regulations.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action makes minor technical correction and adds clarification in PS 18 and Procedure 6 and does not impose additional regulatory requirements on sources.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Rules establishing quality assurance requirements impose no costs independent from national emission standards which require their use, and such costs are fully reflected in the regulatory impact assessment for those emission standards.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action adds additional language that clarifies several aspects for the performance standard and procedure and corrects some minor technical errors, but does not change the requirements for conducting the test method. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action does not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not cause emissions increases from these sources.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitoring systems, Hydrogen chloride, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.

    Dated: May 2, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In appendix B to part 60, Performance Specification 18: a. Revise Sections 3.1 through 3.23, 11.5.6.5, 11.8.6.2, 12.1, 12.2 and 12.4.4; b. Add Sections 3.24, 3.25, and 12.2.1; and c. Revise Section 11.2.3 in appendix A of Performance Specification 18.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Appendix B to Part 60—Performance Specifications

    Performance Specification 18-Performance Specifications and Test Procedures for Gaseous Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

    3.0 Definitions

    3.1 Beam attenuation is the reduction in electromagnetic radiation (light) throughput from the maximum beam intensity experienced during site specific CEMS operation.

    3.2 Beam intensity is the electromagnetic radiation (light) throughput for an IP-CEMS instrument measured following manufacturers specifications.

    3.3 Calibration cell means a gas containment cell used with cross stack or integrated path (IP) CEMS for calibration and to perform many of the test procedures required by this performance specification. The cell may be a removable sealed cell or an evacuated and/or purged cell capable of exchanging reference and other calibration gases as well as zero gas standards. When charged, it contains a known concentration of HCl and/or interference gases. The calibration cell is filled with zero gas or removed from the optical path during stack gas measurement.

    3.4 Calibration drift (CD) means the absolute value of the difference between the CEMS output response and an upscale reference gas or a zero-level gas, expressed as a percentage of the span value, when the CEMS is challenged after a stated period of operation during which no unscheduled adjustments, maintenance or repairs took place.

    3.5 Centroidal area means a central area that is geometrically similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no greater than 10 percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional area.

    3.6 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) means the total equipment required to measure the pollutant concentration or emission rate continuously. The system generally consists of the following three major subsystems:

    3.6.1 Sample interface means that portion of the CEMS used for one or more of the following: Sample acquisition, sample transport, sample conditioning, defining the optical measurement path, and protection of the monitor from the effects of the stack effluent.

    3.6.2 HCl analyzer means that portion of the HCl CEMS that measures the total vapor phase HCl concentration and generates a proportional output.

    3.6.3 Data recorder means that portion of the CEMS that provides a permanent electronic record of the analyzer output. The data recorder may record other pertinent data such as effluent flow rates, various instrument temperatures or abnormal CEMS operation. The data recorder may also include automatic data reduction capabilities and CEMS control capabilities.

    3.7 Diluent gas means a major gaseous constituent in a gaseous pollutant mixture. For combustion sources, either carbon dioxide (CO2) or oxygen (O2) or a combination of these two gases are the major gaseous diluents of interest.

    3.8 Dynamic spiking (DS) means the procedure where a known concentration of HCl gas is injected into the probe sample gas stream for extractive CEMS at a known flow rate to assess the performance of the measurement system in the presence of potential interference from the flue gas sample matrix.

    3.9 Independent measurement(s) means the series of CEMS data values taken during sample gas analysis separated by two times the procedure specific response time (RT) of the CEMS.

    3.10 Integrated path CEMS (IP-CEMS) means an in-situ CEMS that measures the gas concentration along an optical path in the stack or duct cross section.

    3.11 Interference means a compound or material in the sample matrix other than HCl whose characteristics may bias the CEMS measurement (positively or negatively). The interference may not prevent the sample measurement, but could increase the analytical uncertainty in the measured HCl concentration through reaction with HCl or by changing the electronic signal generated during HCl measurement.

    3.12 Interference test means the test to detect CEMS responses to interferences that are not adequately accounted for in the calibration procedure and may cause measurement bias.

    3.13 Level of detection (LOD) means the lowest level of pollutant that the CEMS can detect in the presence of the source gas matrix interferents with 99 percent confidence.

    3.14 Liquid evaporative standard means a reference gas produced by vaporizing National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable liquid standards of known HCl concentration and quantitatively diluting the resultant vapor with a carrier gas.

    3.15 Measurement error (ME) is the mean difference between the concentration measured by the CEMS and the known concentration of a reference gas standard, divided by the span, when the entire CEMS, including the sampling interface, is challenged.

    3.16 Optical path means the route light travels from the light source to the receiver used to make sample measurements.

    3.17 Path length means, for an extractive optical CEMS, the distance in meters of the optical path within a gas measurement cell. For an IP-CEMS, path length means the distance in meters of the optical path that passes through the source gas in the stack or duct.

    3.18 Point CEMS means a CEMS that measures the source gas concentration, either at a single point at the sampling probe tip or over a path length for IP-CEMS less than 10 percent of the equivalent diameter of the stack or duct cross section.

    3.19  Stack pressure measurement device means a NIST-traceable gauge or monitor that measures absolute pressure and conforms to the design requirements of ASME B40.100-2010, “Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17).

    3.20 Reference gas standard means a NIST-traceable gas standard containing a known concentration of HCl certified in accordance with an EPA traceability protocol in section 7.1 of this PS.

    3.21 Relative accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference between the gas concentration or the emission rate determined by the CEMS and the value determined by the RM, plus the confidence coefficient of a series of nine test runs, divided by the average of the RM or the applicable emission standard.

    3.22 Response time (RT) means the time it takes for the measurement system, while operating normally at its target sample flow rate, dilution ratio, or data collection rate to respond to a known step change in gas concentration, either from a low- or zero-level to a high-level gas concentration or from a high-level to a low or zero-level gas concentration, and to read 95 percent of the change to the stable instrument response. There may be several RTs for an instrument related to different functions or procedures (e.g., DS, LOD, and ME).

    3.23 Span value means an HCl concentration approximately equal to two times the concentration equivalent to the emission standard unless otherwise specified in the applicable regulation, permit or other requirement. Unless otherwise specified, the span may be rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.

    3.24 Standard addition means the addition of known amounts of HCl gas (either statically or dynamically) to the actual measurement path or measured sample gas stream.

    3.25 Zero gas means a gas or liquid with an HCl concentration that is below the LOD of the measurement system.

    11.0 Performance Specification Test Procedure

    11.5.6.5 If your system LOD field verification does not demonstrate a SAR greater than or equal to your initial controlled environment LOD, you must increase the SA concentration incrementally and repeat the field verification procedure until the SAR is equal to or greater than LOD. The site-specific standard addition detection level (SADL) is equal to the standard addition needed to achieve the acceptable SAR, and SADL replaces the controlled environment LOD. For extractive CEMS, the SADL is calculated as the ESA using Equation A7 in appendix A of this PS. For IP-CEMS, the SADL is the SA calculated using Equation A8 in appendix A of this PS. As described in section 13.1 of this PS, the LOD or the SADL that replaces an LOD must be less than 20 percent of the applicable emission limit.

    11.8.6.2 For IP-CEMS, you must include the source measurement optical path while performing the upscale CD measurement; you may exclude the source measurement optical path when determining the zero gas concentration. Calculate the CD for IP CEMS using equations 4, 5, 6B, and 7 in section 12.4.

    12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis 12.1 Nomenclature Ci = Zero or HCl reference gas concentration used for test i (ppmv); Ci,eff = Equivalent concentration of the reference gas value, Ci, at the specified conditions (ppmv); CC = Confidence coefficient (ppmv); CDextractive = Calibration drift for extractive CEMS (percent); CDIP = Calibration drift for IP-CEMS (percent); CD0 = Calibration drift at zero HCl concentrations for an IP-CEMS (percent); davg = Mean difference between CEMS response and the reference gas (ppmv); di = Difference of CEMS response and the RM value (ppmv); I = Total interference from major matrix stack gases, (percent); LSF = Line strength factor for IP-CEMS instrument specific correction for temperature and gas matrix effects derived from the HITRAN and/or manufacturer specific database (unitless); ΔMCavg = Average of the 3 absolute values of the difference between the measured HCl calibration gas concentrations with and without interference from selected stack gases (ppmv); MCi = Measured HCl reference gas concentration i (ppmv); MC ι = Average of the measured HCl reference gas concentration i (ppmv); MCint = Measured HCl concentration of the HCl reference gas plus the individual or combined interference gases (ppmv); MEextractive = Measurement error for extractive CEMS (percent); MEIP = Measurement error for IP-CEMS (percent); MNavg = Average concentration at all sampling points (ppmv); MNbi = Measured native concentration bracketing each calibration check measurement (ppmv); MNi = Measured native concentration for test or run I (ppmv); n = Number of measurements in an average value; Pstack = Absolute stack pressure (mm Hg) Preference = Absolute pressure of the calibration cell for IP-CEMS (mm Hg) PLCell = Path length of IP-CEMS calibration cell (m); PLStack = Path length of IP-CEMS stack optical path (m); RA = Relative accuracy of CEMS compared to a RM (percent); RMi = RM concentration for test run i (ppmv); RMavg = Mean measured RM value (ppmv); S = Span value (ppmv); Sd = Standard deviation of the differences (ppmv); Sti = Stratification at traverse point i (percent); SADL = Standard addition detection level (ppmv); t0.975 = One-sided t-value at the 97.5th percentile obtained from Table 5 in section 17.0 for n−1 measurements; Treference = Temperature of the calibration cell for IP-CEMS (degrees Kelvin); Tstack = Temperature of the stack at the monitoring location for IP-CEM (degrees Kelvin). 12.2  Calculate the Difference Between the Measured HCl Concentration With and Without Interferents for Each Interference Gas (or Mixture) for Your CEMS as: EP19MY16.029

    Calculate the total percent interference as:

    EP19MY16.030

    12.2.1  Calculate the equivalent concentration Ci,eff using Equation 4:

    EP19MY16.031

    12.4.4  Calculate the zero CD as a percent of span for an IP-CEMS as:

    EP19MY16.032 PS-18  Appendix A Standard Addition Procedures 11.0  Calculations and Data Analysis. * * *

    11.2.3  If you determine your spike dilution factor using an independent stable tracer that is present in the native source emissions, calculate the dilution factor for dynamic spiking using equation A3:

    EP19MY16.033 3. In appendix F to part 60, revise Sections 4.1.5, 4.1.5.1, 4.1.5.3, and 5.2.4.2 in Procedure 6 to read as follows: Appendix F to Part 60—Quality Assurance Procedures

    Procedure 6. Quality Assurance Requirements for Gaseous Hyrogen Chloride (HCl) Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance Determination at Stationary Sources

    4.0 Daily Data Quality Assurance Requirements and Measurement Standardization Procedures

    4.1.5 Additional Quality Assurance for Data above Span. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable rule or permit, this procedure must be used to assure data quality and may be used when significant data above span is being collected.

    4.1.5.1 Any time the average measured concentration of HCl exceeds 150 percent of the span value for two consecutive 1-hour averages, conduct the following ‘above span’ CEMS response check.

    4.1.5.3 Unless otherwise specified in an applicable rule or permit, if the ‘above span’ response check is conducted during the period when measured emissions are above span and there is a failure to collect at least one data point in an hour due to the response check duration, then determine the emissions average for that missed hour as the average of hourly averages for the hour preceding the missed hour and the hour following the missed hour

    5.0 Data Accuracy Assessment

    5.2.4.2 Calculate results as described in section 6.4. To determine CEMS accuaracy you must calculate the dynamic spiking error (DSE) for each of the two upscale audit gases using equation A5 in appendix A to PS-18 and Equation 6-3 in section 6.4 of Procedure 6 appendix B to this part.

    [FR Doc. 2016-10990 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9946-02] Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals In or On Various Commodities AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces EPA's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the Pesticide Petition Number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, EPA seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. EPA is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

    New Tolerances

    1. PP 5E8376. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679). Bayer CropScience LP, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.641 for residues of the insecticide spirotetramat in or on asparagus at 0.10 parts per million (ppm). Liquid chromatography/triple stage quadruple mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate residues of the chemical spirotetramat.

    2. PP 5E8422. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0829). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.599 for residues of the insecticide acequinocyl in or on avocado at 0.4 ppm; bean, dry, seed at 0.03 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.2 ppm; tea, plucked leaves at 40 ppm; cherry subgroup 12-12A at 1.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.20 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.40 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.70 ppm. The analytical method to quantitate residues of acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH in/on fruit crops utilizes high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) using mass spectrometric (MS/MS) detection. The target limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 ppm.

    3. PP 5E8428. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0013). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.613 for residues of the insecticide flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide, and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG, N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid, in or on pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 3.0 ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B at 6.0 ppm; and vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A at 4.0 ppm. The analytical methodology used to measure and evaluate residues of flonicamid in various crops includes an initial extraction, typically with acetonitrile/deionized water, followed by a liquid-liquid partition with ethyl acetate. The final sample solution is quantitated using a liquid chromatograph equipped with a reverse phase column and a triple quadruple mass spectrometer.

    4. PP 5E8434. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0064). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.579 for residues of fenamidone (4H-imidazol-4-one, 3,5-dihydro-5-methyl-2-(methylthio)-5-phenyl-3-(phenylamino)-, (S)-) in or on the raw agricultural commodities basil, fresh leaves at 30 ppm; and basil, dried leaves at 200 ppm. Additionally, tolerances are proposed for the crops in the proposed crop subgroup 4-15A, leafy greens subgroup at 60.0 ppm, including amaranth, Chinese; amaranth, leafy; aster, Indian; blackjack; cat's whiskers; chervil, fresh leaves; cham-chwi; cham-na-mul; chipilin; chrysanthemum, garland; cilantro, fresh leaves; corn salad; cosmos; dandelion; dang-gwi; dillweed; dock; dol-nam-mul; ebolo; endive; escarole; fameflower; feather cockscomb; good king henry; huauzontle; jute, leaves; lettuce, bitter; lettuce, head; lettuce, leaf; orach; parsley, fresh leaves; plantain, buckhorn; primrose, English; purslane, garden; purslane, winter; radicchio; spinach; spinach, malabar; spinach, New Zealand; spinach, tanier; swiss chard; and violet, Chinese; the crops in the proposed crop subgroup 4-15B, Brassica leafy greens subgroup at 55 ppm, including arugula; broccoli raab; broccoli, Chinese; cabbage, Abyssinian; cabbage, seakale; Chinese cabbage, bok choy; collards; cress, garden; cress, upland; hanover salad; kale; maca; mizuna; mustard greens; radish, leaves; rape greens; rocket, wild; shepherd's purse; turnip greens; and watercress; the crops in the proposed crop subgroup 22B, leaf petiole vegetable subgroup at 60 ppm, including cardoon; celery; celery, Chinese; fuki; rhubarb; udo; and zuiki; the crops in the proposed crop group 5-15 (Brassica head and stem vegetable) at 5.0 ppm, including broccoli; brussels sprouts; cabbage; cabbage, Chinese, napa; and cauliflower; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.02 ppm; kohlrabi at 5.0 ppm; celtuce at 60 ppm; and fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk at 60 ppm. Residues are quantified by HPLC with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS). The method LOQ is 0.02 ppm or lower for fenamidone in all raw agricultural commodities and processed fractions.

    5. PP 5E8437. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.685 for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on basil, fresh leaves at 10.0 ppm; basil, dried leaves at 80 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.5 ppm; and, as designated in the November 14, 2014, proposed rule “Tolerance Crop Grouping Program IV” (79 FR 68153):

    (i) All individual crops in the proposed leafy greens subgroup 4-14A at 15 ppm, including amaranth, Chinese; amaranth, leafy; aster, Indian; blackjack; cat's whiskers; chervil, fresh leaves; cham-chwi; cham-na-mul; chipilin; chrysanthemum, garland; cilantro, fresh leaves; corn salad; cosmos; dandelion; dang-gwi; dillweed; dock; dol-nam-mul; ebolo; endive; escarole; fameflower; feather cockscomb; good king henry; huauzontle; jute, leaves; lettuce, bitter; lettuce, head; lettuce, leaf; orach; parsley, fresh leaves; plantain, buckhorn; primrose, English; purslane, garden; purslane, winter; radicchio; spinach; spinach, malabar; spinach, New Zealand; spinach, tanier; swiss chard; and violet, Chinese;

    (ii) All individual crops in the proposed Brassica leafy greens subgroup 4-14B at 10 ppm, including arugula; broccoli raab; broccoli, Chinese; cabbage, Abyssinian; cabbage, seakale; Chinese cabbage, bok choy; collards; cress, garden; cress, upland; hanover salad; kale; maca; mizuna; mustard greens; radish, leaves; rape greens; rocket, wild; shepherd's purse; turnip greens; and watercress;

    (iii) All individual crops in the proposed Brassica head and stem vegetable group 5-14 at 1.5 ppm, including broccoli; brussels sprouts; cabbage; cabbage, Chinese, napa; and cauliflower; and

    (iv) All individual crops in the proposed stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A at 2 ppm, including agave; aloe vera; asparagus; bamboo, shoots; celtuce; fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk; fern, edible; kale, sea; kohlrabi; palm hearts; prickly pear, pads; and prickly pear, Texas, pads.

    The analytical methodology, high pressure liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) detection, is used to measure and evaluate oxathiapiprolin residues.

    6. PP 5F8429. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0029). Gowan Co., P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366-5569, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.632 for residues of the miticide/insecticide fenazaquin (4-[2-[4-(1,1,-dimethylethyl) phenyl] ethoxy] quinazoline) in or on the raw commodities for tree nut crop group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm. The LC/MS/MS with positive-ion electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry is used to measure and evaluate the chemical fenazaquin.

    7. PP 5F8441. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049). Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, 410 Swing Rd., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.685 for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin in or on citrus fruit crop group 10-10 at 0.06 ppm; citrus oil at 2.0 ppm; citrus pulp at 0.09 ppm; and potato, wet peel at 0.07 ppm. The analytical method using high pressure liquid chromatography with MS/MS detection is used to measure and evaluate the chemical residues of oxathiapiprolin.

    8. PP 6E8446. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0128). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.620 for residues of the insecticide etofenprox (2-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl 3-phenoxybenzyl ether) in or on fungi, edible, group 21 at 3.0 ppm. The analytical method consisting of liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical etofenprox.

    9. PP 6E8449. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0160). ISK Biosciences Corp., 7470 Auburn Rd., Suite A, Concord, OH 44077, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.574 for residues of fluazinam, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the raw agricultural commodity dried tea at 5.0 ppm. Analytical methods using gas chromatography with electron capture detector for the determination of fluazinam on dried tea have been developed and validated.

    10. PP 6E8452. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0166). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.653 for residues of the herbicide indaziflam (N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-1-yl]-6-(1-fluoroethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine) in or on bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 0.01 ppm; caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 0.01 ppm; coffee, green bean at 0.01 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; hop, dried cones at 0.03 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm. Additionally, tolerances are proposed for the crops in the proposed crop subgroup 23A (small fruit, edible peel subgroup) at 0.01 ppm, including acerola; African plum; agritos, almondette; appleberry; arbutus berry; bayberry, red; bignay; breadnut; cabeluda; carandas-plum; Ceylon iron wood; Ceylon olive; cherry-of-the-Rio-Grande; Chinese olive, black; Chinese olive, white; chirauli-nut; cocoplum; desert-date; false sandalwood; fragrant manjack; gooseberry, Abyssinian; gooseberry, Ceylon; gooseberry, otaheite; governor's plum; grumichama; guabiroba; guava berry; guava, Brazilian; guava, Costa Rican; guayabillo; illawarra plum; Indian-plum; Jamaica-cherry; jambolan; kaffir-plum; kakadu plum; kapundung; karnada; lemon aspen; mombin, yellow; monos plum; mountain cherry; olive; persimmon, black; pitomba; plum-of-Martinique; rukam; rumberry; sea grape; sete-capotes; silver aspen; water apple; water pear; water berry; and wax jambu. The analytical method consisting of high pressure liquid chromatography with triple stage quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical indaziflam.

    11. PP 6E8454. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0171). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.659 for residues of pyroxasulfone (3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole) and its metabolites (5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid (M-3); 5-(difluoromethoxy)-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methanesulfonic acid (M-25); 3-[1-carboxy-2-(5,5-dimethyl-4,5-dihydroisoxazol-3-ylthio)ethylamino]-3-oxopropanoic acid (M-28); and 5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methanesulfonic acid (M-1)) calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone in or on the raw agricultural commodity sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.2 ppm. EPA has approved an analytical enforcement methodology including liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, and mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) to enforce the tolerance expression for pyroxasulfone.

    12. PP 6F8455. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0218). Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, 410 Swing Rd., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300 and Canyon Group LLC, 370 S. Main St., Yuma, AZ 85364, request to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.481 for residues of the herbicide prosulfuron (N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]-2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)benzenesulfonamide) in or on the raw agricultural commodities grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, fodder at 0.01 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, forage at 0.1 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, hay at 0.2 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, straw at 0.02 ppm; and grain, cereal, group 15 at 0.01 ppm. Analytical method AG-590C has been submitted for the detection and measurement of residue levels of prosulfuron in or on plant commodities. The method is based on cleanup procedures followed by determination by high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet (UV) detection. The LOQ is 0.01 ppm. A more recent analytical method, Syngenta Crop Protection Analytical Method REM 137.14, is being submitted for the determination of prosulfuron residues in crops based on cleanup procedures followed by analysis via LC/MS/MS. The LOQ is 0.01 ppm.

    Amended Tolerances

    1. PP 5E8422. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0829). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests, upon establishment of the tolerances referenced above under “New Tolerances” for PP 5E8422, to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.599 for residues of the insecticide acequinocyl in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: cucumber at 0.15 ppm; melon, subgroup 9A at 0.15 ppm; cherry, sweet at 0.50 ppm; cherry, tart at 1.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.20 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.40 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.02 ppm; pistachio at 0.02 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.70 ppm; and okra at 0.70 ppm. The analytical method to quantitate residues of acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH in/on fruit crops utilizes HPLC using MS/MS detection. The target LOQ is 0.01 ppm.

    2. PP 5E8428. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0013). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to increase the established tolerance in 40 CFR 180.613 for residues of the insecticide flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide, and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG, N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid, in or on vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 from 0.40 ppm to 1.50 ppm. The analytical methodology used to measure and evaluate residues of flonicamid in various crops includes an initial extraction, typically with acetonitrile/deionized water, followed by a liquid-liquid partition with ethyl acetate. The final sample solution is quantitated using a liquid chromatograph equipped with a reverse phase column and a triple quadruple mass spectrometer.

    3. PP 5E8434. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0064). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests, upon establishment of the tolerances referenced above under “New Tolerances” for PP 5E8434, to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.579 for residues of fenamidone (4H-imidazol-4-one, 3,5-dihydro-5-methyl-2-(methylthio)-5-phenyl-3-(phenylamino)-, (S)-) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 5.0 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 55 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.02 ppm; cilantro, leaves at 60 ppm; and vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 60 ppm. Residues are quantified by HPLC with LC/MS/MS. The method LOQ is 0.02 ppm or lower for fenamidone in all raw agricultural commodities and processed fractions.

    4. PP 5E8437. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend 40 CFR 180.685 by removing the established tolerances for the residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on leafy greens, subgroup 4A at 15 ppm; and Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.5 ppm upon establishment of the proposed tolerances referenced above under “New Tolerances” for PP 5E8437. Adequate analytical methodology, high pressure liquid chromatography with MS/MS detection, is available for enforcement purposes.

    5. PP 5F8414. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0791). Valent U.S.A. Corp., 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.627 for residues of the fungicide fluopicolide in or on vegetables, tuberous and corm (subgroup 1C) at 0.10 ppm; and potato processed waste at 0.25 ppm. Practical analytical methods for detecting and measuring levels of fluopicolide and its metabolites have been developed, validated, and submitted for all appropriate plant and animal matrices.

    6. PP 5F8429. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0029). Gowan Co., P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366-5569, requests to amend 40 CFR 180.632 by removing the established tolerance for residues of the miticide/insecticide fenazaquin (4-[2-[4-(1,1,-dimethylethyl) phenyl] ethoxy] quinazoline) in or on the raw commodity almond at 0.02 ppm upon establishment of the proposed tolerance referenced above under “New Tolerances” for PP 5F8429.

    7. PP 5F8441. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049). Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, 410 Swing Rd., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.685 for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin in or on tuberous and corm vegetables, subgroup 1C at 0.04 ppm. The analytical method using high pressure liquid chromatography with MS/MS detection is used to measure and evaluate the chemical residues of oxathiapiprolin.

    8. PP 6E8446. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0128). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.620 for residues of the insecticide etofenprox (2-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl 3-phenoxybenzyl ether) in or on all food commodities (including feed commodities) not otherwise listed from 5.0 ppm to 0.40 ppm. This amendment may potentially impact/reduce the tolerances established in or on livestock commodities. The analytical method consisting of LC/MS/MS is used to measure and evaluate the chemical etofenprox.

    9. PP 6E8452. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0166). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests, upon establishment of the tolerances referenced above under “New Tolerances” for PP 6E8452, to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.653 for residues of the herbicide indaziflam (N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-1-yl]-6-(1-fluoroethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine) in or on fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm; grape at 0.01 ppm; and pistachio at 0.01 ppm. The analytical method consisting of LC/MS/MS is used to measure and evaluate the chemical indaziflam.

    New Tolerance Exemptions

    1. PP IN-10891. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0123). BASF Corp., 26 Davis Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus simplex strain BU288 when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (emulsifier) applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    2. PP IN-10907. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0201). Keller and Heckman, LLP, 1001 G St. NW., Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001 (on behalf of Trinseo LLC, 1000 Chesterbrook Blvd., Berwyn, PA 19312-1084), requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, polymer with 1,3-butadiene, ethenylbenzene and 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate (CAS Reg. No. 36089-06-2) when used as an inert ingredient (emulsifier or binder) in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: May 6, 2016. Robert C. McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11835 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 97 Thursday, May 19, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Barenbrug USA of Tangent, Oregon, an exclusive license to the variety of tall fescue described in Plant Variety Protection Certificate Application Number 201500219, “FESCUE, TALL (SYN1RR)”, filed on December 17, 2014.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this plant variety as Barenbrug USA of Tangent, Oregon has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11800 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Oceanus Seafood, LLC of Homestead, Florida, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/479,654, “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PRODUCING AQUACULTURE FEED”, filed on September 8, 2014.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Oceanus Seafood, LLC of Homestead, Florida has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11798 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Barenbrug USA of Tangent, Oregon, an exclusive license to the variety of tall fescue described in Plant Variety Protection Certificate Application Number 201500220, “FESCUE, TALL (SYN1)”, filed on December 17, 2014.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this plant variety as Barenbrug USA of Tangent, Oregon has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11813 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Gila National Forest, Quemado Ranger District; New Mexico; Luna Restoration Project AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gila National Forest will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate a proposed action on a landscape level project to improve forest health within 185,586 acres Luna planning area on the Quemado Ranger District.

    The full text and maps of the proposed action will be located on the Forest's Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gila/home/?cid=STELPRD3828973.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by July 5, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected December, 2016 and the final environmental impact statement is expected July 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Quemado Ranger District, ATTN: District Ranger, P.O. Box 159, Quemado, NM 87829. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 575-773-4114.

    An Open House is scheduled for Wednesday June 8, 2016, 5 to 7 p.m. at the Luna Community Center, Luna, NM.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Irwin, District Ranger, Quemado Ranger District, at (575) 773-4678 or [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the Luna Restoration Project is to create and maintain a healthy resilient landscape and watersheds capable of delivering benefits to the public including clean air and water, habitat for native fish and wildlife, forest products, and outdoor recreation opportunities. There is a need to:

    • Reduce the impacts of high severity fire on natural and cultural resources, private inholdings, communities, infrastructure, and livelihoods within the planning area;

    • Implement vegetative treatments to restore departed landscapes that are overstocked, encroached, and at risk to fire, disease, insects, and other climate stressors;

    • Implement treatments in watershed that are not properly functioning;

    • Improve water quality by hardening stream crossings and performing road maintenance;

    • Continue to provide the wide range of forest products that are important to the culture, tradition and livelihoods of local communities;

    • Protect and restore threatened and endangered species and habitat;

    • Provide opportunities for OHV use, enjoyment, and access from the community of Luna;

    • Provide permanent water to support wildlife and livestock; and

    • Improve rangeland, wildlife, aquatic and riparian habitat.

    Proposed Action

    In response to the purpose and need, the Gila National Forest proposes to conduct a wide variety of restoration, maintenance, and improvement projects within the Luna planning area (185,570 acres) on the Quemado Ranger District.

    Vegetation treatments would be accomplished by hand or mechanized equipment, cutting trees individually or in groups. Maintenance and restoration activities are prosed on approximately 73,446 acres of woodland (e.g. pinyon juniper, pinyon pine) and forest (ponderosa pine and mixed conifer) stands.

    Grassland maintenance and restoration treatments are proposed on approximately 23,373 acres. Ponderosa pine and pinyon juniper have encroached, become established, and continue to spread into the grasslands. Proposed activities consist of cutting ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper by hand or mechanized equipment, to reduce tree canopy cover to less than 10% in grasslands.

    Rabbit brush treatment consists of mowing with rubber tired equipment during the dormant season (late fall to early winter) on approximately 100 acres for consecutive years to improve rangeland condition on the Centerfire Allotment. An additional 100 to 1,000 acres may be treated depending on monitoring results of the initial 100 acres.

    Thin small diameter trees <9 inches, pile burn or broadcast burn approximately 1,464 acres within Mexican Spotted Owl protected activity centers. No activities would take place between March 1 to August 31 to avoid disturbance during breeding season.

    Cut and prescribe burn Gambel oak and mountain mahogany stands to promote new growth and sprouting in various locations across the planning area for wildlife, especially game species. This would be accomplished with other vegetation and fuel treatments.

    Fall snags over approximately 1,955 acres within the Wallow Fire (2011) for site preparation (planting or natural regeneration of trees). Snags would be cut by hand or by mechanical equipment and piled, decked, removed and/or left where felled. Decks may be burned.

    Use prescribe fire exclusively to treat approximately 12,898 acres to maintain and/or reduce fuel loadings. Use prescribe fire in areas identified for vegetation treatments (approximately 70,000 to 100,000 acres). Prescribed fire can be implemented prior and after proposed vegetation treatments. Areas identified for prescribed fire are available for re-entry if objectives are not fully achieved as a result of initial treatments or for maintenance

    Improve and restore stream and riparian habitat through various activities such as constructing exclosures, planting riparian species, installing bank stabilization structures; removing invasive or non-native plant species; placing weirs to restore channel gradient; improving stream crossing, and installing and/or upgrading road drainage features.

    Add new or upgrade existing water systems on the Luna, Centerfire, and Mangitas allotments to increase livestock and wildlife distribution to benefit rangeland conditions, including watershed, soils, and stream resources.

    Conduct heavy maintenance and upgrade drainage features on forest roads to improve water quality. Harden crossings on roads and motorized trails to improve accessibility and reduce impacts to aquatic species and habitat.

    Decommission approximately 121 miles of closed roads to improve watershed condition and reduce wildlife habitat fragmentation. Decommission user created routes within the planning area.

    Add and designate approximately 20 miles of routes for ATV use, creating loop and connector route opportunities around the Luna Community.

    Responsible Official

    Gila Forest Supervisor.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made will be whether or not to implement the proposed action or an alternative to the proposed action and what mitigation measures would be required. The Forest Supervisor will also decide which forest project-level plan amendments to adopt.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. An Open House is scheduled for Wednesday June 8, 2016, 5 to 7 p.m. at the Luna Community Center, Luna, NM to provide an opportunity to review project maps, ask questions, and provide input to the proposed project.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.

    Dated: May 10, 2016. Adam Mendonca, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11801 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Craig, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/secure_rural_schools.nsf.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held June 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Craig Ranger District, 504 9th Street, Craig, Alaska. If you wish to attend via teleconference, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Craig Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Manuel, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-228-6200 or via email at [email protected].

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects authorized under Title II of the Act.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 1, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Matthew Anderson, Designated Federal Officer, P.O. Box 500, Craig, Alaska 99921; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 907-826-2972.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Matt D. Anderson, District Ranger, DFO.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11797 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Yreka, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Meeting_Page?id=a2zt00000004CyPAAU.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held June 6, 2016, at 5:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Klamath National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, Conference Room, 1711 South Main Street, Yreka, California.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Klamath NF Supervior's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Natalie Stovall, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 530-841-4411 or via email at [email protected].

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Approve prior meeting notes,

    2. Update on ongoing projects,

    3. Public comment period,

    4. Review meeting schedule,

    5. Proposal reviews,

    6. Vote on proposals, and

    7. Schedule meeting for July.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments may be sent to Natalie Stovall RAC Coordinator, 1711 S. Main Street, Yreka, California 96097; by email to [email protected] or via facsimile to 530-841-4571.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 10, 2016. Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11802 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service (RHS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comments requested.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this Notice announces the Rural Housing Service's intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the program for “Section 515 Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) Demonstration Program for Fiscal Year 2006”.

    DATES:

    Comments on this Notice must be received by July 18, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Greenwalt, Special Projects Coordinator, Multi-Family Housing and Preservation and Direct Loan Division, STOP 0782—Room 1263S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Section 515 Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) Demonstration Program.

    OMB Number: 0575-0190.

    Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2016.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-97) provides funding for, and authorizes Rural Development to conduct a demonstration program for the preservation and revitalization of the Section 515 Multi-Family Housing portfolio. Section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485) provides Rural Development the authority to make loans for low-income Multi-Family Housing and related facilities.

    Rural Development refers to this program as Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) Demonstration Program. A Notice of Solicitation for Applications (NOSA) sets forth the eligibility and application requirements. Information will be collected from applicants and grant recipients by Rural Development staff in its Local, Area, State, and National Offices. This information will be used to determine applicant eligibility for this demonstration program. If an applicant proposal is selected, that applicant will be notified of the selection and given the opportunity to submit a formal application.

    This MPR demonstration program continues to adjust the various opportunities available to demonstrate effective methods of providing the needed financial resources not otherwise available to current owners and transferees. Using alternative forms of financing, these owners will preserve existing Agency-financed Rural Rental Housing and Farm Labor Housing and extend the property's useful life for tenants meeting RD eligibility requirements. Since the inception of the MPR demonstration program in 2006, revisions and adjustments in the nature of the program have necessitate certain revisions in the context, formatting and use of the original forms in this package to permit RD's ability to provide these needed financial opportunities. To meet current Agency NOSA, regulatory and industry standards, the following forms are being revised, reformatted and/or renamed in some instances to provide clarity and consistency in their practical use and application:

    • MPR Pre-Application • Debt Deferral Agreement • Restrictive-Use Covenant • Restrictive-Use Subordination Agreement • MPR Grant Agreement • MPR Loan and Grant Resolution (non-profit corporation) • Restructuring Conditional Commitment (renamed: MPR Offer and Conditional Commitment) • Addendum to Debt Deferral Agreement • Subordination Agreement

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response.

    Respondents: Individuals, partnerships, public and private non-profit corporations, agencies, institutions, organizations, and Indian tribes.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,500.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 11,610.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 10,549.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0040.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of Rural Development, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of Rural Development's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Support Services Division, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this Notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Non-Discrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) By mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20250-9410;

    (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    (3) Email: [email protected].

    USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Dated: May 13, 2016. Tony Hernandez, Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11909 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 16, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by June 20, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Rural Housing Service

    Title: 7 CFR 1944-N—Housing Preservation Grants.

    OMB Control Number: 0575-0115.

    Summary of Collection: The Rural Housing Service (RHS) is authorized to make grants to eligible applicants to provide repair and rehabilitation assistance so that very low- and low-income rural residents can obtain adequate housing. Such assistance is made by grantees to very low- and low-income persons, and to co-ops. Grant funds are used by grantees to make loans, grants, or other comparable assistance to eligible homeowners, rental unit owners, and co-ops for repair and rehabilitation of dwellings to bring them up to code or minimum property standards. These grants were established by Public Law 98-181, the Housing Urban Rural Recovery Act of 1983, which amended the Housing Act of 1949 (Pub. L. 93-383) by adding section 533, 42 U.S.C. S 2490(m), Housing Preservation Grants.

    Need and Use of the Information: An applicant will submit a “Statement of Activity” that describes its proposed program. RHS will collect information to determine eligibility for a grant to justify its selection of the applicant for funding; to report program accomplishments and to justify and support expenditure of grant funds. RHS uses this information to determine if the grantee is complying with its grant agreement and to make decisions regarding continuing with modifying, or terminating grant assistance. If the information were not collected and presented to RHS, the Agency could not monitor the program or justify disbursement of grant funds.

    Description of Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 1,246.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion; Quarterly.

    Total Burden Hours: 7,562.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11831 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Information Collection Activity; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Utilities Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), hereinafter referred to as Agency, invites comments on this information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by July 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492, FAX: (202) 720-4120.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for extension.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, Room 5164, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. FAX: (202) 720-4120.

    Title: Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0134.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: As part of the nation's evolution to digital television, the Federal Communications Commission had ordered all television broadcasters to initiate the broadcast of a digital television signal. Public television stations rely largely on community financial support to operate. In many rural areas the cost of the transition to digital broadcasting may exceed community resources. Since rural communities depend on public television stations for services ranging from educational course content in their schools to local news, weather, and agricultural reports, any disruption of public television broadcasting would be detrimental.

    Initiating a digital broadcast requires the installation of a new antenna, transmitter or translator, and new digital program management facilities consisting of processing and storage systems. Public television stations use a combination of transmitters and translators to serve the rural public. If the public television station is to perform program origination functions, as most do, digital cameras, editing and mastering systems are required. A new studio-to-tower site communications link may be required to transport the digital broadcast signal to each transmitter and translator. The capability to broadcast some programming in a high definition television format is inherent in the digital television standard, and this can require additional facilities at the studio. These are the new components of the digital transition.

    In designing the national competition for the distribution of these grant funds, priority is given to public television stations serving the areas that would be most unable to fund the digital transition without a grant. The largest sources of funding for public television stations are public membership and business contributions. In rural areas, lower population density reduces the field of membership, and rural areas have fewer businesses per capita than urban and suburban areas. Therefore, rurality is a primary predictor of the need for grant funding for a public television station's digital transition. In addition, some rural areas have per capita income levels that are lower than the national average, and public television stations covering these areas in particular are likely to have difficulty funding the digital transition. As a result, the consideration of the per capita income of a public television station's coverage area is a secondary predictor of the need for grant funding. Finally, some public television stations may face special difficulty accomplishing the transition, and a third scoring factor for station hardship will account for conditions that make these public television stations less likely to accomplish the digital transition without a grant.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

    Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimate of annual responses: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 30 hours annual responses.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 744 hours.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 720-7853. FAX: (202) 720-4120.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 10, 2016. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11832 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Information Collection Activity; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which it intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by July 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. Fax: (202) 720-8435.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. FAX: (202) 690-4492.

    Title: Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and Grant Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0096.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection package.

    Abstract: The Rural Utilities Service's (RUS) Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Loan and Grant program provides loans and grants for advanced telecommunications services to improve rural areas' access to educational and medical services. The various forms and narrative statements required are collected from the applicants (rural community facilities, such as schools, libraries, hospitals, and medical facilities, for example). The purpose of collecting the information is to determine such factors as eligibility of the applicant; the specific nature of the proposed project; the purposes for which loan and grant funds will be used; project financial and technical feasibility; and, compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In addition, for grants funded pursuant to the competitive evaluation process, information collected facilitates RUS' selection of those applications most consistent with DLT goals and objectives in accordance with the authorizing legislation and implementing regulation.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.45 hours per response.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 190.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 23.3.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11,640 hours.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-1078. FAX: (202) 720-7853.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 10, 2016. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11833 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-830] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On November 10, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Mexico. The period of review (POR) is October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, and the review covers two producers/exporters of subject merchandise: ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT) and Deacero S.A.de C.V.1

    1 During this administrative review, we also examined Deacero USA, Inc., the U.S.-based affiliate of Deacero S.A. de C.V. We refer to these two companies collectively as Deacero.

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes in the margin calculations. The final results, consequently, differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed producers/exporters are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”

    DATES:

    Effective May 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Terpstra (for Deacero) and Jolanta Lawska (for AMLT), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3965 and 202-482-8362, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On November 10, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of the antidumping duty administrative review of wire rod from Mexico.2 We invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. On December 10, 2015, the Department received case briefs from Deacero, AMLT,3 Gerdau Ameristeel USA, INC., and ArcelorMittal USA LLC, (collectively, Petitioners), and Nucor Corporation (Nucor).4 On December 21, 2015, all parties submitted rebuttal briefs. On January 12, 2016, the Department extended the deadline for the final results of this administrative review until May 9, 2016,5 which the Department tolled to May 13, 2016.6 The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    2See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 69641 (November 10, 2014) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    3 The Department rejected AMLT's originally filed case brief because it contained untimely filed new factual information. See Memorandum “Rejection of Case Brief Submitted by AMLT” dated January 11, 2016. On January 20, 2016, AMLT submitted a revised case brief.

    4 Nucor Corporation (Nucor) is a domestic interested party.

    5See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations from Erin Begnal, Director, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office III through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office III regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results dated January 12, 2016.

    6 As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the closure of the Federal Government. See memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,” dated January 27, 2016, in which the Department extended all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding by four business days. Pursuant to this memorandum, the revised deadline for the preliminary results is May 13, 2016.

    Period of Review

    The POR covered by this review is October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059. Although the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.7

    7 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Decision Memorandum for Final Results of 2013/14 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico (Final Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the calculations. These changes are fully discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and the Calculation Memoranda for the final results.8

    8See “Final Results in the 9th Administrative Review on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Calculation Memorandum for Deacero S.A. de C.V. and Deacero USA, Inc. (collectively, Deacero),” from James Terpstra, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, to The File, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, and “Final Results in the 9th Administrative Review on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Calculation Memorandum for ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT)” from Jolanta Lawska, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, to The File, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, dated concurrently with this notice (collectively, Calculation Memoranda for Final Results).

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we determine that the following margins for the POR:

    Producer/exporter Weighted-average dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Deacero S.A. de C.V 1.54 ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V 2.59
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.9 For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.

    9 For assessment purposes, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Deacero and AMLT will be the rates established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 20.11 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    10See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. List of Comments Deacero Comment 1: Adjustment to the General and Administrative (G&A) Expense Ratio Comment 2: Whether the Department Erred in the Net Comparison-Market Price (CMNETPRI) Calculation Comment 3: Whether the Department Erred in Currency Conversion Calculation Comment 4: Treatment of Inland Insurance Verification Corrections Comment 5: Nucor's Clerical Error Corrections Comment 6: Whether to Disallow Certain Post-Sale Price Adjustments Comment 7: Whether Deacero Engaged in “Targeted Dumping” AMLT Comment 8: Whether AMLT's Depreciation Should Be Adjusted to Reflect Mexican Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Comment 9: Treatment of AMLT's Fixed Overhead Costs Comment 10: Treatment of AMLT's Additional Mexican GAAP Costs IV. Scope of the Order V. Discussion of Comments VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-11858 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Open Meeting of the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, June 15, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, June 16, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, June 17, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 15, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, June 16, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, June 17, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place at the United States Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Annie Sokol, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, telephone: (301) 975-2006, or by email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, June 15, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, June 16, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, June 17, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The ISPAB is authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278g-4, as amended, and advises the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal government information systems, including thorough review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST. Details regarding the ISPAB's activities are available at http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/ispab/index.html.

    The agenda is expected to include the following items:

    —Presentation and discussion on Internet of Things, —Presentation on Block Chain Protocol and the emerging ecosystem, —Legislative updates relating to security and privacy, —OMB updates relating to information security, privacy, cybersecurity and quantum cryptography, —Presentation on secure engineering and cybersecurity resilience, —Presentation on high performance computing security, —Updates from NIST on Privacy Engineering Framework, —GAO Reports presentation, and —Updates on NIST Computer Security Division.

    Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agenda will be posted on the Web site indicated above. Seating will be available for the public and media. No registration is required to attend this meeting.

    Public Participation: The ISPAB agenda will include a period of time, not to exceed thirty minutes, for oral comments from the public (Friday, June 17, 2016, between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m.). Speakers will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis. Each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Members of the public who are interested in speaking are requested to contact Annie Sokol at the contact information indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the ISPAB at any time. All written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930.

    Kevin Kimball, Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11775 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE473 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to an Anchor Retrieval Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has received an application from Fairweather, LLC (Fairweather) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to an anchor retrieval program in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, Alaska, during the open-water season of 2016. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to Fairweather to incidentally take, by Level B Harassments, marine mammals during the specified activity.

    DATES:

    Comments and information must be received no later than June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is [email protected]. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. NMFS is not responsible for comments sent to addresses other than those provided here.

    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.html without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.html. The following associated documents are also available at the same internet address: Plan of Cooperation. Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.

    NMFS is also preparing draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will consider comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that process. The draft EA will be posted at the foregoing internet site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

    Summary of Request

    On February 2, 2016, NMFS received an application from Fairweather for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting anchor retrieval activities in the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort seas. After receiving NMFS comments, Fairweather made revisions and updated its IHA application and marine mammal mitigation and monitoring plan on February 8, 2016. NMFS considers the IHA application complete as of February 8, 2016.

    Fairweather proposes to retrieve anchor equipment left by Shell Offshore, Inc. (Shell) during its 2012 and 2015 exploration drilling programs in the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The proposed activity would occur between July 1 and October 31, 2016. Noise generated from anchor handling activities and vessel's dynamic positioning thrusters could impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities. Take, by Level B harassments, of individuals of eight species of marine mammals may result from the specified activity.

    Description of the Specified Activity Dates and Duration

    Fairweather's proposed anchor retrieval activity is planned for the 2016 open-water season (July through October, 2016). Vessels will mobilize from Dutch Harbor in late June to arrive in Kotzebue area by early July to start the anchor retrieval program. Fairweather anticipates operations will be complete by late August with all vessels out of the theater, with the exception of the Norseman II, which would remain in the area for final data collection until October.

    At each site, active anchor retrieval activities with the use of thrusters are expected to occur within two to seven days with the thrusters operating only part of the time; unseating typically takes less than half an hour for each anchor. Additionally, locating anchors using high-frequency sonar are expected to take one to three days at each site before and after anchor retrieval, although take of marine mammals is not expected to result from exposure to these high frequency sources. Therefore, operations that may result in incidental harassment to marine mammals would occur over approximately 10 days total on each site throughout the season with the noise sources operating only part of the time over those days.

    Specified Geographic Region

    Fairweather will retrieve mooring systems that were left as part of Shell's exploration program at five locations (Figure 1 of the IHA application): (1) Good Hope Bay in Kotzebue Sound, (2) Burger A site in the Chukchi Sea, (3) Burger V site in the Chukchi Sea, (4) Kakapo in the Chukchi Sea, and (5) Sivulliq site in the Beaufort Sea. Using four specialized Anchor Handling Towing Supply Vessels (AHTSVs), the mooring systems are scheduled for retrieval in the open water season of 2016 (July through September). AHTSVs will mobilize from Dutch Harbor in late June to arrive in Kotzebue area by early July. Multiple retrieval scenarios have been developed to retrieve all of the systems within one season; actual timing of retrieval at each of the sites will depend on vessel configuration, ice, weather, and timing of subsistence activities in Kotzebue and Beaufort Sea.

    The Kotzebue location is approximately 20 kilometers (km, 12 miles [mi]) offshore of the village of Kotzebue, on the northwest coast of Alaska. The average depth in the Kotzebue project area is approximately 9 meters (m, 29 feet [ft]). The Burger A and Burger V locations are approximately 100 km (64 mi) offshore and approximately 126 km (78 mi) northwest of the closest village of Wainwright. Water depths in the Burger prospect area average 40-48 m (130-157 ft). The Kakapo location is approximately 110 km (68 mi) offshore to the northwest of the village of Point Lay, also on the northwest coast of Alaska. Water depths in the Kakapo area are similar to Burger, averaging 40 m (130 ft). The Sivulliq location is approximately 25 km (15 mi) offshore of the North Slope of Alaska in between Prudhoe Bay to the west and Kaktovik to the east. The average water depth at the Sivulliq project area is approximately 30-35 m (98-115 ft).

    Detailed Description of Activities I. Anchor Retrieval

    The goal of the retrieval program will be to complete operations efficiently and safely within one season, taking into consideration ice, weather, and subsistence harvest activities. Preliminary calculations indicate the vessels will have sufficient fuel onboard to have endurance to remain offshore with minimal fuel transfers at sea. The number of crew changes and vessel resupply will depend on the progress of the retrieval program, but, if necessary, will take place in Kotzebue, Wainwright, or Prudhoe Bay. Through the Olgoonik Fairweather, LLC joint venture, Fairweather has provided crew change and logistic support for multiple vessels in all three locations since 2008. A small, flat-bottom crew change vessel is available at each location to transfer personnel, equipment, and groceries from shore to the AHTSV. Helicopters will not be used in this program, unless in an emergency situation.

    Vessels will mobilize from Dutch Harbor in late June to arrive in Kotzebue area by early July. Delmar (the owners of some of the mooring systems and onboard anchor handling technicians) and Fairweather have developed multiple scenarios to retrieve all of the systems within one season. Each AHTSV vessel is a different size and each will hold different amounts of equipment depending on deck space, storage reel space, chain locker space, storage location, and equipment type to meet stability requirements. If subsistence harvest activities are taking place, Fairweather will not retrieve anchors until cleared (by the communities) to do so. The vessels will move into the Chukchi Sea to retrieve the Burger and Kakapo anchors, depending on ice presence. As soon as the passage to Barrow around Point Barrow is ice free and safe for passage to the Beaufort Sea, two of the four vessels will immediately transit to the Sivulliq site. Typically, this occurs in late July/early August. Retrieval operations will be completed and vessels out of the Beaufort prior to the August 25th commencement for the Nuiqsut/Kaktovik bowhead whale harvest. Once the Sivulliq anchors are retrieved, the two vessels will return to the Chukchi Sea to complete any remaining operations.

    Once on site, the retrieval of each anchor and associated mooring system typically takes approximately four hours to complete. There is typically one to two vessels onsite, only one of which will be retrieving an anchor. Depending on weather and number of the mooring lines/anchors, one site is expected be completed between two and seven days. Anchors will be retrieved in one of two ways. The first is by locating the float rope connected to each of the mooring systems with the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and retrieving the anchor from the opposite side of the anchor, working towards the anchor itself. The second method will be employed if the float rope cannot be located, or the vessel retrieving does not have an ROV. A grappling hook will be deployed and to grasp the mooring chain along the anchoring system. From that point, the anchor system will be pulled on the back deck with retrieval on the non-anchor side first, then the anchor side, and all the way to the anchor.

    Over this period, the anchor winch and thrusters will used to pull to unseat and retrieve anchors from the seafloor. Depending on water depth and anchors depth, this typically takes 15-20 minutes per anchor. Thruster usage while maintaining station using Dynamic Positioning (DP) will vary depending on weather and sea conditions. Thruster percentages are automatically increased and decreased based on the sea state and weather. If weather conditions are poor, the thrusters will need to work harder to maintain position. Anchors at Burger A and Kakapo locations are wet stored (they were not seated deeply in place) and will not require unseating.

    It has been reported that during anchor handling, noises from operating vessels' dynamic positioning thrusters, coupled with other machinery noises generated from anchor deployments and retrieving using winch and steel cables, were the loudest among all activities in the Arctic (LGL, et al. 2014). Although noise levels from anchor handling operations are not expected to cause hearing impairments or injury to marine mammals, these noise levels are high enough to cause behavioral harassment to marine mammals in the vicinity. These noises sources are non-impulsive, and are considered “continuous” in current NMFS noise analysis.

    2. Use of Sonar Equipment

    If necessary, Fairweather proposes to use a geo-referenced interferometric sonar or multi-beam sonar with magnetometer to provide accurate imagery of the anchors and associated gear prior to retrieval and after the retrieval to confirm removal of anchor equipment. The device is mounted in a towfish towed by the Norseman II (just below the sea surface, or deep-towed). The sound frequencies used in sonar usually range from 100 to 500 kiloHertz (kHz); higher frequencies yield better resolution but less range. The actual device has not been decided, but the following systems would be representative of what would be used:

    • A multi-beam echosounder operates at an rms source level of a maximum of 220 dB re 1 μPa @1m. The multi beam echosounder emits high frequency (240 kHz) energy in a fan-shaped pattern of equidistant or equiangular beam spacing. The beam width of the emitted sound energy in the along-track direction is 1.5 degrees, while the across track beam width is 1.8 degrees. (Teledyne Benthos Geophysical 2008; Konsberg 2014).

    • A single-beam echosounder operates at an rms source level of approximately 220 dB re 1 μPa @1m. The transducer selected uses a frequency of 210 kHz. The transducer's beam width is approximately 3 degrees. (Teledyne Benthos Geophysical 2008; Konsberg 2014).

    • A dual frequency sonar system will operate at about 400 kHz and 900 kHz. The rms source level is 215 dB re 1μPa @1m. The sound energy is emitted in a narrow fan-shaped pattern, with a horizontal beam width of 0.45 degrees for 400 kHz and 0.25 degrees at 900 kHz, with a vertical beam width of 50 degrees. (Teledyne Benthos Geophysical 2008; Konsberg 2014).

    In the 2013 Shell 90-day report (Bisson et al., 2013), JASCO measured all the various sources associated with the seismic survey program, including sonar. They measured the distance to the 160 dB threshold to be 130 m, resulting in an ensonified area of 0.053 km2. More importantly, available evidence suggests that marine mammals do not hear at frequencies above 180-200 kHz, and therefore we do not believe that take is likely to result from exposure to these sources.

    3. Ice Forecasting and Ice Management

    The anchor retrieval program is located in an area characterized by active sea ice movement, ice scouring, and storm surges. In anticipation of potential ice hazards that may be encountered, we will utilize real-time ice and weather forecasting to identify conditions that could put operations at risk, allowing the vessels to modify their activities accordingly. These observations will be made by experienced ice and weather specialists whose sole duty is to provide information and provide advice on any ice-related threats. These observers and advisors will be based in Anchorage. This real-time ice and weather forecasting will be available to personnel for planning purposes and as a tool to alert the fleet of impending hazardous ice and weather conditions. Potential data sources for ice forecasting and tracking include:

    • Potential unmanned aerial support operated by Tulugaq II LLC from vessels for ice scouting.

    • Radarsat Data Synthetic Aperture Radar—provides all-weather imagery of ice conditions with very high resolution.

    • Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)—a satellite providing lower resolution visual and near infrared imagery.

    • Other publically available remote sensing satellite data such as Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite, Oceansat-2 Scatterometer, and Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer.

    • Reports from Ice Specialists on the ice management vessel and anchor handler and from the Ice Observer on the vessels.

    • Information from the NOAA ice centers and potentially the University of Colorado.

    The proposed 2016 anchor handling fleet will consist of two ice-classed vessels. The only time ice management is likely for this project is around Point Barrow. The goal of the project is to transit into the Beaufort Sea as soon as ice conditions allow, which is typically in late July. If vessels transit into the area and ice moves in, they may be required to manage ice floes. Fairweather does not anticipate active ice management except for a few days near Point Barrow during the transit. Therefore, we have analyzed potential impacts of ice management for two days in the Barrow area.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The Chukchi and Beaufort Seas support a diverse assemblage of marine mammals. Table 2 lists the 12 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area.

    Table 2—Marine Mammal Species With Confirmed or Possible Occurrence in the Proposed Action Area Species/stocks Conservation status Habitat Population
  • estimate
  • Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas)—Eastern Chukchi Stock ESA—Not Listed Offshore, coastal, ice edges 3,710 Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas)—Beaufort Stock ESA—Not Listed Offshore, coastal, ice edges 32,453 Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ESA—Not Listed Widely distributed 2,084 Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)—Bering Sea Stock ESA—Not Listed Coastal, inland waters, shallow offshore waters 48,215 Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus)—Western Arctic Stock ESA—Endangered Pack ice, coastal 13,796 Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)—Eastern Pacific Stock ESA—Not Listed Coastal, lagoons, shallow offshore waters 19,126 Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) ESA—Not Listed Shelf, coastal 810 Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)—Western North Pacific Stock ESA—Endangered Shelf slope, mostly pelagic 6,000-14,000 Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)—Northeast Pacific Stock ESA—Endangered Shelf, coastal 1,368 Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) ESA—Not listed Pack ice, shallow offshore waters 155,000 Spotted seal (Phoca largha) ESA—(Arctic DPS Not Listed) Pack ice, coastal haul outs, offshore 391,000 Ringed seal (Pusa hispida) ESA—Not listed Land-fast & pack ice, offshore 300,000 Ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata) ESA—Not Listed Pack ice, offshore 90,000-100,000

    Among these species, bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, walrus and the polar bear could also occur in the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort seas; however, these species are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not considered in this Notice of Proposed IHA.

    Of all these species, bowhead and beluga whales and ringed, bearded, and spotted seals are the species most frequently sighted in the proposed activity area. The proposed action area in Chukchi and Beaufort seas also include areas that have been identified as important for bowhead whale reproduction during summer and fall and for beluga whale feeding and reproduction in summer.

    Most spring-migrating bowhead whales would likely pass through the Chukchi Sea prior to the start of the planned anchor handling activities. However, a few whales that may remain in the Chukchi Sea during the summer could be encountered during the anchor handling activities or by transiting vessels. More encounters with bowhead whales would be likely to occur during the westward fall migration in late September through October. Most bowheads migrating in September and October appear to transit across the northern portion of the Chukchi Sea to the Chukotka coast before heading south toward the Bering Sea (Quakenbush et al. 2009). Some of these whales have traveled well north of the planned operations, but others have passed near to, or through, the proposed project area.

    Two stocks of beluga whales occur in the proposed anchor retrieving project areas: The Eastern Chukchi stock and the Beaufort Sea stock. The Eastern Chukchi Sea belugas move into coastal areas, including Kasegaluk Lagoon, in late June and animals are sighted in the area until about mid-July (Frost et al. 1993). This movement indicated some overlap in distribution with the Beaufort Sea beluga whale stock during late summer. Summer densities of beluga whales in offshore waters are expected to be low, with somewhat higher densities in ice-margin and nearshore areas. If belugas are present during the summer, they are more likely to occur in or near the ice edge or close to shore during their northward migration. In the fall, beluga whale densities offshore in the Chukchi Sea are expected to be somewhat higher than in the summer because individuals of the eastern Chukchi Sea stock and the Beaufort Sea stock will be migrating south to their wintering grounds in the Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2014).

    Ringed seals are year-round residents in the Bering Sea, Norton and Kotzebue Sounds, and throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and are the most frequently encountered seal in the area (Allen and Angliss 2015). They occur as far south as Bristol Bay in years of extensive ice coverage but generally are not abundant south of Norton Sound except in nearshore areas (Frost 1985). Ringed seals will likely be the most abundant marine mammal species encountered in the Chukchi Sea during anchor retrieval operations.

    During spring when pupping, breeding, and molting occur, spotted seals are found along the southern edge of the sea ice in the Okhotsk and Bering seas (Quakenbush 1988; Rugh et al. 1997). In late April and early May, adult spotted seals are often seen on the ice in female-pup or male-female pairs, or in male-female-pup triads. Sub-adults may be seen in larger groups of up to 200 animals. During the summer, spotted seals are found primarily in the Bering and Chukchi seas, but some range into the Beaufort Sea (Rugh et al. 1997; Lowry et al. 1998) from July until September. Spotted seals are expected to occur near the planned anchor handling activities in the Chukchi Sea, but they will likely be fewer in number than ringed seals.

    Bearded seals occur over the continental shelves of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (Burns 1981b). During the summer period, bearded seals occur mainly in relatively shallow areas because they are predominantly benthic feeders (Burns 1981b). During winter, most bearded seals in Alaskan waters are found in the Bering Sea. From mid-April to June as the ice recedes, some of the bearded seals that overwinter in the Bering Sea migrate northward through the Bering Strait. During the summer they are found near the widely fragmented margin of sea ice covering the continental shelf of the Chukchi Sea and in nearshore areas of the central and western Beaufort Sea (Allen and Angliss 2015). Bearded seals are likely to be encountered during anchor handling activities, and greater numbers of bearded seals are likely to be encountered if the ice edge occurs nearby.

    Further information on the biology and local distribution of these species can be found in Fairweather's application (see ADDRESSES) and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.html.

    Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., operation of dynamic positioning thrusters) have been observed to or are thought to impact marine mammals. The discussion may also include reactions that we consider to rise to the level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise to the level of a take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting barely measurable avoidance). This section is intended as a background of potential effects and does not consider either the specific manner in which this activity will be carried out or the mitigation that will be implemented or how either of those will shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, the “Proposed Mitigation” section, and the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.

    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data. Southall et al. (2007) designate “functional hearing groups” for marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):

    • Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz;

    • Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;

    • High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz;

    • Phocid pinnipeds (true seals): Functional hearing is estimated between 75 Hz to 100 kHz; and

    • Otariid pinnipeds (sea lions and fur seals): Functional hearing is estimated between 100 Hz to 48 kHz.

    Species found in the vicinity of Fairweather anchor retrieval operation area include four low-frequency cetacean species (Bowhead whale, gray whale, humpback whale, and fin whale), two mid-frequency cetacean species (beluga whale and killer whale), one high-frequency cetacean species (harbor porpoise), and four pinniped species (ringed seal, spotted seal, bearded seal, and ribbon seal).

    The proposed Fairweather anchor retrieving operation could adversely affect marine mammal species and stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area. Noise sources that could potentially cause harassment include anchor retrieving activity and limited ice management.

    Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern, and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing threshold shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the noise exposure. The amount of threshold shift just after exposure is the initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift eventually returns to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is a temporary threshold shift (Southall et al., 2007).

    Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)—When animals exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced threshold shift (TS). An animal can experience temporary threshold shift (TTS) or permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's hearing sensitivity might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can also occur in a specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for TTS.

    The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role in inducing auditory TS: Effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear, displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output (Southall et al., 2007). The amplitude, duration, frequency, temporal pattern, and energy distribution of sound exposure all can affect the amount of associated TS and the frequency range in which it occurs. As amplitude and duration of sound exposure increase, so, generally, does the amount of TS, along with the recovery time. For intermittent sounds, less TS could occur than compared to a continuous exposure with the same energy (some recovery could occur between intermittent exposures depending on the duty cycle between sounds) (Kryter et al., 1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one short but loud (higher SPL) sound exposure may induce the same impairment as one longer but softer sound, which in turn may cause more impairment than a series of several intermittent softer sounds with the same total energy (Ward, 1997). Additionally, though TTS is temporary, prolonged exposure to sounds strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals (Kryter, 1985). Although in the case of Fairweather's anchor retrieving program, NMFS does not expect that animals would experience levels high enough or durations long enough to result in TS given that the noise levels from the operation is a very low.

    For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a, 2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, data are limited to measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b).

    Lucke et al. (2009) found a threshold shift (TS) of a harbor porpoise after exposing it to airgun noise with a received sound pressure level (SPL) at 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 μPa, which corresponds to a sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re: 1 μPa2 s after integrating exposure. NMFS currently uses the root-mean-square (rms) of received SPL at 180 dB and 190 dB re: 1 μPa as the threshold above which permanent threshold shift (PTS) could occur for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. Because the airgun noise is a broadband impulse, one cannot directly determine the equivalent of rms SPL from the reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, applying a conservative conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys (McCauley, et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peak-to-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the rms SPL for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re: 1 μPa, and the received levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be higher. This is still above NMFS' current 180 dB rms re: 1 μPa threshold for injury. However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of harbor porpoises is lower than other cetacean species empirically tested (Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et al., 2002; Kastelein and Jennings, 2012).

    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note, reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.

    In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al. 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human sources interfere with animal detection of acoustic signals such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine mammals. Under certain circumstances, masking of important acoustic cues for marine mammals could inhibit their ability to maximize feeding or breeding opportunities, potentially effecting important vital rates that could translate to effects on survival and reproduction.

    Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize. Therefore, since noise generated from vessels dynamic positioning activity is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al. 2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al. 2004; Holt et al. 2009).

    Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 3 times in terms of sound pressure level (SPL)) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic noise sources, such as those from vessel traffic and anchor retrieving contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels, thus increasing potential for or severity of masking.

    Finally, exposure of marine mammals to certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al. 1995), such as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries).

    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall et al. 2007). Currently NMFS uses a received level of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) to predict the onset of behavioral harassment from impulse noises (such as impact pile driving), and 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for continuous noises (such as operating DP thrusters). No impulse noise is expected from the Fairweather's anchor retrieval operation. For the Fairweather's anchor retrieval operation, the 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) threshold is considered because only continuous noise sources would be generated.

    The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, duration, and context of the effects.

    Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    Project activities that could potentially impact marine mammal habitats by causing acoustical injury to prey resources and disturbing benthic habitat from anchor retrieving. Regarding the former, however, acoustical injury from thruster noise is unlikely. Previous noise studies (e.g., Greenlaw et al. 1988, Davis et al. 1998, Christian et al. 2004) with cod, crab, and schooling fish found little or no injury to adults, larvae, or eggs when exposed to impulsive noises exceeding 220 dB. Continuous noise levels from ship thrusters are generally below 180 dB, and do not create great enough pressures to cause tissue or organ injury. However, the elevated noise levels could cause temporary habitat abandoning by prey species.

    Retrieving of the anchors will result in some seafloor disturbance and temporary increases in water column turbidity. Previous drilling units were held in place during operations with systems of six-eight anchors for each unit. The embedment type anchors were designed to embed into the seafloor thereby providing the required resistance. The anchors generally penetrated the seafloor on contact. Both the anchor and anchor chain will disturb sediments during the retrieval process, creating a trench or depression with surrounding berms where the displaced sediment is mounded. Some sediment will be suspended in the water column during the removal of the anchors. The depression with associated berm, collectively known as an anchor scar, remains when the anchor is removed. Shell estimated that each anchor would impact a seafloor area of up to about 233 m2 (2,510 ft2). We assume the retrieval process will result in disturbance of this area, but the anchors will be removed and the area will most likely be recolonized.

    Over time the anchor scars will be filled due to natural movement of sediment. The duration of the scars depends upon the energy of the system, water depth, ice scour, and sediment type. Anchor scars were visible under low energy conditions in the North Sea for five to ten years after retrieval. Scars typically do not form or persist in sandy mud or sand sediments but may last for nine years in hard clays (Centaur Associates, Inc. 1984). The energy regime, plus possible effects of ice gouge in the Arctic Ocean, suggests that anchor scars will be refilled faster than in the North Sea.

    Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant). NMFS implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(11) require incidental take applications to include information about the availability and feasibility of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, and on their availability for subsistence uses.

    For the proposed Fairweather open-water anchor retrieval operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, Fairweather and its contractor worked with NMFS to propose the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity as a result of the activities. The primary purpose of these mitigation measures is to detect marine mammals and avoid vessel interactions during the anchor retrieval operation. The following are mitigation measures proposed to be included in the IHA (if issued).

    (a) Establishing and Monitoring Exclusion Zone for Anchor Retrieval and Ice Management

    (1) Protected species observers (PSOs) would establish and monitor a safety zone of 500 m for anchor retrieval activity and ice management. The modeled safety zone for anchor retrieval is 220 m from the source.

    (2) When the vessel is positioned on-site, the PSOs will `clear' the area by observing the 500 m safety zone for 30 minutes; if no marine mammals are observed within those 30 minutes, anchor retrieval or ice management will commence.

    (3) If a marine mammal(s) is observed within the 500 m of the anchor retrieval and/or ice management safety zone during the clearing, the PSOs will continue to watch until the animal(s) is gone and has not returned for 15 minutes if the sighting was a pinniped, or 30 minutes if it was a cetacean.

    (4) Once the PSOs have cleared the area, anchor retrieval or ice management operations may commence.

    (5) Should a marine mammal(s) be observed within or approaching the 500-m safety zone during the retrieval or ice management operations, the PSOs will monitor and carefully record any reactions observed.

    (b) Establishing and Monitoring Exclusion Zone for Sonar Activity

    Although NMFS does not expect marine mammals would be taken by high-frequency sonar used for locating anchors, Fairweather requests that the following mitigation and monitoring measures related to sonar operations be implemented

    (1) PSOs would establish and monitor an exclusion zone of 500 m for sonar activity. The modeled exclusion zone for sonar activity is 220 m from the source.

    (2) Prior to starting the sonar activity, the PSOs will `clear' the area by observing the 500 m exclusion zone for 30 minutes; if no marine mammals are observed within those 30 minutes, sonar activity will commence.

    (3) If a marine mammal(s) is observed within the 500-m exclusion zone during the clearing, the PSOs will continue to watch until the animal(s) is gone and has not returned for 15 minutes if the sighting was a pinniped, or 30 minutes if it was a cetacean.

    (4) Once the PSOs have cleared the area, sonar activity may commence.

    (c) Establishing Zones of Influence (ZOIs)

    PSOs would establish and monitor ZOIs where the received level is 120 dB during Fairweather's anchor retrieval operation and where the received level is 160 dB during sonar activity.

    (d) Vessel Speed or Course Measures

    If a marine mammal is detected outside the 500 m sonar exclusion zone for sonar activities or during transit between sites, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter those zones, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practical and safe, be changed. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the vessels shall be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within either zone. If the mammal appears likely to enter the respective zone, further mitigation actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or shut down in the case of the sonar. During actual anchor handling, the vessel is stationary on site.

    In addition, the vessel shall reduce its speed to 5 kt (9.26 km/h) or lower when within 900 ft (274 m) of cetaceans or pinnipeds. Further, Fairweather shall avoid transits within designated North Pacific right whale critical habitat. If transit within North Pacific right whale critical habitat cannot be avoided, vessel operators are requested to exercise extreme caution and observe the of 10 kt (18.52 km/h) vessel speed restriction while within North Pacific right whale critical habitat. Within the North Pacific right whale critical habitat, all vessels shall keep 2,625 ft (800 m) away from any observed North Pacific right whales and avoid approaching whales head-on consistent with vessel safety.

    (e) Shutdown Measures

    If an animal enters or is approaching the 500 m exclusion zone, sonar will be shut down immediately. Sonar activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone. PSOs will also collect behavioral information on marine mammals beyond the exclusion zone.

    Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated Fairweather's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

    • The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measures are expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

    • The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

    • The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:

    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures. considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Proposed measures to ensure availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses are discussed later in this document (see “Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses” section).

    Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Fairweather submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period or from the peer review panel (see the “Monitoring Plan Peer Review” section later in this document).

    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

    1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, i.e., presence, abundance, distribution, and/or density of species.

    2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g. sound or visual stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following: The action itself and its environment (e.g. sound source characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected species (e.g. life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal (e.g. age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding areas).

    3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible, e.g., at what distance or received level).

    4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g. through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival).

    5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals).

    6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region.

    7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures.

    8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.

    Proposed Monitoring Measures

    Monitoring will provide information on the numbers of marine mammals potentially affected by the anchor retrieval operation and facilitate real-time mitigation to prevent injury of marine mammals by vessel traffic. These goals will be accomplished in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during 2016 by conducting vessel-based monitoring to document marine mammal presence and distribution in the vicinity of the operation area.

    Visual monitoring by Protected Species Observers (PSOs) during anchor retrieval operation, and periods when the operation is not occurring, will provide information on the numbers of marine mammals potentially affected by the activity. Vessel-based PSOs onboard the vessels will record the numbers and species of marine mammals observed in the area and any observable reaction of marine mammals to the anchor retrieval operation in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.

    Visual-Based PSOs

    Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by trained protected species observers (PSOs) throughout the period of anchor retrieval operation. The observers would monitor the occurrence of marine mammals onboard vessels during all daylight periods during operation. PSO duties would include watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey operations; and documenting “take by harassment.”

    A sufficient number of PSOs would be required onboard each survey vessel to meet the following criteria:

    • 100% monitoring coverage during all periods of anchor retrieval operations in daylight;

    • Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and

    • Maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.

    PSO teams will consist of Inupiat observers and experienced field biologists. Each vessel will have an experienced field crew leader to supervise the PSO team. The total number of PSOs may decrease later in the season as the duration of daylight decreases.

    (1) PSOs Qualification and Training

    Lead PSOs and most PSOs would be individuals with experience as observers during marine mammal monitoring projects in Alaska or other offshore areas in recent years. New or inexperienced PSOs would be paired with an experienced PSO or experienced field biologist so that the quality of marine mammal observations and data recording is kept consistent.

    Resumes for candidate PSOs would be provided to NMFS for review and acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers would be experienced in the region and familiar with the marine mammals of the area. All observers would complete a NMFS-approved observer training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures.

    (2) Specialized Field Equipment

    The PSOs shall be provided with Fujinon 7 X 50 or equivalent binoculars for visual based monitoring onboard all vessels.

    Laser range finders (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) would be available to assist with distance estimation.

    Marine Mammal Behavioral Response to Vessel Disturbance Study

    As part of the Chukchi Sea Environmental Studies Program (CSESP), marine mammal biologists collected behavioral response data on walruses and seals to the vessel. The objectives of the observer on the CSESP program were to collect information on marine mammal distribution and density estimates using standard line-transect theory; in other words, the program was not a mitigation program for any particular seismic activity. Because the vessels in this program will be transiting a large portion of the time, Fairweather proposes to utilize this opportunity to collect information on responses of marine mammals, particularly walruses and seals, to vessel disturbance.

    As part of the standard Fairweather's observation protocol, observers will record the initial and subsequent behaviors of marine mammals, a methodology they refer to as `focal following'. Marine mammals will be monitored and observed until they disappear from the PSO's view (PSOs may have to follow the marine mammals by moving to new locations in order to keep the marine mammals in constant view). Observers will also record any perceived reactions that marine mammals may have in response to the vessel. When following the animal observers will use either a notebook or voice recorder to note any changes in behavior and the time when these changes occur. Time of first observation, time of changes in behavior, and time last seen will be recorded. Behaviors and changes in behaviors of marine mammals will be recorded as long as they are in view of the boat. After the animal is out of sight, PSOs will summarize the observation in the notes field of the electronic data collection platform. It may be difficult to find the animal being followed after it dives and if this happens, PSO will stop focal follow observation.

    For groups of marine that are too large to monitor each animal one or more focal animals, e.g., cow/calf pair, subadult female, adult male, etc., will be chosen to monitor until no longer observable. For a sighting with more than one animal, the most common behavior of the group will be recorded. Focal animals will be chosen without bias in relation to age and sex, but as observations accumulate and specific age/sex categories are underrepresented, focal animals may be chosen from those underrepresented categories if possible.

    A separate section in the 90-day report (see below) will be provided with a summary of results of vessel disturbance, with the ultimate goal of a peer-reviewed publication.

    Monitoring Plan Peer Review

    The MMPA requires that monitoring plans be independently peer reviewed “where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence uses” (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this requirement, NMFS' implementing regulations state, “Upon receipt of a complete monitoring plan, and at its discretion, [NMFS] will either submit the plan to members of a peer review panel for review or within 60 days of receipt of the proposed monitoring plan, schedule a workshop to review the plan” (50 CFR 216.108(d)).

    NMFS has established an independent peer review panel to review Fairweather's 4MP for the proposed anchor retrieval operation in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The panel met via web conference in early March 2016, and provided comments to NMFS in mid-April 2016. NMFS is currently working with Fairweather on recommendations made by the panel, and will incorporate appropriate changes into the monitoring requirements of the IHA (if issued).

    Reporting Measures (1) Monitoring Reports

    The results of Fairweather's anchor retrieval program monitoring reports would be presented in weekly, monthly, and 90-day reports, as required by NMFS under the proposed IHA. The initial final reports are due to NMFS within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA (if issued). The reports will include:

    • Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total distances, and marine mammal distribution through the study period, accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals);

    • Summaries that represent an initial level of interpretation of the efficacy, measurements, and observations, rather than raw data, fully processed analyses, or a summary of operations and important observations;

    • Information on distances marine mammals are sighted from operations and the associated noise isopleth for active sound sources (i.e., anchor retrieval, ice management, side scan sonar);

    • Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare);

    • Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;

    • Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with uncertainty expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, or another applicable method, with the exact approach to be selected based on the sampling method and data available;

    • A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of actual estimated takes; and

    The “90-day” reports will be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS.

    (2) Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as a serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), Fairweather would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the following information:

    • Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

    • Name and type of vessel involved;

    • Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;

    • Description of the incident;

    • Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Water depth;

    • Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

    • Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    • Fate of the animal(s); and

    • Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

    Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Fairweather to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Fairweather would not be able to resume its activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

    In the event that Fairweather discovers a dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), Fairweather would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report would include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with Fairweather to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

    In the event that Fairweather discovers a dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Fairweather would report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. Fairweather would provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Fairweather can continue its operations under such a case.

    Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

    Takes by Level B harassments of some species are anticipated as a result of Fairweather's proposed anchor retrieval operation. NMFS expects marine mammal takes could result from noise propagation from anchor retrieving activities, which includes the operation of dynamic thrusters and other machinery noises generated from anchor retrieving using winch and steel cables. NMFS does not expect marine mammals would be taken by collision with vessels, because the vessels will be moving at low speeds, and PSOs on the vessels will be monitoring for marine mammals and will be able to alert the vessels to avoid any marine mammals in the area.

    For non-impulse sounds, such as those produced by the dynamic positioning thrusters and anchor handling during Fairweather's anchor retrieval operation, NMFS uses the 180 and 190 dB (rms) re 1 μPa isopleth to indicate the onset of Level A harassment for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively; and the 120 dB (rms) re 1 μPa isopleth for Level B harassment of all marine mammals.

    The estimates of the numbers of each species of marine mammal that could potentially be exposed to sound associated with the anchor retrieval activity are calculated by multiplying the area of ensonified areas by animal densities. Specifically, the ensonified area for anchor retrieving activities is the area where received noise levels are above 120 dB, during the periods when these activities would be occurring. For the 2015 IHA application for Shell's exploration drilling in the Chukchi Sea (Shell 2015), JASCO modeled the anchor handling activity using their estimated distance to 120 dB isopleths at 14,000 m (JASCO 2013). This yields an estimated 120 dB ensonified area of 615 km2.

    The duration of sound-producing activity was calculated for each site. Although each anchor site has different configurations and numbers of anchors, Fairweather assumes it would take up to seven days per site to remove all anchors. Because the vessels will not be operating at full power during the entire time, Fairweather assumes half of the time (3.5 days) will be exceeding 120 dB. With five (5) anchor sites, this results in 17.5 days of anchor handling activity that may result in disturbance.

    Description of the Sound Sources

    Anchor Retrieving: During Shell's 2012 exploratory program in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, sound source verifications (SSVs) were conducted of all activities conducted near both Burger and Sivulliq during the open water season (LGL et al. 2014). Detailed descriptions of the sound measurements and analysis methods can be found in Chapter 3 of the Shell 2012 90-day report to NMFS (Austin et al. 2013). Anchor handling activities were measured at 143 dB at 860 m, the loudest activity was when “seating” the anchors (LGL et al. 2014). It is assumed that the unseating of anchors will be similar in power needed from the vessel, so this source is suitable to estimate area ensonified. In the report, JASCO extrapolated the distance to the 120 dB threshold using a simple spreading loss of 20 log R, resulting in a radius of 12,000 m. This radius was used to estimate the area ensonified for this application.

    Each anchor site has different configurations and numbers of anchors, but Fairweather assume it will take up to seven (7) days per site to remove all anchors. Because the vessels will not be operating at full power during the entire time, Fairweather assumed half of the time (3.5 days) will be utilizing the high power to unseat anchors. With five (5) anchor sites, this results in 17.5 days of anchor handling activity that may result in disturbance.

    Ice Management: Although highly unlikely, it may be necessary for ice management near Point Barrow while transiting to the Sivulliq site. During exploration drilling operations on the Burger Prospect in 2012, encroachment of sea ice required the Discoverer to temporarily depart the drill site. While it was standing by to the south, ice management vessels remained at the drill site to protect buoys that were attached to the anchors. Sounds produced by vessels managing the ice were recorded and the distance to the 120 dB re 1 μPa rms threshold was calculated to occur at 9.6 km (JASCO et al. 2014). The total calculated ensonified area would be 290 km2.

    Fairweather assumes that it could take place over a two (2) day period near Point Barrow.

    Estimates of Marine Mammal Densities

    The densities of marine mammals per species were calculated using 2009-2014 Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) data (http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/nmml/cetacean/bwasp/index.php) for bowhead, beluga, and gray whales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and the Shell 2015 IHA application (Shell 2015) for all other species. The ASAMM density data are separated by depth, month, year, and location. The maximum calculated density with the depth strata in which the anchor system is located, the month (based on project activity timing), year (maximum of 2009-2014), and location (Chukchi vs. Beaufort) was used. For example, anchor handling only occurs in the summer, so density data from July and August were used; side scan sonar may occur at the beginning and end of the project, so density data were separated into summer and fall. The Shell 2015 IHA included average and maximum density estimates for area, month, and location. The maximum calculated density was used in take estimates for these other species, regardless of area, month, or location.

    Bowhead Whale

    The bowhead whale density estimate is separated into the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Seas based on the ASAMM study areas for aerial data collected 2008-2014. For each depth stratum, the maximum density estimate was used for summer and fall (Table 3). The bowhead whale densities in the Chukchi Sea range up to 0.0145 whales/km2 in the summer and up to 0.1813 whales/km2 in the fall, with the highest density for both seasons in the 50-200 m north region. The bowhead whale densities in the Beaufort Sea range up to 0.2883 whales/km2 in the summer and up to 0.1310 whales/km2 in the fall, both in the east 21-50 m region.

    Beluga Whale

    The beluga whale density estimate is separated into the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Seas based on the ASAMM study areas for aerial data collected 2008-2014. For each depth stratum, the maximum density estimate was used for summer and fall (Table 3). The beluga whale densities in the Chukchi Sea range up to 0.1633 whales/km2 in the summer in the 0-35 m north region and up to 0.0495 whales/km2 in the fall in the 50-200 m north region. The beluga whale densities in the Beaufort Sea range up to 0.7924 whales/km2 in the summer and up to 0.1425 whales/km2 in the fall, both in the east 51-200 m east region.

    Gray Whale

    The gray whale density estimate is only in the Chukchi Sea based on the ASAMM study areas for aerial data collected 2008-2014. For each depth stratum, the maximum density estimate was used for summer and fall (Table 3). The gray whale densities in the Chukchi Sea range up to 0.2594 whales/km2 in the summer and up to 0.1732 whales/km2 in the fall, with the highest density for both seasons in the 50-200 m south region.

    Other Cetaceans

    Shell (2015) derived average and maximum density estimates for summer and fall from all available open water research and monitoring data. For the purposes of this project, the maximum of the density estimates were used, regardless of whether the density was for summer or fall (Table 3). The maximum density is 0.0044 whales/km2 for the harbor porpoise; 0.0004 whales/km2 for the fin, humpback, and killer whale; and 0.0006 whales/km2 for the minke whale.

    Seals

    Shell (2015) derived average and maximum density estimates for summer and fall from all available open water research and monitoring data. For the purposes of this project, the maximum of the density estimates were used, regardless of whether the density was for summer or fall (Table 3). The maximum density is 0.6075 seals/km2 for the ringed seal; 0.0203 seals/km2 for the bearded seal; and 0.0122 seals/km2 for the spotted seal.

    Table 3—Expected Densities of Whales and Seals in Area of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas Species Density (#/km2) Chukchi Sea Summer Fall Beaufort Sea Summer Fall Bowhead whale 0.0145 0.1813 0.2883 0.1310 Beluga whale 0.1633 0.0495 0.7924 0.1425 Gray whale 0.2594 0.1732 NA NA Fin whale 0.0004 0 Humpback whale 0.0004 Minke whale 0.0006 Harbor porpoise 0.0044 Killer whale 0.0004 Ringed seal 0.6075 Bearded seal 0.0203 Spotted seal 0.0122 Calculation of Exposures

    The estimates of the numbers of each marine mammal species that could potentially be exposed to sound associated with the anchor retrieval program, specifically the unseating of anchors, potential side scan sonar survey, and potential ice management, were estimated using multiplying the following three variables: (1) The area (in km2) of ensonification for disturbance for each activity, (2) the duration (in days) of the sound activity, and (3) the density (# of marine mammals/km2) as summarized in Table 3. It is important to note that these estimates are based on worst-case (and unlikely) sound levels and duration, and the maximum reported density estimates that do not account for the movement of animals near the anchor site during retrieval activities.

    Since the two stocks occur in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and one cannot distinguish them visually, the pooled densities in different seasons represent the presence of both stocks. The current abundance estimate for the Eastern Chukchi Sea Stock is 3,710 individuals and the abundance estimate for the Beaufort Sea Stock is 39,258 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2014), resulting in a combined total estimate of 42,968 individuals. The Eastern Chukchi Sea Stock is, therefore, considered to represent 8.6% of the combined population and the Beaufort Sea Stock is considered to represent 91.4% of the same. Therefore, the estimated takes of each beluga stock were based on the proportion of these stocks, with 8.6% account for the Eastern Chukchi Sea Stock, and 91.4% account for the Beaufort Sea Stock for both summer and fall.

    A summary of the total number of estimated exposures per species, per sea, and per season is provided in Table 4.

    Table 4—Summary of Number of Marine Mammals Potentially Exposed to Level B Harassment Species Chukchi Sea Beaufort Sea Abundance Total Percent of
  • stock or
  • population
  • Bowhead whale 37.41 620.51 19,534 658 3.37 Gray whale 197.41 0 20,990 197 0.94 Beluga whale (E. Chukchi stock) 33.55 19.98 3,710 54 1.47 Beluga whale (Beaufort stock) 356.56 212.38 39,258 569 1.45 Fin whale 3.68 0 10,103 4 0.04 Humpback whale 3.68 0.86 1,652 4 0.27 Minke whale 5.52 1.29 1,233 7 0.55 Harbor porpoise 40.46 9.48 48,215 50 0.10 Killer whale 3.68 0.86 2,347 4 0.19 Ringed seal 5,586.67 1,308.58 249,000 6,895 2.77 Bearded seal 186.68 43.73 155,000 230 0.15 Spotted seal 112.19 26.28 460,268 138 0.03

    The estimated Level B harassment takes as a percentage of the marine mammal stock are less than 3.37% in all cases (Table 4). The highest percent of population estimated to be taken is 3.37% by Level B harassment of the bowhead whale.

    Analysis and Preliminary Determinations Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status of the species.

    To avoid repetition, this discussion of our analyses generally applies to all the species listed in Table 4, given that the anticipated effects of Fairweather's anchor retrieving operation on marine mammals (taking into account the proposed mitigation) are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are pointed out below.

    No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result Fairweather's anchor retrieving operation, and none are proposed to be authorized. Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological effects. The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of brief startling reaction and/or temporarily vacating the area.

    Any effects on marine mammals are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a limited area around Fairweather's proposed activities and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment.” Mitigation measures, such as controlled vessel speed and dedicated marine mammal observers, will ensure that takes are within the level being analyzed. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-term, with no lasting biological consequence.

    Of the 11 marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed anchor retrieving area, bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. These species are also designated as “depleted” under the MMPA. None of the other species that may occur in the project area are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA.

    The project area of the Fairweather's proposed activities is within areas that have been identified as biologically important areas (BIAs) for feeding for the gray and bowhead whales and for reproduction for gray whale during the summer and fall months (Clarke et al. 2015). In addition, the coastal Beaufort Sea also serves as a migratory corridor during bowhead whale spring migration, as well as for their feeding and breeding activities. Additionally, the coastal area of Chukchi and Beaufort seas also serve as BIAs for beluga whales for their feeding and migration. However, the Fairweather's proposed anchor retrieving operation would only occur in 5 locations totaling maximum 10 days. As discussed earlier, the Level B behavioral harassment on marine mammals from the proposed activity is expected to be brief startling reaction and temporary vacating of the area. No long-term biologically significant impacts to marine mammals are expected from the proposed anchor retrieving activity.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from Fairweather's proposed anchor retrieving operation in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas is not expected to adversely affect the affected species or stocks through impacts on annual rates of recruitment or survival, and therefore will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Small Numbers

    The requested takes represent less than 3.37% of all populations or stocks potentially impacted (see Table 4 in this document). These take estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment. The numbers of marine mammals estimated to be taken are small in proportion to the total populations of the affected species or stocks.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

    Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses

    Subsistence hunting is an essential aspect of Iñupiat life, especially in rural coastal villages. The Iñupiat participate in subsistence hunting activities in and around the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The animals taken for subsistence provide a significant portion of the food that will last the community through the year. Marine mammals represent on the order of 60-80 percent of the total subsistence harvest. Along with the nourishment necessary for survival, the subsistence activities strengthen bonds within the culture, provide a means for educating the younger generation, provide supplies for artistic expression, and allow for important celebratory events.

    The MMPA requires that any harassment not result in an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of species or stocks for taking (101(a)(5)(D)(i)(II)). Unmitigable adverse impact is defined as (50 CFR 216.103):

    • An impact resulting from the specified activity that is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:

    • Causing marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas;

    • Directly displacing subsistence users; or,

    • Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence users; and

    • Cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.

    In the following sub-sections, the major animals used for subsistence by villages of the upper-west and north coast of Alaska are discussed (bowhead whale, beluga whale, and all three common species of seals [ringed, spotted, and bearded seals]).

    Bowhead Whale

    Anchor handling-related vessel traffic may traverse some areas used during bowhead harvests by Chukchi and Beaufort villages. Bowhead hunts by residents of Wainwright, Point Hope, and Point Lay take place almost exclusively in the spring prior to the date on which the vessels would commence the proposed anchor handling program. From 1984 through 2009, all bowhead harvests by these Chukchi Sea villages occurred only between April 14 and June 24 (George and Tarpley 1986; George et al. 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000; Philo et al. 1994; Suydam et al. 1995a,b, 1996, 1997, 2001a,b, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005a,b, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010), while vessels will not enter the Bering Sea (northbound) prior to July 1. However, fall whaling by some of these Chukchi Sea villages has occurred since 2010 and is likely to occur in the future, particularly if bowhead quotas are not completely filled during the spring hunt, and fall weather is accommodating. A Wainwright whaling crew harvested the first fall bowhead for these villages in 90 years or more on October 7, 2010, and another in October of 2011 (Suydam et al. 2011, 2012, 2013). No bowhead whales were harvested during fall in 2012, but 3 were harvested by Wainwright in fall 2013.

    Barrow crews have traditionally hunted bowheads during both spring and fall; however, spring whaling by Barrow crews is normally finished before the date on which anchor handling operations would commence. From 1984 through 2011 whales were harvested in the spring by Barrow crews only between April 23 and June 15 (George and Tarpley 1986; George et al. 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000; Philo et al. 1994; Suydam et al. 1995 a, b, 1996, 1997, 2001a, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005a,b, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Fall whaling by Barrow crews does take place during the time period when anchor handling activities would be completed, with vessels out of the Chukchi Sea by the end of August. From 1984 through 2011, whales were harvested in the fall by Barrow crews between August 31 and October 30, indicating that there is potential for vessel traffic to affect these hunts. Most fall whaling by Barrow crews, however, takes place east of Barrow along the Beaufort Sea coast therefore providing little opportunity for the anchor handling program to affect them. For example, Suydam et al. (2008) reported that in the previous 35 years, Barrow whaling crews harvested almost all their whales in the Beaufort Sea to the east of Point Barrow. As all anchor sites are over 100 miles from Barrow, NMFS does not anticipate any conflict with Barrow harvest. In the event the sonar survey for Sivulliq is taking place as Barrow is harvesting, the Norseman II will traverse 50 mi offshore around Barrow.

    Nuiqsut and Kaktovik crews traditionally hunt during the fall, harvesting in late August through September. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) requires that all industry activities cease working east of 150° W. by August 25th for the start of whaling for those communities. The anchor handling vessels will enter the Beaufort Sea as soon as ice at Point Barrow allows for safe passage and will complete the Sivulliq anchor retrieval well before August 25th. If a sonar survey is required on this site, it will take place after the completion of the fall hunt and has been cleared by both communities.

    Beluga Whales

    Beluga whales typically do not represent a large proportion of the subsistence harvests by weight in the communities of Wainwright and Barrow, the nearest communities to the planned anchor handling project area. Barrow residents hunt beluga in the spring (normally after the bowhead hunt) in leads between Point Barrow and Skull Cliffs in the Chukchi Sea, primarily in April-June and later in the summer (July-August) on both sides of the barrier island in Elson Lagoon/Beaufort Sea (Minerals Management Service [MMS] 2008), but harvest rates indicate the hunts are not frequent. Wainwright residents hunt beluga in April-June in the spring lead system, but this hunt typically occurs only if there are no bowheads in the area. Communal hunts for beluga are conducted along the coastal lagoon system later in July-August.

    Belugas typically represent a much greater proportion of the subsistence harvest in Kotzebue, Point Lay, and Point Hope. Point Lay's primary beluga hunt occurs from mid-June through mid-July, but can sometimes continue into August if early success is not sufficient. Point Hope residents hunt beluga primarily in the lead system during the spring (late March to early June), but also in open water along the coastline in July and August. Belugas are harvested in spring mid-June through mid-July in Kotzebue, but the timing can vary based on beluga movement. Belugas are harvested in coastal waters near these villages, generally within a few miles from shore. In the Chukchi, the anchor retrieval sites are located more than 60 mi (97 km) offshore, therefore proposed anchor handling in the project area would have no or minimal impacts on beluga hunts.

    The retrieval of anchors around Kotzebue is located nearshore and has the most potential for disturbance to beluga harvest. Fairweather will be required to communicate with the Kotzebue Whaling Commission, AEWC, and Com Center (if established) during operations in this area to avoid any conflict. Vessels will move offshore if Fairweather is not cleared to conduct activities.

    Disturbance associated with vessel traffic could potentially affect beluga hunts. However, all of the beluga hunt by Barrow residents in the Chukchi Sea, and much of the hunt by Wainwright residents would likely be completed before anchor handling activities would commence. Additionally, vessel traffic associated with the anchor handling program will be restricted under normal conditions to designated corridors that remain onshore or proceed directly offshore thereby minimizing the amount of traffic in coastal waters where beluga hunts take place. The designated vessel traffic corridors do not traverse areas indicated in recent mapping as utilized by Point Lay or Point Hope for beluga hunts, and avoids important beluga hunting areas in Kasegaluk Lagoon that are used by Wainwright.

    Seals

    Seals are an important subsistence resource and ringed seals make up the bulk of the seal harvest. Most ringed and bearded seals are harvested in the winter or in the spring before the anchor handling program would commence, but some harvest continues during open water and could possibly be affected by the planned activities. Spotted seals are also harvested during the summer. Most seals are harvested in coastal waters, with available maps of recent and past subsistence use areas indicating seal harvests have occurred only within 48-64 km (30-40 mi) of the coastline. The anchor handling retrieval sites are located more than 103 km (64 mi) offshore, so activities are thought to possibly have an impact on subsistence hunting for seals. Since most seal hunting is done during the winter and spring when the anchor handling program is not operational, NMFS considers that the potential effects to seal hunting are largely avoided.

    Mitigation measures to be implemented include participation in operational Com Centers (below). With these mitigation measures and the nature of the proposed action, we are confident that any harassment of seals resulting from the 2016 anchor handling program will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of seals to be taken for subsistence uses.

    Plan of Cooperation or Measures To Minimize Impacts to Subsistence Hunts

    Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of Cooperation (POC) or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes.

    Fairweather has prepared a draft POC, which was developed by identifying and evaluating any potential effects the proposed anchor retrieving operation might have on seasonal abundance that is relied upon for subsistence use.

    Specifically, Fairweather will take important time periods into consideration when planning its anchor retrieving operation, including the beluga whale subsistence activities near Kotzebue and in the Chukchi Sea, and bowhead whale subsistence activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Fairweather plans to enter the Beaufort Sea as soon as Point Barrow is ice-free and be finished at the Sivulliq location well before the August 25th commencement date of bowhead whaling. Although not anticipated with the proposed schedule, if crew changes are needed, they will occur at either Wainwright or Prudhoe Bay depending on the location of the vessel. Fairweather will work with the community of Wainwright through its joint venture with Olgoonik Corporation. Through the establishment of village liaisons and onboard PSOs, Fairweather will ensure there are no conflicts with subsistence activities.

    Fairweather has developed a Communication Plan and will implement this plan before initiating the anchor handling program. The Plan will help coordinate activities with local Com Centers and thus subsistence users, minimize the risk of interfering with subsistence hunting activities, and keep current as to the timing and status of the bowhead whale hunt and other subsistence hunts. The Communication Plan includes procedures for coordination with Com Centers to be located in coastal villages along the Chukchi Sea during the proposed anchor handling activities.

    Fairweather attended the AEWC meeting in Barrow from February 3-5 and presented the project components and developing mechanisms to work with the communities to present consistent and concise information regarding the planned anchor handling program. Fairweather intends to sign a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA).

    Throughout 2016, Fairweather will continue its engagement with the marine mammal commissions and committees active in the subsistence harvests and marine mammal research.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Within the project area, the bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed as endangered under the ESA. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division has initiated consultation with staff in NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to Fairweather under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA), pursuant to NEPA, to determine whether the issuance of an IHA to Fairweather for its anchor retrieval operation in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the 2016 Arctic open-water season may have a significant impact on the human environment. NMFS has released a draft of the EA for public comment along with this proposed IHA.

    Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Fairweather for anchor retrieval operation in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the 2016 Arctic open-water season, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.

    This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).

    (1) This Authorization is valid from July 1, 2016, through October 31, 2016.

    (2) This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with anchor retrieval related activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The specific areas where Fairweather's operations will be conducted are within the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, Alaska, as shown in Figure 1 of Fairweather's IHA application.

    (3)(a) The species authorized for incidental harassment takings by Level B harassment are: Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas); bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus); gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), killer whale, (Orcinus orca), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), ringed seal (Phoca hispida), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus); spotted seals (P. largha); and ribbon seals (Histriophoca fasciata).

    (3)(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources and from the following activities:

    (i) Anchor retrieval operation; and

    (ii) Vessel activities related to anchor retrieval operation, such as ice management.

    (3)(c) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported within 24 hours of the taking to the Alaska Regional Administrator (907-586-7221) or his designee in Anchorage (907-271-3023), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 427-8401, or her designee (301-427-8418).

    (4) The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at least 48 hours prior to the start of anchor retrieval activities (unless constrained by the date of issuance of this Authorization in which case notification shall be made as soon as possible).

    (5) Prohibitions.

    (a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in [Table 6 of this Notice]. The taking by serious injury or death of these species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.

    (b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the required source vessel protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition 7(a)(i), are not onboard in conformance with condition 7(a)(i) of this Authorization.

    (6) Mitigation.

    (a) Establishing Safety and Exclusion Zones.

    (i) Establish a 500-m safety zone for anchor retrieving and ice management (although Level A takes are not expected when a marine mammal occur in this zone).

    (ii) Establish a 500-m exclusion zone for sonar operations.

    (b) Clearing Marine Mammals for Safety Zone before Anchor Retrieval or Ice Management Activities:

    (i) When the vessel is positioned on-site, the protected species observers (PSOs) will `clear' the area by observing the 500-m safety zone for 30 minutes; if no marine mammals are observed within those 30 minutes, anchor retrieval and/or ice management will commence.

    (ii) If a marine mammal(s) is observed within the 500-m safety zone during the clearing, the PSO will continue to watch until the animal(s) is gone and has not returned for 15 minutes if the sighting was a pinniped, or 30 minutes if it was a cetacean.

    (iii) Once the PSO has cleared the area, anchor retrieval and/or ice management operations may commence.

    (iv) Should a marine mammal(s) be observed within the 500-m safety zone during the retrieval operations, the PSO will monitor and carefully record any reactions observed. PSOs will also collect behavioral information on marine mammals beyond the safety zone.

    (c) Safety Zones Related to Sonar Operations.

    (i) Prior to starting the sonar activity, the PSO will `clear' the area by observing the 500-m exclusion zone for 30 minutes; if no marine mammals are observed within those 30 minutes, sonar activity will commence.

    (ii) If a marine mammal(s) is observed within the 500-m exclusion zone during the clearing, the PSO will continue to watch until the animal(s) is gone and has not returned for 15 minutes if the sighting was a pinniped, or 30 minutes if it was a cetacean.

    (iii) Once the PSO has cleared the area, sonar activity may commence.

    (iv) If an animal enters the 500-m exclusion zone, sonar will be shut down immediately. Sonar activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone. PSOs will also collect behavioral information on marine mammals beyond the exclusion zone.

    (d) Vessel Movement Mitigation:

    (i) If a marine mammal is detected outside the 500-m safety zone for anchor handling or the 500-m exclusion zone for sonar activities and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter those zones, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practical and safe, be changed.

    (ii) The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the vessels will be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within either zone. If the mammal appears likely to enter the respective zone, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or shut down in the case of the sonar.

    (iii) Vessel shall reduce its speed to 5 kt (9.26 km/h) or lower when within 900 ft (274 m) of cetaceans or pinnipeds.

    (iv) Fairweather shall avoid transits within designated North Pacific right whale critical habitat. If transit within North Pacific right whale critical habitat cannot be avoided, vessel operators are requested to exercise extreme caution and observe the of 10 kt (18.52 km/h) vessel speed restriction while within North Pacific right whale critical habitat.

    (v) Within the North Pacific right whale critical habitat, all vessels shall keep 2,625 ft (800 m) away from any observed North Pacific right whales and avoid approaching whales head-on consistent with vessel safety.

    (e) Mitigation Measures for Subsistence Activities:

    (i) For the purposes of reducing or eliminating conflicts between subsistence whaling activities and Fairweather's anchor retrieval program, Fairweather shall develop and implement a communication plan with subsistence communities.

    (ii) Fairweather will prepare a daily report of project activities, sea conditions, and subsistence interactions, and send to all interested community leaders.

    (iii) The daily reports will include a contact address and phone number where interested community leaders can convey any subsistence concerns.

    (iv) Fairweather shall monitor the positions of all of its vessels and exercise due care in avoiding any areas where subsistence activity is active.

    (v) Vessel transiting:

    (A) The vessels will enter the Bering Strait and continue to the Chukchi Sea on or after 1 July, minimizing effects on marine mammals that frequent open leads and minimizing effects on spring and early summer bowhead whale hunting.

    • The transit route for the vessels will avoid known protected ecosystems such as the Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit (LBCHU), and will include coordination through Com Centers.

    • PSOs will be aboard vessels.

    • When within 805 m of whales, vessels will reduce speed, avoid separating members from a group and avoid multiple changes of direction.

    • Vessel speed will be reduced during inclement weather conditions in order to avoid collisions with marine mammals.

    • Personnel will communicate and coordinate with the Com Centers regarding all vessel transit.

    • Vessels transiting in the Beaufort Sea east of Bullen Point to the Canadian border shall remain at least 5 miles offshore during transit along the coast, provided ice and sea conditions allow. During transit in the Chukchi Sea, vessels shall remain as far offshore as weather and ice conditions allow, and at all times at least 5 miles offshore.

    (B) From August 31 to October 31, transiting vessels in the Chukchi Sea or Beaufort Sea shall remain at least 20 miles offshore of the coast of Alaska from Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt Point on the east side of Smith Bay in the Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions or an emergency that threatens the safety of the vessel or crew prevents compliance with this requirement. This condition shall not apply to vessels actively engaged in transit to or from a coastal community to conduct crew changes or logistical support operations.

    (C) Vessels shall be operated at speeds necessary to ensure no physical contact with whales occurs, and to make any other potential conflicts with bowheads or whalers unlikely. Vessel speeds shall be less than 10 knots in the proximity of feeding whales or whale aggregations (6 or more whales).

    (D) If any vessel inadvertently approaches within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of observed bowhead whales, except when providing emergency assistance to whalers or in other emergency situations, the vessel operator will take reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:

    • Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 900 feet of the whale(s);

    • Steering around the whale(s) if possible;

    • Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating members of a group of whales from other members of the group;

    • Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make multiple changes in direction; and

    • Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.

    (vii) Fairweather shall complete operations in time to allow such vessels to complete transit through the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 degrees North latitude no later than November 15, 2016. Any vessel that encounters weather or ice that will prevent compliance with this date shall coordinate its transit through the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 degrees North latitude with the appropriate Com-Centers. Fairweather vessels shall, weather and ice permitting, transit east of St. Lawrence Island and no closer than 10 miles from the shore of St. Lawrence Island.

    (7) Monitoring:

    (a) Vessel-based Visual Monitoring:

    (i) Vessel-based visual monitoring for marine mammals shall be conducted by NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) throughout the period of survey activities.

    (ii) PSOs shall be stationed aboard the operating vessels through the duration of the anchor retrieval operation.

    (iii) A sufficient number of PSOs shall be onboard the survey vessel to meet the following criteria:

    (A) 100% monitoring coverage during all periods of survey operations in daylight;

    (B) maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and

    (C) maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.

    (iv) The vessel-based marine mammal monitoring shall provide the basis for real-time mitigation measures as described in (6)(b) above.

    (v) Results of the vessel-based marine mammal monitoring shall be used to calculate the estimation of the number of “takes” from the marine surveys and equipment recovery and maintenance program.

    (b) Protected Species Observers and Training.

    (i) PSO teams shall consist of Inupiat observers and NMFS-approved field biologists.

    (ii) Experienced field crew leaders shall supervise the PSO teams in the field. New PSOs shall be paired with experienced observers to avoid situations where lack of experience impairs the quality of observations.

    (iii) Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers in 2016 shall be individuals with experience as observers during recent marine mammal monitoring projects in Alaska, the Canadian Beaufort Sea, or other offshore areas in recent years.

    (iv) Resumes for PSO candidates shall be provided to NMFS for review and acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers shall be experienced in the region and familiar with the marine mammals of the area.

    (v) All observers shall complete an observer training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures. The training course shall be completed before the anticipated start of the 2016 open-water season. The training session(s) shall be conducted by qualified marine mammalogists with extensive crew-leader experience during previous vessel-based monitoring programs.

    (vi) Training for both Alaska native PSOs and biologist PSOs shall be conducted at the same time in the same room. There shall not be separate training courses for the different PSOs.

    (vii) Crew members should not be used as primary PSOs because they have other duties and generally do not have the same level of expertise, experience, or training as PSOs, but they could be stationed on the fantail of the vessel to observe the near field, especially the area around the airgun array, and implement a power-down or shutdown if a marine mammal enters the safety zone (or exclusion zone).

    (viii) If crew members are to be used as PSOs, they shall go through some basic training consistent with the functions they will be asked to perform. The best approach would be for crew members and PSOs to go through the same training together.

    (ix) PSOs shall be trained using visual aids (e.g., videos, photos), to help them identify the species that they are likely to encounter in the conditions under which the animals will likely be seen.

    (x) Fairweather shall train its PSOs to follow a scanning schedule that consistently distributes scanning effort according to the purpose and need for observations. All PSOs should follow the same schedule to ensure consistency in their scanning efforts.

    (xi) PSOs shall be trained in documenting the behaviors of marine mammals. PSOs should record the primary behavioral state (i.e., traveling, socializing, feeding, resting, approaching or moving away from vessels) and relative location of the observed marine mammals.

    (c) Marine Mammal Observation Protocol.

    (i) PSOs shall watch for marine mammals from the best available vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge.

    (ii) PSOs shall scan systematically with the unaided eye and 7 x 50 reticle binoculars, and night-vision equipment when needed.

    (iii) Personnel on the bridge shall assist the marine mammal observer(s) in watching for marine mammals.

    (iv) Monitoring shall consist of recording of the following information:

    (A) The species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), the general behavioral activity, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from vessel, sighting cue, behavioral pace, and apparent reaction of all marine mammals seen near the vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.);

    (B) The time, location, heading, speed, and activity of the vessel, along with sea state, visibility, cloud cover and sun glare at (I) any time a marine mammal is sighted, (II) at the start and end of each watch, and (III) during a watch (whenever there is a change in one or more variable);

    (C) The identification of all vessels that are visible within 5 km of the vessel from which observation is conducted whenever a marine mammal is sighted and the time observed;

    (D) Any identifiable marine mammal behavioral response (sighting data should be collected in a manner that will not detract from the PSO's ability to detect marine mammals);

    (E) Any adjustments made to operating procedures; and

    (F) Visibility during observation periods so that total estimates of take can be corrected accordingly.

    (vii) Distances to nearby marine mammals will be estimated with binoculars (7 x 50 binoculars) containing a reticle to measure the vertical angle of the line of sight to the animal relative to the horizon. Observers may use a laser rangefinder to test and improve their abilities for visually estimating distances to objects in the water.

    (viii) PSOs shall understand the importance of classifying marine mammals as “unknown” or “unidentified” if they cannot identify the animals to species with confidence. In those cases, they shall note any information that might aid in the identification of the marine mammal sighted. For example, for an unidentified mysticete whale, the observers should record whether the animal had a dorsal fin.

    (ix) Additional details about unidentified marine mammal sightings, such as “blow only,” mysticete with (or without) a dorsal fin, “seal splash,” etc., shall be recorded.

    (x) Fairweather shall use the best available technology to improve detection capability during periods of fog and other types of inclement weather. Such technology might include night-vision goggles or binoculars as well as other instruments that incorporate infrared technology.

    (d) Field Data-Recording and Verification.

    (i) PSOs shall utilize a standardized format to record all marine mammal observations.

    (ii) Information collected during marine mammal observations shall include the following:

    (A) Vessel speed, position, and activity.

    (B) Date, time, and location of each marine mammal sighting.

    (C) Number of marine mammals observed, and group size, sex, and age categories.

    (D) Observer's name and contact information.

    (E) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of observation.

    (F) Estimated distance of marine mammals at closest approach.

    (G) Activity at the time of observation, including possible attractants present.

    (H) Animal behavior.

    (I) Description of the encounter.

    (J) Duration of encounter.

    (K) Mitigation action taken.

    (iii) Data shall be recorded directly into handheld computers or as a back-up, transferred from hard-copy data sheets into an electronic database.

    (iv) A system for quality control and verification of data shall be facilitated by the pre-season training, supervision by the lead PSOs, and in-season data checks, and shall be built into the software.

    (v) Computerized data validity checks shall also be conducted, and the data shall be managed in such a way that it is easily summarized during and after the field program and transferred into statistical, graphical, or other programs for further processing.

    (e) Marine Mammal Behavioral Response Study.

    (i) PSOs will collect behavioral response data to the presence of vessels during transit on walruses and seals or during its anchor retrieving operations.

    (ii) PSOs will record the initial and subsequent behaviors of marine mammals using a focal following approach. Marine mammals will be observed until they disappear from the PSO's view. Observers will also record any behaviors that marine mammals may have in response to the vessel.

    (9) Reporting:

    (a) The results of Fairweather's anchor retrieval program monitoring reports will be presented in weekly and monthly reports and a 90-day final report. The initial final reports are due to NMFS within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA. The reports will include

    (i) Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., total hours, total distances, and marine mammal distribution through the project period, accounting for sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals);

    (ii) Summaries that represent an initial level of interpretation of the efficacy, measurements, and observations, rather than raw data, fully processed analyses, or a summary of operations and important observations;

    (iii) Information on distances marine mammals are sighted from operations and the associated noise isopleth for active sound sources (i.e., anchor retrieval, ice management, side scan sonar);

    (vi) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare);

    (v) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;

    (vi) Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with uncertainty expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, or another applicable method, with the exact approach to be selected based on the sampling method and data available; and

    (vii) A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of actual estimated takes.

    (b) The draft report shall be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. The draft report will be considered the final report for this activity under this Authorization if NMFS has not provided comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft report.

    (c) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality, Fairweather shall immediately cease all operations and immediately report the incident to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following information:

    (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

    (ii) Description of the incident;

    (iii) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    (iv) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, sea state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);

    (v) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    (vi) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    (vii) The fate of the animal(s); and

    (viii) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).

    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Fairweather to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Fairweather may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

    (d) In the event that Fairweather discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), Fairweather will immediately report the incident to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the same information identified above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Fairweather to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

    (e) In the event that Fairweather discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Fairweather shall report the incident to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. Fairweather shall provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Fairweather can continue its operations under such a case.

    (10) Activities related to the monitoring described in this Authorization do not require a separate scientific research permit issued under section 104 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

    (11) The Plan of Cooperation outlining the steps that will be taken to cooperate and communicate with the native communities to ensure the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses, must be implemented.

    (12) This Authorization may be modified, suspended, or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for subsistence uses.

    (13) A copy of this Authorization and the Incidental Take Statement must be in the possession of each vessel operator taking marine mammals under the authority of this Incidental Harassment Authorization.

    (14) Fairweather is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement corresponding to NMFS' Biological Opinion.

    Request for Public Comments

    NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for Fairweather's proposed anchor retrieval operation in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on Fairweather's request for an MMPA authorization.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11799 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of Independent Living Performance Measures Aggregation Tool and the two surveys that are associated with it. The instrument is currently being used by existing Senior Companion Program grantees. Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

    (1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Evaluation; Attention Anthony Nerino, Research Analyst, Room #3235E, 250 E St. SW., Washington, DC, 20525.

    (2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at the mail room on the 4th floor at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    (3) Electronically through www.regulations.gov.

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anthony Nerino, 202-606-3913, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses).

    Background

    Senior Companion Program grantees are required to use the currently cleared surveys to solicit outcome data from clients and caregivers served by Senior Companion volunteers.

    Current Action

    CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection instrument aggregation tool and surveys. The information collection will be used in the same manner as the existing surveys and aggregation tool. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current information collection until the revised instruments are approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on July 31, 2016.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: Independent Living Performance Measures Aggregation Tool and Independent Living and Respite Surveys.

    OMB Number: 3045-0152.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: Senior Companion Program grantees.

    Total Respondents: 53,470.

    Frequency: Once.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 26,735 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Mikel Herrington, Acting Director Senior Corps.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11834 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2016-HQ-0016] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army proposes to alter a system of records notice, A0040-905 DASG, entitled “Defense Privately Owned Animal Record Files.” This system records registration, vaccination, and/or treatment of animals; to compile statistical data; and to identify animals registered with the Veterinary Treatment Facility. It is used by veterinarians and health care authorities to identify the animal, verify ownership, record history, and to insure veterinary care, treatment, and immunizations provided to animals of authorized owners is recorded; to compile statistical data; conduct research; teach; assist in law enforcement, to include investigation and litigation; and evaluate the care provided.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before June 20, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tracy Rogers, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905 or by calling (703) 428-7499.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended were submitted on May 2, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: May 16, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. A0040-905 DASG System name:

    Defense Privately Owned Animal Record Files (January 8, 2001, 66 FR 1312)

    Changes: System name:

    Delete entry and replace with “Defense Privately Owned Animal Records.”

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Veterinary medical facilities on DoD bases and installations where veterinary services are provided. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Eligible military personnel (including retirees and reservists), DoD civilians, and their family members who utilize base veterinary services for care of their privately owned animals.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Owner/Sponsor's full name, grade/rank, branch of service, home address, personal telephone number, and business or work email address; military status; name of animal, record of treatment for the animal, billing statements, and related veterinary medical information.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; DoD Directive 6400.04E, DoD Veterinary Public and Animal Health Services; and Army Regulation 40-905, Veterinary Health Services.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To civilian veterinary and medical institutions, Federal, State, and local agencies to provide data used in preventative health and zoonotic disease control programs; report medical conditions required by law; and accrediting the Veterinary Corps Officers for training and instruction.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.”

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Electronic storage media and paper records.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “By owner's or animal's name, animal's microchip number.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records are maintained in buildings which are locked when unattended and are accessed only by authorized personnel having an official need-to-know. DoD Components and approved users ensure that electronic and paper records collected and used are maintained in controlled areas accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to computerized data is restricted by use of common access cards (CACs) and is accessible only by users with an authorized account. The system and electronic backups are maintained in controlled facilities that employ physical restrictions and safeguards such as security guards, identification badges, key cards, and locks.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “Paper records are destroyed upon death of the animal, transfer of owner, or 3 years after last entry in the record. Paper records are shredded. Electronic records are maintained permanently.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the veterinary facility at the installation where their animal was treated or euthanized.

    Individuals should provide their full name, home address, telephone number, and any identifiable information for their animal, to include microchip number if applicable.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).' ”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the veterinary facility at the installation where their animal was treated or euthanized.

    Individuals should provide their full name, home address, telephone number, and any identifiable information for their animal, to include microchip number if applicable.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    Personal visits may be made to the veterinary facility where animal was treated. Owners must provide personal identification such as a valid military identification card or driver's license.”

    Contesting record procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 505, Army Privacy Program; or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “From the individual and veterinarian reports.”

    [FR Doc. 2016-11808 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2016-OS-0060] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to add a New System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to establish a new system of records, DUSDI 01-DoD, entitled the “Department of Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System.” This system has been established to enable DoD to implement the requirements of Executive Order 13587, Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information (October 7, 2011), and the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs (November 21, 2012). For purposes of this system of records, the term “insider threat” is defined in the Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs which were issued by the National Insider Threat Task Force based on directions provided in Section 6.3(b) of Executive Order 13587. The system will be used to analyze, monitor, and audit insider threat information for insider threat detection and mitigation within DoD on threats that insiders may pose to DoD and U.S. Government installations, facilities, personnel, missions, or resources. The system will support the DITMAC and DoD Component insider threat programs, enable the identification of systemic insider threat issues and challenges, provide a basis for the development and recommendation of solutions to mitigate potential insider threats, and assist in identifying best practices amongst other Federal Government insider threat programs.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before June 20, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit any comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Allard, Director of the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division, 703-571-0070.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on April 29, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DUSDI 01-DoD System name:

    Department of Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System

    System location:

    Primary location: Defense Security Service (DSS), 27130 Telegraph Rd., Quantico VA 22134-2253.

    Secondary and Decentralized locations:

    Each of the DoD Components including the Departments of the Army, Air Force, and Navy and staffs, field operating agencies, major commands, installations, and activities. Official mailing addresses are published with each Component's compilation of systems of records notices.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Individuals covered by the system are those who had or have been granted eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, and who have exhibited actual, probable, or possible indications of insider threat behaviors or activities. These individuals include active and reserve component (including National Guard) military personnel, civilian employees (including non-appropriated fund employees), and DoD contractor personnel; this includes officials or employees from Federal, state, Local, Tribal and Private Sector entities affiliated with or working with DoD who have been granted access to classified information by DoD based on an eligibility determination made by DoD or by another Federal agency authorized to do so.

    Individuals or persons embedded with DoD units operating abroad who had or have been granted eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive positions, and who have exhibited actual, probable, or possible indications of insider threat behaviors or activities.

    Current members of the U.S. Coast Guard and mobilized retired military personnel, when activated, who had or have been granted eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive positions by DoD and when operating with the military services or DoD Components, and Limited Access Authorization grantees, who have exhibited actual, probable, or possible indications of insider threat behaviors or activities.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Records containing information can be derived from:

    Responses to information requested by official questionnaires (e.g., SF 86 Questionnaire for National Security Positions) that include: Full name, former names and aliases; date and place of birth; social security number (SSN); height and weight; hair and eye color; gender; ethnicity and race; biometric data; mother's maiden name; DoD identification number; current and former home and work addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses; employment history; military record information; selective service registration record; residential history; education history and degrees earned; names of associates and references with their contact information; citizenship information; passport information; driver's license information; identifying numbers from access control passes or identification cards; criminal history; civil court actions; prior personnel security eligibility, investigative, and adjudicative information, including information collected through continuous evaluation; mental health history; records related to drug and/or alcohol use; financial record information; credit reports; the name, date and place of birth, social security number, and citizenship information for spouse or cohabitant; the name and marriage information for current and former spouse(s); the citizenship, name, date and place of birth, and address for relatives;

    Information on foreign contacts and activities; association records; information on loyalty to the United States; and other agency reports furnished to DoD or collected by DoD in connection with personnel security investigations, continuous evaluation for eligibility for access to classified information, and insider threat detection programs operated by DoD Components pursuant to Federal laws and Executive Orders and DoD regulations. These records can include, but are not limited to: Reports of personnel security investigations completed by investigative service providers (such as the Office of Personnel Management);

    Polygraph examination reports; nondisclosure agreements; document control registries; courier authorization requests; derivative classification unique identifiers; requests for access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI); facility access records; security violation files; travel records; foreign contact reports; briefing and debriefing statements for special programs, positions designated as sensitive, other information and documents required in connection with personnel security adjudications; and financial disclosure filings

    DoD Component information, summaries or reports, and full reports, about potential insider threats from:

    a. Payroll information, travel vouchers, benefits information, credit reports, equal employment opportunity complaints, performance evaluations, disciplinary files, training records, substance abuse and mental health records of individuals undergoing law enforcement action or presenting an identifiable imminent threat, counseling statements, outside work and activities requests, and personal contact records.

    b. particularly sensitive or protected information, including information held by special access programs, law enforcement, inspector general, or other investigative sources or programs. Access to such information may require additional approval by the senior DoD official who is responsible for managing and overseeing the program.

    c. reports of investigation regarding security violations, including but not limited to: statements, declarations, affidavits and correspondence; incident reports; investigative records of a criminal, civil or administrative nature; letters, emails, memoranda, and reports; exhibits and evidence; and, recommended remedial or corrective actions for security violations;

    DoD Component information, summaries of reports, and full reports, about potential insider threats regarding: Personnel user names and aliases, levels of network access, audit data, information regarding misuse of a DoD device, information regarding unauthorized use of removable media, and logs of printer, copier, and facsimile machine use.

    Information collected through user activity monitoring, which is the technical capability to observe and record the actions and activities of all users, at any time, on a computer network controlled by DoD or a component thereof in order to deter, detect, and/or mitigate insider threats as well as to support authorized investigations. Such information may include key strokes, screen captures, and content transmitted via email, chat, or data import or export.

    DoD Component summaries of reports, and full reports, about potential insider threats from records of usage of government telephone systems, including the telephone number initiating the call, the telephone number receiving the call, and the date and time of the call.

    DoD Component information, summaries of reports, and full reports, about potential insider threats obtained from other Federal Government sources, such as information regarding U.S. border crossings and financial information obtained from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

    Information related to the management and operation of DoD Component insider threat programs, including but not limited to: Information related to investigative or analytical efforts by DoD insider threat program personnel to identify threats to DoD personnel, property, facilities, and information; information obtained from Intelligence Community members, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or from other agencies or organizations about individuals known or suspected of being engaged in conduct constituting, preparing for, aiding, or relating to an insider threat, including but not limited to espionage or unauthorized disclosure of classified national security information.

    Publicly available information, such as information regarding: Arrests and detentions; real property; bankruptcy; liens or holds on property; vehicles; licensure (including professional and pilot's licenses, firearms and explosive permits); business licenses and filings; and from social media.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    10 U.S.C. 137, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; 44 U.S.C. 3554, Federal agency responsibilities; 44 U.S.C. 3557, National security systems; Public Law 112-81, Section 922, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA for FY12), Insider Threat Detection (10 U.S.C. 2224 note); Public Law 113-66, Section 907(c)(4)(H), (NDAA for FY14), Personnel security (10 U.S.C. 1564 note); Public Law 114-92, Section 1086 (NDAA for FY16), Reform and improvement of personnel security, insider threat detection and prevention, and physical security (10 U.S.C. 1564 note); E.O. 12829, as amended, National Industrial Security Program; E.O. 12968, as amended, Access to Classified Information; E.O. 13467, Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information, June 30, 2008; E.O. 9397, as amended, Numbering System for Federal Accounts Relating to Individual Persons; E.O. 13587, Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information; National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs; and DoD Directive (DoDD) 5205.16, The DoD Insider Threat Program.

    Purpose(s):

    The Department of Defense proposes to establish a new system of records to assist in the management of the DITMAC Program and DoD Component insider threat programs. The DITMAC was established by the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence in order to consolidate and analyze insider threat information reported by the DoD Component insider threat programs mandated by Presidential Executive Order 13587, issued October 7, 2011, which required Federal agencies to establish an insider threat detection and prevention program to ensure the security of classified networks and the responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information consistent with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. The DITMAC helps prevent, deter, detect, and/or mitigate the potential threat that personnel, including DoD military personnel, civilian employees, and contractor personnel, who have or had been granted eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position may harm the security of the United States. This threat can include damage to the United States through espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of national security information, or through the loss or degradation of departmental resources or capabilities. The system will be used to analyze, monitor, and audit insider threat information for insider threat detection and mitigation within DoD on threats that persons who have or had been granted eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position may pose to DoD and U.S. Government installations, facilities, personnel, missions, or resources. The system will support DoD Component insider threat programs, enable the identification of systemic insider threat issues and challenges, provide a basis for the development and recommendation of solutions to deter, detect, and/or mitigate potential insider threats. It will assist in identifying best practices among other Federal Government insider threat programs, through the use of existing DoD resources and functions and by leveraging existing authorities, policies, programs, systems, and architectures.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to disclosures permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records may be disclosed outside DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3) as follows:

    Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether Federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    To an appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international agency, if the information is relevant and necessary to a requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, delegation or designation of authority, or other benefit, or if the information is relevant and necessary to a DoD decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, delegation or designation of authority, or other benefit and disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the request.

    To the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    A record consisting of, or relating to, terrorism information, homeland security information, counterintelligence, or law enforcement information may be disclosed to a Federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign government, multinational agency, and to a private sector agent either in response to its request or upon the initiative of the DoD Component, for purposes of sharing such information as is necessary and relevant to the agency's investigations and inquiries related to the detection, prevention, disruption, preemption, and mitigation of the effects of terrorist activities against the territory, people, and interests of the United States of America as contemplated by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of 2004.

    To any person, organization, or governmental entity in order to notify them of a serious terrorist threat for the purpose of guarding against or responding to such a threat.

    To complainants and/or victims to the extent necessary to provide such persons with information and explanations concerning the progress and/or results of the investigation or case arising from the matters of which they complained and/or of which they were a victim.

    To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal Government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to the DoD DITMAC system of records.

    To Federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international licensing agencies or associations that require information concerning the suitability or eligibility of an individual for a license.

    To a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Component's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    To foreign law enforcement, security, investigatory, or administrative authorities to comply with requirements imposed by, or to claim rights conferred in, international agreements and arrangements, including those regulating the stationing and status in foreign countries of DoD military and civilian personnel.

    To any agency, organization, or individual for the purposes of performing audit or oversight of the DoD DITMAC as authorized by law and as necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight functions.

    To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or treaty.

    To third parties during the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation, provided disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the individual making the disclosure.

    To a Federal agency or entity that may have information relevant to an allegation or investigation or was consulted regarding an insider threat for purposes of obtaining guidance, additional information, or advice from such Federal agency or entity regarding the handling of an insider threat matter.

    To a court or adjudicative body in a proceeding when: (a) The agency or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States Government is a party to litigation or has interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is therefore deemed by the agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.

    To the news media or the general public, factual information the disclosure of which would be in the public interest and which would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    To a Federal, state, or local agency, or other appropriate entities or individuals, or through established liaison channels to selected foreign governments, in order to enable an intelligence agency to carry out its responsibilities under the National Security Act of 1947 as amended, the CIA act of 1949 as emended, Executive Order 12333 or any successor order, applicable national security directives, or classified implementing procedures approved by the Attorney General and promulgated pursuant to such statutes, orders or directives.

    Storage:

    Paper and electronic storage media.

    Retrievability:

    Information in this system may be retrieved by name, SSN, and/or DoD identification number.

    Safeguards:

    IT systems are protected by military personnel, civilian employee, or contract security personnel guards. Physical access to rooms is controlled by combination lock and by identification badges that are issued only to authorized individuals. Electronic authorization and authentication of users is required at all points before any system information can be accessed. All data transfers and information retrievals that use remote communication facilities are required to be encrypted. Paper records are contained and stored in safes and filing cabinets that are located in a secure area with access only by authorized personnel.

    Retention and disposal:

    Disposition pending (until the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) disposition schedule is approved, treat as permanent).

    System manager(s) and address:

    Department of Defense Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center, Assistant Director, Enterprise Tools and Architecture, Defense Security Service, 27130 Telegraph Road, Quantico, VA 22134-2253.

    DoD Components including the Departments of the Army, Air Force, and Navy and staffs, field operating agencies, major commands, installations, and activities. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to each Service's compilation of systems of records notices.

    Notification procedures:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in the DITMAC system of records should address written inquires to the Defense Security Service, Office of FOIA and PA, 27130 Telegraph Road, Quantico, VA 22134-2253.

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in any specific DoD Component's insider threat program system of records should address written inquiries to the official mailing address for that Component, which is published with each Component's compilation of systems of records notices.

    DoD Component addresses are also listed at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/PrivacyContacts.aspx.

    Signed, written requests must contain the full name (and any alias and/or alternate names used), SSN, and date and place of birth.

    Record Access Procedures:

    Individuals seeking information about themselves contained in the DITMAC system of record should address written inquires to the Defense Security Service, Office of FOIA and PA, 27130 Telegraph Road, Quantico, VA 22134-2253.

    Individuals seeking information about themselves contained in any specific DoD Component's insider threat program system of records should address written inquiries to the official mailing address for that Component, which is published with each Component's compilation of systems of records notices.

    DoD Component addresses are also listed at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/PrivacyContacts.aspx.

    Individuals should provide their full name (and any alias and/or alternate name), SSN, and date and place of birth, and the address where the records are to be returned.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside of the United States:

    ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).’

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths:

    ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature). ’

    Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for the representative to act on their behalf.

    Contesting Record Procedures:

    The DoD rules for accessing records and for contesting or appealing agency determinations are published in DoD Regulation 5400.11; 32 CFR 310; or may be obtained from the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive; ATTN: DPCLTD, Mailbox #24; Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Record source categories:

    Information in the system is received from DoD Components and program offices throughout DoD and DoD contractor databases, external sources, including counterintelligence and security databases and files; personnel security databases and files; DoD Component human resources databases and files; Office of the Chief Information Officer and information assurance databases and files; information collected through user activity monitoring; DoD telephone usage records; Federal, state, tribal, territorial, and local law enforcement and investigatory records; Inspector General records; available U.S. Government intelligence and counterintelligence reporting information and analytic products pertaining to adversarial threats; other Federal agencies; and publicly available information.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    The Department of Defense is exempting records maintained in DUSDI 01-DoD, the “Department of Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System,” from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H), and (I), (5), and (8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7). In addition, exempt records received from other systems of records in the course of DITMAC or Component record checks may, in turn, become part of the case records in this system. When records are exempt from disclosure in systems of records for record sources accessed by this system, DoD also claims the same exemptions for any copies of such records received by and stored in this system.

    An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 310. For additional information contact the system manager.

    [FR Doc. 2016-11703 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [Docket ID: USN-2015-HQ-0013] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Risk Management Information (RMI) System; OPNAV 5102/10, OSHA Form 301; OMB Control Number 0703-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New Collection.

    Number of Respondents: 25.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 25.

    Average Burden per Response: 1.5 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 37.5.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to collect information on injuries/fatalities, occupational illnesses required of Federal governmental agencies by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and pertinent information for property damage occurring during DON operations. The data maintained in this system will be used for analytical purposes to improve the Department of the Navy's accident prevention policies, procedures, standards and operations, as well as to ensure internal data quality assurance. The collection will also help to ensure that all individuals receive required safety, fire, security, force protection, and emergency management training courses necessary to perform assigned duties and comply with Federal, DoD, and DON related regulations.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identi