81 FR 88637 - Privacy Act; Implementation
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 236 (December 8, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 236 (December 8, 2016)
| Page Range | 88637-88639 | |
| FR Document | 2016-29058 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 88637-88639] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-29058] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 45 CFR Part 5b [Docket Number NIH-2016-0001] RIN 0925-AA63 Privacy Act; Implementation AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or Department), through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), proposes to exempt, from certain requirements of the Privacy Act, a subset of records in a new system of records, System No. 09-25-0225, NIH Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Records (NIH eRA Records), which covers records used in managing NIH research and development applications and awards throughout the award lifecycle. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, HHS has published a proposed System of Records Notice (SORN) for System No. 09-25-0225 for public notice and comment. The subset of records proposed to be exempted is material that would inappropriately reveal the identities of referees who provide letters of recommendation and peer reviewers who provide written evaluative input and recommendations to NIH about particular funding applications under an express promise by the government that their identities in association with the written work products they authored and provided to the government will be kept confidential. Only material that would inappropriately reveal a particular referee or peer reviewer as the author of a specific work product (e.g., reference or recommendation letters, reviewer critiques, preliminary or final individual overall impact/priority scores, and/or assignment of peer reviewers to an application and other evaluative materials and data compiled by NIH/OER) is proposed to be exempted. The exemptions would protect not only an author's name in association with their written work product but any content that could enable the author to be identified from context. The Privacy Act provisions from which the material is proposed to be exempted are those that require the agency to provide an accounting of disclosures, access and amendment, and notification, which are contained in subsections (c)(3) and (d) of the Privacy Act. DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments regarding this notice by February 6, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number NIH- 2016-0001 via any of the following methods: Electronic Submission Submit electronic comments in the following way:Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions provided for submitting comments. Written Submission Submit written submissions in the following ways: Fax: 301-402-0169. Mail: Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations Officer, Office of Management Assessment, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 601, MSC 7669, Rockville, MD 20852-7669. To ensure timely processing of comments, the HHS/NIH is no longer accepting NPRM comments submitted to the agency by email. The HHS/NIH encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described previously, in the ADDRESSES portion of this document under Electronic Submissions. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket No. for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions provided for conducting a search, using the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations Officer, Office of Management Assessment, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 601, MSC 7669, Rockville, MD 20852-7669, telephone 301-496-4607, fax 301-402-0169, email [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIH research and development award programs provide funds through contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants to support biomedical and behavioral research and development projects and centers, training, career development, small business, and loan repayment and other research programs. The NIH is responsible to Congress and the U.S. taxpayers for carrying out its research and development award programs in a manner that facilitates research cost-effectively and in compliance with applicable statutes, rules and regulations, including 42 U.S.C. 217a, 281, 282, 41 U.S.C. 423 and 45 CFR part 75. The NIH uses an award process that relies on checks and balances, separation of responsibilities, and a two-level peer review system to ensure that funding applications submitted to NIH are evaluated in a manner that is fair, equitable, timely, and free of bias. The two-level peer review system is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 216; 42 U.S.C. 282(b)(6); 42 U.S.C. 284(c)(3); and 42 U.S.C. 289a and governed by regulations at 42 CFR part 52h, ``Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications and Research and Development Contract Projects.'' The two-level system separates the scientific assessment of proposed projects from policy decisions about scientific areas to be supported and the level of resources to be allocated, which permits a more objective and complete evaluation than would result from a single level of review. The two- level review system is designed to provide NIH officials with the best available advice about scientific and technical merit as well as program priorities and policy considerations. The initial or first level review involves panels of experts established according to scientific disciplines, generally referred to as Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), whose primary function is to evaluate the scientific merit of grant applications. The second level of review of grant applications is performed by National Advisory Boards or Councils composed of both scientific and lay representatives. The recommendations made by these Boards or Councils are based not only on considerations of scientific merit as judged by the SRG but also on the relevance of a proposed project to the programs and priorities of NIH. Referees are those individuals who supply reference or other letters of recommendations for a grant or cooperative agreement applicant. Confidential referee and peer reviewer identifying material is contained in records such as reference or [[Page 88638]] recommendation letters, reviewer critiques, preliminary or final individual overall impact/priority score records, and/or assignment of peer reviewers to an application and other evaluative materials and data, which referees and peer reviewers provide to the NIH Office of Extramural Research (OER) under express promises that they will not be identified as the sources of the information, and which NIH/OER compiles solely for the purpose of determining applicants' suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements. To the extent that records in System No. 09-25- 0225 are retrieved by personal identifiers for individuals other than the referees and reviewers (for example, individual applicants), the exemptions proposed for the new system will enable the agency to prevent, when appropriate, those individual record subjects from having access to, and other rights under the Privacy Act with respect to, confidential source-identifying material in the records. Under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), individuals have a right of access to records about them in federal agency systems of records, and other rights with respect to those records (such as notification, amendment, and an accounting of disclosures), but the Act permits certain types of systems of records (identified in Sec. 552a (j) and (k)) to be exempted from certain requirements of the Act. Subsection (k)(5) permits the head of an agency to promulgate rules to exempt from the requirements in subsections (c)(3) and (d) of the Act investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal contracts, to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence. Confidential referee and peer reviewer-identifying material in NIH award program records covered by System No. 09-25-0225 qualifies for exemption under subsection (k)(5) because it is investigatory material that NIH/OER compiles solely for the purpose of determining applicants' suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal research and development contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. The exemptions are necessary to maintain the integrity of the NIH extramural peer review and award processes, which depend on receiving accurate, objective, and unbiased recommendations and evaluations from referees and peer reviewers about funding applications. Protecting their identities as the sources of the information they provide protects them from harassment, intimidation, and other attempts to improperly influence award outcomes, and ensures that they are not reluctant to provide sensitive information or frank assessments. Case law has held that exemptions promulgated under subsection (k)(5) may protect source-identifying material even where the identity of the source is known. The specific rationales that support the exemptions, as to each affected Privacy Act provision, are as follows: Subsection (c)(3). An exemption from the requirement to provide an accounting of disclosures to record subjects is needed to protect the identity of any referee or peer reviewer source who is expressly promised confidentiality. Release of an accounting of disclosures to an individual who is related to the application under assessment or evaluation could identify particular referees and peer reviewers as sources of recommendations or evaluative input received, or to be received, on the application. Inappropriately revealing their identities in association with the nature and scope of their assessments or evaluations and could lead them to alter or destroy their assessments or evaluations or subject them to harassment, intimidation, or other improper influences, which would impede or compromise the fairness and objectivity of the grant or contract review process. Subsection (d)(1). An exemption from the access requirement is needed both during and after a grant or contract review proceeding, to avoid inappropriately revealing the identity of any referee or peer reviewer source who was expressly promised confidentiality. Protecting confidential referee and peer reviewer identifying material from inappropriate access by record subjects is necessary for the integrity of the peer review process to ensure such sources provide candid assessments or evaluations to the government without fear that their identities as linked to a specific work product will be inappropriately revealed. Allowing an individual applicant or other individual who is the subject of an assessment or evaluation to access material that would inappropriately reveal a confidential referee or peer reviewer source could interfere with or compromise the objectivity and fairness of grant and contract review proceedings, constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the source and violate the express promise of confidentiality made to the source. Subsections (d)(2) through (d)(4). An exemption from the amendment provisions is necessary while one or more related grant and/ or contract review proceedings are pending to avoid inappropriately revealing the identity of any referee or peer reviewer source who was expressly promised confidentiality. Allowing an individual applicant or other individual who is the subject of an evaluation or assessment an opportunity to amend extramural assistance program records in a pending proceeding could interfere with that proceeding, could constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of a source, and would violate the express promise of confidentiality made to the source, if the information sought to be amended was provided by the source under an express promise of confidentiality and if acknowledging the existence of the record and discussing its contents as required to process the amendment request would inappropriately reveal the source's identity. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), the agency proposes to exempt the following source-identifying material in system of records--25-0225 NIH eRA Records from the accounting, access, amendment and notification provisions of the Privacy Act (paragraphs (c)(3), and (d)), based on the specific rationales indicated above: Material that would inappropriately reveal the identities of referees who provide letters of recommendation and peer reviewers who provide written evaluative input and recommendations to NIH about particular funding applications under an express promise by the government that their identities in association with the written work products they authored and provided to the government will be kept confidential; this includes only material that would reveal a particular referee or peer reviewer as the author of a specific work product (e.g., reference or recommendation letters, reviewer critiques, preliminary or final individual overall impact/priority scores, and/or assignment of peer reviewers to an application and other evaluative materials and data compiled by NIH/OER); it includes not only an author's name but any content that could enable the author to be identified from context. Notwithstanding the exemptions, consideration will be given to any requests for notification, access, and amendment that are addressed to the System Manager, as provided in the [[Page 88639]] SORN for system of records 09-25-0225. Analysis of Impacts The HHS/NIH has examined the impacts of this rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the rule imposes no duties or obligations on small entities, the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $144 million, using the most current (2015) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. The NIH does not expect that a final rule consistent with this NPRM would result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount. List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 5b Privacy. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend its part 5b of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 5b--PRIVACY ACT REGULATIONS 0 1. The authority citation for Part 5b continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a. 0 2. Amend Sec. 5b.11 by adding paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(E) as follows: Sec. 5b.11 Exempt systems. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) * * * (vii) * * * (E) NIH Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Records, HHS/NIH/ OD/OER, 09-25-0225 (e.g., reference or recommendation letters, reviewer critiques, preliminary or final individual overall impact/priority scores, and/or assignment of peer reviewers to an application and other evaluative materials and data compiled by the NIH Office of Extramural Research). Dated: October 14, 2016. Francis S. Collins, Director, National Institutes of Health. Approved: October 18, 2016. Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. [FR Doc. 2016-29058 Filed 12-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 88637
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, product but any content that could SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regional haze, Reporting and enable the author to be identified from NIH research and development award
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur context. programs provide funds through
dioxide. The Privacy Act provisions from contracts, cooperative agreements, and
Dated: December 2, 2016.
which the material is proposed to be grants to support biomedical and
exempted are those that require the behavioral research and development
Sarah Dunham,
agency to provide an accounting of projects and centers, training, career
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. disclosures, access and amendment, and
[FR Doc. 2016–29442 Filed 12–7–16; 8:45 am]
development, small business, and loan
notification, which are contained in repayment and other research programs.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P subsections (c)(3) and (d) of the Privacy The NIH is responsible to Congress and
Act. the U.S. taxpayers for carrying out its
DATES: Submit either electronic or research and development award
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND written comments regarding this notice programs in a manner that facilitates
HUMAN SERVICES by February 6, 2017. research cost-effectively and in
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, compliance with applicable statutes,
45 CFR Part 5b identified by Docket Number NIH– rules and regulations, including 42
[Docket Number NIH–2016–0001] 2016–0001 via any of the following U.S.C. 217a, 281, 282, 41 U.S.C. 423 and
methods: 45 CFR part 75. The NIH uses an award
RIN 0925–AA63 process that relies on checks and
Electronic Submission
balances, separation of responsibilities,
Privacy Act; Implementation Submit electronic comments in the and a two-level peer review system to
following way: ensure that funding applications
AGENCY: Department of Health and
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
Human Services. submitted to NIH are evaluated in a
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. manner that is fair, equitable, timely,
instructions provided for submitting
and free of bias. The two-level peer
comments.
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and review system is authorized by 42
Human Services (HHS or Department), Written Submission U.S.C. 216; 42 U.S.C. 282(b)(6); 42
through the National Institutes of Health Submit written submissions in the U.S.C. 284(c)(3); and 42 U.S.C. 289a and
(NIH), proposes to exempt, from certain following ways: governed by regulations at 42 CFR part
requirements of the Privacy Act, a • Fax: 301–402–0169. 52h, ‘‘Scientific Peer Review of
subset of records in a new system of • Mail: Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations Research Grant Applications and
records, System No. 09–25–0225, NIH Officer, Office of Management Research and Development Contract
Electronic Research Administration Assessment, National Institutes of Projects.’’ The two-level system
(eRA) Records (NIH eRA Records), Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite separates the scientific assessment of
which covers records used in managing 601, MSC 7669, Rockville, MD 20852– proposed projects from policy decisions
NIH research and development 7669. To ensure timely processing of about scientific areas to be supported
applications and awards throughout the comments, the HHS/NIH is no longer and the level of resources to be
award lifecycle. Elsewhere in today’s accepting NPRM comments submitted allocated, which permits a more
Federal Register, HHS has published a to the agency by email. The HHS/NIH objective and complete evaluation than
proposed System of Records Notice encourages you to continue to submit would result from a single level of
(SORN) for System No. 09–25–0225 for electronic comments by using the review. The two-level review system is
public notice and comment. Federal eRulemaking Portal, as designed to provide NIH officials with
The subset of records proposed to be described previously, in the ADDRESSES the best available advice about scientific
exempted is material that would portion of this document under and technical merit as well as program
inappropriately reveal the identities of Electronic Submissions. priorities and policy considerations.
referees who provide letters of Instructions: All submissions received The initial or first level review involves
recommendation and peer reviewers must include the agency name and panels of experts established according
who provide written evaluative input Docket No. for this rulemaking. All to scientific disciplines, generally
and recommendations to NIH about comments received may be posted referred to as Scientific Review Groups
particular funding applications under without change to http:// (SRGs), whose primary function is to
an express promise by the government www.regulations.gov, including any evaluate the scientific merit of grant
that their identities in association with personal information provided. applications. The second level of review
the written work products they authored Docket: For access to the docket to of grant applications is performed by
and provided to the government will be read background documents or National Advisory Boards or Councils
kept confidential. Only material that comments received, go to http:// composed of both scientific and lay
would inappropriately reveal a www.regulations.gov and follow the representatives. The recommendations
particular referee or peer reviewer as the instructions provided for conducting a made by these Boards or Councils are
author of a specific work product (e.g., search, using the docket number found based not only on considerations of
reference or recommendation letters, in brackets in the heading of this scientific merit as judged by the SRG
reviewer critiques, preliminary or final document. but also on the relevance of a proposed
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
individual overall impact/priority FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry project to the programs and priorities of
scores, and/or assignment of peer Moore, NIH Regulations Officer, Office NIH. Referees are those individuals who
reviewers to an application and other of Management Assessment, National supply reference or other letters of
evaluative materials and data compiled Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive recommendations for a grant or
by NIH/OER) is proposed to be Boulevard, Suite 601, MSC 7669, cooperative agreement applicant.
exempted. The exemptions would Rockville, MD 20852–7669, telephone Confidential referee and peer reviewer
protect not only an author’s name in 301–496–4607, fax 301–402–0169, email identifying material is contained in
association with their written work jm40z@nih.gov. records such as reference or
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Dec 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM 08DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_88873/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 88639
SORN for system of records 09–25– § 5b.11 Exempt systems. meeting the ESA’s definition of a
0225. * * * * * species. Based on the Gulf of Mexico
(b) * * * Bryde’s whale’s small population (likely
Analysis of Impacts
(2) * * * fewer than 100 individuals), its life
The HHS/NIH has examined the (vii) * * * history characteristics, its extremely
impacts of this rule under Executive (E) NIH Electronic Research limited distribution, and its
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Administration (eRA) Records, HHS/ vulnerability to existing threats, we
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), and NIH/OD/OER, 09–25–0225 (e.g., believe that the species faces a high risk
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of reference or recommendation letters, of extinction. Based on these
1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). Executive Order reviewer critiques, preliminary or final considerations, described in more detail
12866 directs agencies to assess all costs individual overall impact/priority within this action, we conclude that the
and benefits of available regulatory scores, and/or assignment of peer Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale is in
alternatives and, when regulation is reviewers to an application and other danger of extinction throughout all of its
necessary, to select regulatory evaluative materials and data compiled range and meets the definition of an
approaches that maximize net benefits by the NIH Office of Extramural endangered species. We are soliciting
(including potential economic, Research). information that may be relevant to
environmental, public health and safety, Dated: October 14, 2016.
inform both our final listing
and other advantages; distributive determination and designation of
Francis S. Collins,
impacts; and equity). The agency critical habitat.
Director, National Institutes of Health.
believes that this rule is not a significant DATES: Information and comments on
regulatory action under the Executive Approved: October 18, 2016.
the subject action must be received by
Order. Sylvia Matthews Burwell, January 30, 2017. For the specific date
The Regulatory Flexibility Act Secretary, Department of Health and Human of the public hearing, see Public Hearing
Services. section.
requires agencies to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any [FR Doc. 2016–29058 Filed 12–7–16; 8:45 am]
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
significant impact of a rule on small BILLING CODE 4140–01–P information, or data on this document,
entities. Because the rule imposes no identified by the code NOAA–NMFS–
duties or obligations on small entities, 2014–0101 by any of the following
the agency certifies that the rule will not DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE methods:
have a significant economic impact on • Electronic submissions: Submit all
a substantial number of small entities. National Oceanic and Atmospheric electronic comments via the Federal
Administration eRulemaking Portal. Go to
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires www.regulations.gov/
50 CFR Part 224 #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-
that agencies prepare a written
statement, which includes an [Docket No. 141216999–6999–02] 0101, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
assessment of anticipated costs and complete the required fields, and enter
RIN 0648–XD669 or attach your comments;
benefits, before proposing ‘‘any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may • Mail: NMFS, Southeast Regional
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
result in the expenditure by State, local, Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, Petersburg, FL 33701;
on a Petition To List the Gulf of Mexico • Hand delivery: You may hand
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 Bryde’s Whale as Endangered Under
or more (adjusted annually for inflation) deliver written information to our office
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during normal business hours at the
in any one year.’’ The current threshold
after adjustment for inflation is $144 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries street address given above.
million, using the most current (2015) Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and The Status Review of Bryde’s Whales
Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in the Gulf of Mexico (Rosel et al., 2016)
Domestic Product. The NIH does not Commerce. and reference list are available by
expect that a final rule consistent with ACTION: Proposed rule, request for
submitting a request to the Species
this NPRM would result in any 1-year comments. Conservation Branch Chief, Protected
expenditure that would meet or exceed Resources Division, NMFS Southeast
this amount. SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue
month finding and listing determination South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701–5505,
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 5b on a petition to list the Gulf of Mexico Attn: Bryde’s Whale 12-month Finding.
Privacy. Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) as The Status Review report and references
threatened or endangered under the are also available electronically at:
For the reasons set out in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_
preamble, the Department proposes to completed a Status Review report of the resources/listing_petitions/index.html.
amend its part 5b of title 45 of the Code Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
of Federal Regulations, as follows: response to a petition submitted by the Laura Engleby or Calusa Horn, NMFS,
Natural Resources Defense Council. Southeast Regional Office (727) 824–
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
PART 5b—PRIVACY ACT
REGULATIONS After reviewing the best scientific and 5312 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office
commercial data available, including of Protected Resources (301) 427–8469.
■ 1. The authority citation for Part 5b the Status Review report, and consulting SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
continues to read as follows: with the Society for Marine
Mammology’s Committee on Taxonomy, Background
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a. we have determined that the Gulf of On September 18, 2014, we received
■ 2. Amend § 5b.11 by adding paragraph Mexico Bryde’s whale is taxonomically a petition from the Natural Resources
(b)(2)(vii)(E) as follows: a subspecies of the Bryde’s whale thus Defense Council to list the Gulf of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Dec 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM 08DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_88873/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2016-12-08 00:26:44
Document Modified: 2016-12-08 00:26:44
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of proposed rulemaking. | |
| Dates | Submit either electronic or written comments regarding this notice by February 6, 2017. | |
| Contact | Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations Officer, Office of Management Assessment, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 601, MSC 7669, Rockville, MD 20852-7669, telephone 301-496-4607, fax 301-402-0169, email [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 88637 | |
| RIN Number | 0925-AA63 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR