Federal Register Vol. 81, No.103,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 103 (May 27, 2016)

Page Range33581-34240
FR Document

81_FR_103
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 33667 - Meeting of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP); CorrectionPDF
81 FR 33729 - Notice of Request To Release Airport PropertyPDF
81 FR 33670 - Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions; Petition for Exemption Reissuance-Class I Hazardous Waste Injection; INEOS Nitriles USA LLC (INEOS)-Green Lake Complex, Port Lavaca, TexasPDF
81 FR 33604 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Blacknose Sharks and Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks in the Atlantic Region South of 34° N. Latitude; ClosurePDF
81 FR 33669 - National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 33703 - 2016 Final Fee Rate and Fingerprint FeesPDF
81 FR 33617 - Safety Zone; Allegheny River Mile 43.5 to 44.5, Kittanning, PennsylvaniaPDF
81 FR 33590 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Broad Creek, Laurel, DEPDF
81 FR 33737 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 33685 - Update to Alternative Planning Criteria (APC) National GuidelinesPDF
81 FR 33707 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 33706 - Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from India; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 33589 - Privacy Act; STATE-81, Office of Foreign Missions RecordsPDF
81 FR 33727 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Garden, Art, and Commerce in Chinese Woodblock Prints” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 33662 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 33663 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 33688 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Individual & Community Preparedness Division (ICPD) Annual Youth Preparedness Council (YPC) Application FormPDF
81 FR 33661 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 33660 - Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Notice of Correction to Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 33671 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 33727 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Durham County, N.C.PDF
81 FR 33702 - Notice of Availability Nevada and California Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Land Use Plan Amendment and Record of DecisionPDF
81 FR 33672 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
81 FR 33733 - Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer ProtectionPDF
81 FR 33695 - The Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; System of Records Notice Amendment, Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and Administrative Appeals Request Files, System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 33602 - Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements, and Security PlansPDF
81 FR 33690 - Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; System of Records Notice Amendment, Home Equity Reverse Mortgage Information TechnologyPDF
81 FR 33670 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 33669 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
81 FR 33666 - Procurement List; DeletionsPDF
81 FR 33665 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 33581 - Mexican Hass Avocado Import ProgramPDF
81 FR 33698 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of 21 Species in the Mountain-Prairie RegionPDF
81 FR 33734 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Disclosure of Financial and Other Information by National BanksPDF
81 FR 33703 - Notice of Public Meeting, Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council, IdahoPDF
81 FR 33735 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Funding and Liquidity Risk ManagementPDF
81 FR 33672 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 33680 - Request for Information on the Development of the FY 2018 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related ResearchPDF
81 FR 34226 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2016-17 SeasonPDF
81 FR 33738 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request (Expanded Access to Non-VA Care Through the Veterans Choice Program)PDF
81 FR 33656 - Notice of Proposed New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447)PDF
81 FR 33654 - Missoula Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 33619 - Trademark Fee AdjustmentPDF
81 FR 33705 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0087PDF
81 FR 33701 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 33670 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 33668 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students With Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) Evaluation ProtocolPDF
81 FR 33725 - Mississippi Disaster Number MS-00085PDF
81 FR 33725 - Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development; MeetingPDF
81 FR 33726 - Advisory Committee on Veterans Business AffairsPDF
81 FR 33709 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed CollectionPDF
81 FR 33668 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Experimental Sites Data Collection InstrumentPDF
81 FR 33667 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for Federal Student Aid Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Focus Groups Master PlanPDF
81 FR 33726 - Arkansas Disaster #AR-00089PDF
81 FR 33684 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 33674 - Information Collection; Limitations on Pass-Through ChargesPDF
81 FR 33727 - Texas Disaster #TX-00467PDF
81 FR 33686 - Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative: Designation of an Approved Native American Tribal Card Issued by the Hydaburg Cooperative Association of Alaska as an Acceptable Document To Denote Identity and Citizenship for Entry in the United States at Land and Sea Ports of EntryPDF
81 FR 33657 - 21st Century U.S. Port Competitiveness Initiative: Request for Public CommentPDF
81 FR 33700 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
81 FR 33656 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Montana Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 33658 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Direct Investment Surveys: BE-577, Quarterly Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad-Transactions of U.S. Reporter With Foreign Affiliate, and Changes to Private Fund Reporting on Direct Investment SurveysPDF
81 FR 33705 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey; DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 33715 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 33715 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 33675 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 33715 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 33632 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Spokane Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance PlanPDF
81 FR 33715 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 33654 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 33688 - National Infrastructure Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 33713 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 33714 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 33712 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 33722 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Change to the Market Data Section of Its Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 33711 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 33716 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 33718 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees as They Apply to the Equity Options PlatformPDF
81 FR 33720 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Exchange's Schedule of Fees and Charges To Eliminate the Listing Fee in Connection With Exchange Listing of Certain Exchange Traded ProductsPDF
81 FR 33683 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 33683 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request a Generic Submission for Formative Research, Pretesting and Customer Satisfaction of NCI's Communication and Education Resources (NCI)PDF
81 FR 33681 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; The Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP) Database (NCI)PDF
81 FR 33679 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 33682 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 33679 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 33679 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 33682 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 33591 - USPTO Law School Clinic Certification ProgramPDF
81 FR 33606 - Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Interaction of Systems and StructuresPDF
81 FR 33728 - Office of Agricultural Affairs; Fiscal Year 2016 Allocation of Additional Tariff-Rate Quota Volume for Raw Cane SugarPDF
81 FR 33729 - Office of Agricultural Affairs: Fiscal Year 2017 Tariff-Rate Quota Allocations for Raw Cane Sugar, Refined and Specialty Sugar and Sugar-Containing ProductsPDF
81 FR 33661 - Marine Fisheries Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 33685 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 33636 - Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2016 Compliance YearPDF
81 FR 33660 - Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality AwardPDF
81 FR 33601 - Comprehensive Review of Licensing and Operating Rules for Satellite Services; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 33710 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Request: State Library Administrative Agencies Survey FY 2016 & FY 2018PDF
81 FR 33689 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Employment Authorization for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse, Form I-765V; New CollectionPDF
81 FR 33588 - Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited AirplanesPDF
81 FR 33609 - Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company HelicoptersPDF
81 FR 33708 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Return A-Monthly Return of Offenses Known to Police and Supplement to Return A-Monthly Return of Offenses Known to Police; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 33665 - Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 34166 - Mitigation Strategies To Protect Food Against Intentional AdulterationPDF
81 FR 33601 - Department of State Acquisition Regulation; Technical Amendments; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 33612 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 33637 - Update of Existing and Addition of New User FeesPDF
81 FR 33704 - Selection of the Route of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic TrailsPDF
81 FR 33738 - Proposed Collections; Comment RequestsPDF
81 FR 33693 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 33598 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
81 FR 33655 - Shoshone National Forest Travel Management; Shoshone National Forest, WyomingPDF
81 FR 33730 - Hazardous Materials: Actions on Special Permit ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 33732 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
81 FR 33731 - Hazardous Materials: Delayed ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 34050 - Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation PlanningPDF
81 FR 33742 - Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts LabelsPDF
81 FR 34000 - Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed At One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 33642 - Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010PDF

Issue

81 103 Friday, May 27, 2016 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33675-33678 2016-12532 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33654 2016-12525 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Mexican Hass Avocado Import Program, 33581-33588 2016-12586 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Montana Advisory Committee, 33656-33657 2016-12548 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Broad Creek, Laurel, DE, 33590-33591 2016-12627 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Allegheny River Mile 43.5 to 44.5, Kittanning, PA, 33617-33619 2016-12628 NOTICES Update to Alternative Planning Criteria National Guidelines, 33685-33686 2016-12624 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Analysis Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

NOTICES 21st Century U.S. Port Competitiveness Initiative, 33657-33658 2016-12551
Commission Fine Commission of Fine Arts NOTICES Meetings: Commission of Fine Arts, 33665 2016-12404 Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 33665-33667 2016-12587 2016-12588 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Disclosure of Financial and Other Information by National Banks, 33734-33735 2016-12584 Funding and Liquidity Risk Management, 33735-33737 2016-12581 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Limitations on Pass-Through Charges, 33674-33675 2016-12554
Economic Analysis Bureau Economic Analysis Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Direct Investment Surveys: Quarterly Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad--Transactions of U.S. Reporter with Foreign Affiliate, and Changes to Private Fund Reporting on Direct Investment Surveys, 33658-33659 2016-12539 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Experimental Sites Data Collection Instrument, 33668 2016-12559 Generic Clearance for Federal Student Aid Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Focus Groups Master Plan, 33667 2016-12558 Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities Evaluation Protocol, 33668-33669 2016-12567 Energy Department Energy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33669 2016-12589 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: WA: Spokane Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan, 33632-33636 2016-12529 Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances from New Unit Set-Asides for the 2016 Compliance Year, 33636-33637 2016-12485 NOTICES Charter Renewals: National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, 33669-33670 2016-12630 Environmental Impact Statements; Weekly Receipts, 33670 2016-12590 Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions; Petition for Exemption Reissuance: Class I Hazardous Waste Injection; INEOS Nitriles USA LLC; Green Lake Complex Port Lavaca, TX, 33670 2016-12632 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33670-33671 2016-12568 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Viking Air Limited Airplanes, 33588-33589 2016-12468 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Robinson Helicopter Company Helicopters, 33609-33611 2016-12442 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 33612-33617 2016-12353 Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 Helicopters; Interaction of Systems and Structures, 33606-33609 2016-12497 NOTICES Requests to Release Airport Property, 33729-33730 2016-12635 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Return A-Monthly Return of Offenses Known to Police and Supplement to Return A-Monthly Return of Offenses Known to Police, 33708-33709 2016-12431 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Comprehensive Review of Licensing and Operating Rules for Satellite Services; Correction, 33601 2016-12482 PROPOSED RULES Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, 33642-33653 2016-10816 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33671-33672 2016-12611 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspensions of Community Eligibility, 33598-33601 2016-12127 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Comment Request; Individual & Community Preparedness Division Annual Youth Preparedness Council Application Form, 33688 2016-12616 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration RULES Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning, 34050-34164 2016-11964 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission PROPOSED RULES Update of Existing and Addition of New User Fees, 33637-33641 2016-12326 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33672-33674 2016-12604 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 33672 2016-12580 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration RULES Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning, 34050-34164 2016-11964 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2016-17 Season, 34226-34240 2016-12576 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of 21 Species in the Mountain-Prairie Region, 33698-33700 2016-12585 Permit Applications: Endangered Species; Marine Mammals, 33700-33701 2016-12550 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels, 33742-33999 2016-11867 Serving Sizes of Foods that Can Reasonably Be Consumed at One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments, 34000-34047 2016-11865 Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration, 34166-34223 2016-12373 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Shoshone National Forest Travel Management; Shoshone National Forest, WY, 33655-33656 2016-12069 Meetings: Missoula Resource Advisory Committee, 33654-33655 2016-12572 Proposed New Fee Site, 33656 2016-12573 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Limitations on Pass-Through Charges, 33674-33675 2016-12554 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33701-33702 2016-12569 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Meetings: National Infrastructure Advisory Council, 33688-33689 2016-12524
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 33693-33695 2016-12245 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 33690-33693, 33695-33697 2016-12597 2016-12600 Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: State Library Administrative Agencies Survey FY 2016 and FY 2018, 33710-33711 2016-12481 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Indian Gaming Commission

See

National Park Service

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India; Correction, 33660 2016-12614 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from India, 33706-33707 2016-12622 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey, 33705-33706 2016-12537 Receipts of Complaint: Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest, 33707-33708 2016-12623 Justice Department Justice Department See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council, Idaho, 33703 2016-12583 Records of Decision: Nevada and California Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Land Use Plan Amendment, 33702-33703 2016-12605 Merit Merit Systems Protection Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33709-33710 2016-12562 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Limitations on Pass-Through Charges, 33674-33675 2016-12554 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

Institute of Museum and Library Services

National Indian National Indian Gaming Commission NOTICES Final Fee Rate and Fingerprint Fees, 33703-33704 2016-12629 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, 33660-33661 2016-12483 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Clinical Trials Reporting Program Database (National Care Institute), 33681-33682 2016-12504 Generic Submission for Formative Research, Pretesting and Customer Satisfaction of National Care Institute's Communication and Education Resources, 33683-33684 2016-12505 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 33682-33683 2016-12499 2016-12506 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council, 33679 2016-12500 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 33682 2016-12502 National Human Genome Research Institute, 33679 2016-12501 Office of the Director, 33679-33680 2016-12503 Requests for Information: Development of the Fiscal Year 2018 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research, 33680-33681 2016-12578 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Commercial Blacknose Sharks and Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks in the Atlantic Region South of 34 Degrees N. Latitude; Closure, 33604-33605 2016-12631 NOTICES Meetings: Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, 33661 2016-12491 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 33662 2016-12619 New England Fishery Management Council, 33661-33662 2016-12615 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 33663-33665 2016-12618 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Trail Route Selections: Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, 33704 2016-12284 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: Ocean Research Advisory Panel; Correction, 33667 2016-12716 Patent Patent and Trademark Office RULES USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program, 33591-33598 2016-12498 PROPOSED RULES Trademark Fee Adjustment, 33619-33632 2016-12571 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements, and Security Plans; CFR Correction, 33602-33604 2016-12598 NOTICES Hazardous Materials: Delayed Applications, 33731-33732 2016-11979 Hazardous Materials: Special Permit Applications, 33730-33733 2016-11981 2016-11987 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 33711-33714 2016-12513 2016-12514 2016-12516 2016-12517 2016-12518 2016-12519 2016-12520 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 33715-33716 2016-12533 2016-12535 Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement, 33715 2016-12536 Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 33715 2016-12528 Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement, 33715 2016-12530 2016-12531 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 33722-33725 2016-12515 Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 33718-33720 2016-12511 NYSE Arca, Inc., 33716-33718, 33720-33722 2016-12510 2016-12512 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Arkansas, 33726 2016-12556 Mississippi; Amendment 1, 33725 2016-12565 Texas, 33727 2016-12553 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, 33726-33727 2016-12563 Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development, 33725-33726 2016-12564 State Department State Department RULES Acquisition Regulations: Technical Amendments; Corrections, 33601-33602 2016-12355 Privacy Act; Implementation, 33589-33590 2016-12621 NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Garden, Art, and Commerce in Chinese Woodblock Prints, 33727 2016-12620 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33684-33685 2016-12486 2016-12555 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33705 2016-12570 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Norfolk Southern Railway Company in Durham County, N.C., 33727-33728 2016-12610 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Fiscal Year 2016 Tariff-Rate Quota Allocations: Additional Tariff-Rate Quota Volume for Raw Cane Sugar, 33728-33729 2016-12496 Fiscal Year 2017 Tariff-Rate Quota Allocations: Raw Cane Sugar, Refined and Specialty Sugar and Sugar-Containing Products, 33729 2016-12495 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection, 33733-33734 2016-12602
Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33737-33738 2016-12273 2016-12625 2016-12626
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Employment Authorization for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse, 33689-33690 2016-12480 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Acceptable Documents to Denote Identity and Citizenship for Entry in the United States at Land and Sea Ports of Entry: Designation of an Approved Native American Tribal Card Issued by the Hydaburg Cooperative Association of Alaska, 33686-33688 2016-12552 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Expanded Access to Non-VA Care through the Veterans Choice Program, 33738-33739 2016-12574 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Food and Drug Administration, 33742-34047 2016-11867 2016-11865 Part III Transportation Department, Federal Highway Administration, 34050-34164 2016-11964 Transportation Department, Federal Transit Administration, 34050-34164 2016-11964 Part IV Health and Human Services Department, Food and Drug Administration, 34166-34223 2016-12373 Part V Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 34226-34240 2016-12576 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.

81 103 Friday, May 27, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0088] RIN 0579-AE05 Mexican Hass Avocado Import Program AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

Commercial consignments of Hass avocado fruit are currently authorized entry into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico from the Mexican State of Michoacán under a systems approach to mitigate against quarantine pests of concern. We are amending the regulations to allow the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico from all of Mexico, provided individual Mexican States meet the requirements set out in the regulations and the operational workplan. Initially, this action would only apply to the Mexican State of Jalisco. With the exception of a clarification of the language concerning when sealed, insect-proof containers would be required to be used in shipping and the removal of mandatory fruit cutting at land and maritime borders, the current systems approach will not change. The current systems approach, which includes requirements for orchard certification, traceback labeling, pre-harvest orchard surveys, orchard sanitation, post-harvest safeguards, fruit cutting and inspection at the packinghouse, port-of-arrival inspection, and clearance activities, will be required for importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from all approved areas of Mexico. The fruit will also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Mexico with an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced in accordance with the systems approach described in the operational workplan. This final rule will allow for the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

DATES:

Effective June 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. David B. Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RPM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2103.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-75), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States. The current requirements for allowing importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit into the United States from Michoacán, Mexico, are described in § 319.56-30. No other Mexican States are currently allowed to export fresh Hass avocado fruit into the United States. Those current requirements include pest surveys and pest risk-reducing practices, treatment, packinghouse procedures, inspection, and shipping procedures.

On February 18, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 8561-8564, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0088) a proposed rule 1 to amend the regulations to allow fresh Hass avocado fruit to be imported from all of Mexico into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Any Mexican State wishing to export fresh Hass avocado fruit to the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico will be required to meet the requirements set out in the regulations for eligibility to ship fresh Hass avocado fruit into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Specifically, these requirements are found in § 319.56-30(c) and include orchard certification, traceback labeling, pre-harvest orchard surveys, orchard sanitation, post-harvest safeguards, and fruit cutting and inspection at the packinghouse. Prior to shipments beginning from any Mexican States other than Michoacán, APHIS will work with the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Mexico to ensure that any other Mexican States that intend to export meet the requirements of § 319.56-30(c).

1 To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0088.

Any changes to the review process for approving new Mexican States will be added to the operational workplan as mutually negotiated and agreed on between APHIS and the NPPO of Mexico. An operational workplan is an agreement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will comply with our regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues.

In addition to the modifications to the current systems approach set out in the proposed rule, based on comments and our analysis, we are also changing the actions to be taken related to orchard pest detection requirements set forth in § 319.56-30(e). Under the current systems approach, an orchard affected by a pest detection loses its export certification and avocado exports from that orchard are suspended until APHIS and the Mexican NPPO agree that the pest eradication measures taken by the affected orchard have been effective. We have found this remedial action to be overly stringent. In accordance with the commodity import evaluation document (CIED), we are revising paragraph (e) to state that loss of export certification and export suspension may occur. This change from the prior automatic, definitive loss of export certification and export suspension, will allow APHIS the flexibility to determine the scope and nature of the pest detection in order to determine the best and most appropriate level of phytosanitary response required. Quarantine pests and their overall pest risk (as rated in the pest risk analysis (PRA)) will be listed in the operational workplan, along with the consequences of interception at the packinghouse, certified orchard, municipality, and port of entry.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending April 20, 2015. We received 34 comments by that date. They were from producers, trade associations, representatives of State and foreign governments, and individuals. Of those, 12 comments were supportive of APHIS' proposal and the remaining 22 were either supportive with additional points or opposed. The comments are discussed below by topic.

General Comments

One commenter inquired how the proposed action would apply to the State of Alaska.

Currently, continental United States is defined in § 319.56-2 of the regulations as “The 48 contiguous States, Alaska, and the District of Columbia.” The provisions of this rule therefore apply to Alaska.

Another commenter said that harmful pesticides could harm both fresh Hass avocado fruit and avocado consumers.

While the commenter did not provide any specific examples of pesticides of concern, any pesticide harmful to the fresh Hass avocado fruit itself would most likely produce effects visible to inspection either in Mexico or at the port of first arrival into the United States. As for the human health implications of pesticide usage, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) samples and tests imported fruits and vegetables for pesticide residues. Yearly monitoring reports and information on the program may be found here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Pesticides/UCM2006797.htm.

Two commenters stated that APHIS should consider the effect that the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from distant regions of Mexico has on global climate change. The commenters said that both the carbon emissions generated by long-distance shipment as well as the precedent via the purchase availability of non-local produce should be assessed as part of the importation approval process.

Another commenter said that the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from other regions in Mexico will affect the prices of avocados in the United States and, resultantly, affect consumer behavior. The commenter argued that the purchase price for fresh Hass avocados does not reflect the impact that the long distance shipping has on global climate change, and that an increased supply of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico would lower the purchase price even further, allowing consumers to purchase greater quantities and thereby exacerbating the problem.

APHIS' proposed action is the expansion of the importation program for fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico into the United States. The Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) law, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service, requires retailers, such as full-time grocery stores, supermarkets, and club warehouse stores, to notify their customers with information regarding the source of certain food, including fruits and vegetables. Any fresh Hass avocado fruit imported from Mexico would be subject to such requirements, thus allowing consumers to make any origin-based purchasing choices they may wish.

Another commenter observed that the proposed rule considers imported goods as foreign commerce until they reach the final consumer, thus preempting State and local laws.

APHIS regulations in this part preempt those State and local laws that are inconsistent with the regulations, namely, while the fruit is in foreign commerce.

Comments on Alternatives to the Proposed Action

One commenter stated that approval for the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit should be made on a State-by-State basis. The commenter argued that this approach would allow local authorities to gain familiarity with the required phytosanitary measures and allow APHIS to thoroughly assess prospective exporters. The commenter concluded that such an approach would also allow domestic avocado producers to adjust to the increased supply.

As stated in the proposed rule, we believe that Jalisco will be the first new Mexican State to meet the requirements set forth in this rule and therefore the first Mexican State apart from Michoacán to be authorized to export fresh Hass avocado fruit to the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Subsequent Mexican States would not necessarily be approved one at a time, but rather as each demonstrates its ability to meet the standards set out in the regulations. We are confident that we have the review and oversight capacity to approve requesting Mexican States on a simultaneous basis as needed.

Currently, fresh Hass avocado fruit are required to be biometrically sampled and cut in the field, at the packinghouse, and by an inspector at the port of first arrival into the United States. We proposed to allow fruit to be cut at the discretion of the inspector. One commenter suggested that cutting the avocados would help monitor for illegal importation of narcotics and other illegal substances.

Given the lack of quarantine pest interceptions in shipments of avocado fruit from Mexico at the ports of first arrival for the period from 1997 to 2014, we are amending the requirement in order to allow for operational flexibility. Inspections for narcotics in imported materials are also performed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors.

Comments on the Pest List

Specific pests of concern associated with fresh Hass avocado fruit for which mitigations are required are listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(i), and (e) of § 319.56-30. They are:

Conotrachelus aguacatae, a small avocado seed weevil;

Conotrachelus perseae, a small avocado seed weevil;

Copturus aguacatae, avocado stem weevil;

Heilipus lauri, large avocado seed weevil; and

Stenoma catenifer, avocado seed moth.

We proposed removing these specific pests from the regulations. The pest list would instead be maintained in the operational workplan provided to APHIS for approval by the NPPO of Mexico.

Additionally, based on the findings of the PRA, we proposed to add eight pests to the list of pests of concern to be maintained in the operational workplan. Those pests were:

• Avocado sunblotch viroid;

Cryptaspasma perseana, a tortricid moth;

Conotrachelus serpentinus, a weevil;

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), pink hibiscus mealybug;

Pseudophilothrips perseae (Watson), a thrips;

Scirtothrips aceri (Moulton), a thrips;

Scirtothrips perseae Nakahara, a thrips; and

Sphaceloma perseae Jenkins, avocado scab.

Three commenters stated that these newly listed pests were not previously considered likely to follow the pathway of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico. The commenters observed that the pests have never been intercepted or considered as pests of concern for which mitigations are required. The commenters observed that, as a signatory to the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the United States has agreed that any prohibitions it places on the importation of fruits and vegetables will be based on scientific evidence related to phytosanitary measures and issues, and will not be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence and concluded that the addition of the eight pests is contrary to this agreement. The commenters said that these pests had not been previously designated as quarantine pests because they already occur in the United States and therefore, according to international standards, cannot be considered to be quarantine pests or pests of concern for which mitigations are required and concluded that avocado sunblotch viroid, Conotrachelus serpentinus, Scirtothrips aceri, Scirtothrips perseae, and Sphaceloma perseae should be removed as pests of concern for which regulatory action is required.

Upon further consideration, we agree with the commenters' assessment regarding avocado sunblotch viroid, Conotrachelus serpentinus, and Sphaceloma perseae. These are non-actionable pests that already exist in certain areas of the United States, for which no domestic program exists. We also allow domestic shipments of susceptible species to travel interstate without restriction. Given that our import regulations cannot be more stringent than our domestic regulations, we have removed the pests from the pest list and adjusted the PRA accordingly.

However, we disagree with the commenters' other points regarding, Scirtothrips aceri and Scirtothrips perseae. Scirtothrips aceri is considered actionable only for those shipments to Hawaii and/or Puerto Rico because that pest is not found in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. It is considered a non-actionable pest for shipments to the continental United States. Scirtothrips perseae was dismissed in previous PRAs developed by APHIS as a pest associated with plant parts other than avocado fruit or in rotting fruit on ground. However, the PRA developed in association with this rule 2 cites more recent research indicating that avocado fruit is a host.

2 To view the PRA and other supporting documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0088.

The same commenters stated that thrips in general and Pseudophilothrips perseae in particular had already been examined by APHIS as part of a previous rulemaking and determined to be unlikely to be in the commercial import pathway because they are not generally associated with mature fruit or remain on mature, harvested fruit. The commenters concluded that regulating thrips does not seem to be supported by relevant science concerning the biology of these pests and the realities of the commercial packing process and requested that Pseudophilothrips perseae be removed from the pest list for fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico.

As stated previously, recent research, which we consulted in preparing the PRA associated with this rule, indicates that fresh Hass avocado fruit is a potential host for the listed species of thrips. In addition, thrips of the families Phlaeothripidae and Thripidae have been intercepted with shipments of avocado fruit for consumption, both in commercial shipments and passenger baggage at U.S. ports of entry.

The same commenters questioned the inclusion of Cryptaspasma perseana in the list of pests of concern, stating that the tests that supposedly proved the pest's association with avocado fruit on the tree were not performed outside of laboratory conditions. The commenters stated that forced infestation studies in the field, at varying altitudes and cultural conditions, should be conducted to support the conclusion that Cryptaspasma perseana is a pest of concern for fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico. The commenters concluded that listing this pest as a quarantine pest of commercially produced fresh Hass avocado fruit is premature.

As indicated in the PRA, we determined that the likelihood of introduction for this species is negligible and that the mitigations already in place to provide phytosanitary protection against Stenoma catenifer are likely to also detect this species. However, the larvae of the two species can be easily confused and we therefore included Cryptaspasma perseana in the list of pests of concern in order to avoid any need for inspectors to distinguish between those larvae, misidentification of which could then lead to entry of Stenoma catenifer into the United States. The research cited by the commenters included the conclusion that it is more likely that Cryptaspasma perseana lays eggs in trees with the caveat that additional research is required. Without specific evidence that this species does not lay eggs only in trees or on fruit on the ground, no changes will be made at this time due to the potential damage caused by an infestation.

Five commenters stated that Sphaceloma perseae is a very common cosmetic problem in Mexico as well as in other countries from which avocados are imported. The commenters observed that Sphaceloma perseae is present domestically, in both California and Florida. The commenters wanted to know why the proposed phytosanitary measures included mitigation against Sphaceloma perseae.

As stated previously, Sphaceloma perseae has been removed from the list of pests of concern since it already exists in certain areas of the United States, domestic shipments of susceptible species are permitted travel interstate without restriction, and our import regulations cannot be more stringent than our domestic regulations.

Comments on Pest Risk

Two commenters said that, as a result of the potential harm these pests represent, the importation of fruits and vegetables should be limited and tightly controlled. The commenters claimed that, due to the eventuality of human error, compliance with the required measures will not be complete and an exponential increase in the importation level of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico therefore represents an exponential phytosanitary risk.

Each organism carries its own risk of following the pathway, and APHIS has been very successful in assessing and mitigating the risks associated with new market access. We have stated in the past that if zero tolerance for pest risk were the standard applied to international trade in agricultural commodities, it is quite likely that no country would ever be able to export a fresh agricultural commodity to any other country. Our pest risk analysis process will identify and assign appropriate and effective mitigations for any identified pest risks. If, based on our PRA, we conclude that the available mitigation measures against identified pest risks are insufficient to provide an appropriate level of protection, then we will not authorize the importation of the particular commodity.

Another commenter said that the studies cited in the proposal and in the PRA did not indicate whether all Mexican States share the same pests as Michoacán. The commenter questioned the conclusion of the CIED, saying that the import requirements have only been shown to mitigate the phytosanitary risk posed by fresh Hass avocado fruit from Michoacán, Mexico, and does not take into account any unique pest situations that may exist in other Mexican States.

The avocado pests assessed by the PRA were those present in all of Mexico. Pests associated with fresh Hass avocado fruit with a likelihood of introduction of medium or greater were evaluated. We then examined existing mitigation requirements for fresh Hass avocados from Michoacán, Mexico to see if they would provide mitigation against pests from all of Mexico and found that they would provide adequate protection against the importation of the pests of concern.

The same commenter and a second commenter suggested that those Mexican States that cannot meet the import requirements may trade with Mexican States that can. As such, the commenters argued that avocados from unapproved Mexican States could potentially enter the chain of export and thereby introduce pests into the United States.

Paragraph 319.56-30(c)(2)(iv) requires that harvested Hass avocado fruit be placed in field boxes or containers of field boxes that are marked to show the official registration number of the orchard from which they were harvested. Paragraph 319.56-30(c)(3)(v) requires that the identity of the fresh Hass avocado fruit must be maintained from field boxes or containers to the containers in which they will be shipped so the avocados can be traced back to the orchard in which they were grown if pests are found at the packinghouse or the port of first arrival in the United States. These requirements are intended to prevent inclusion of fruit from unauthorized orchards or areas in shipments intended for export to the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

One commenter requested further information regarding population densities and any required mitigation measures for Conotrachelus aguacatae and Heilipus lauri from areas in Mexico not currently approved to export fresh Hass avocado fruit.

A second commenter said that APHIS should gather and evaluate current pest population information and mitigation measures being implemented for the pests of concern in other production regions in Mexico prior to importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico from those regions.

Currently, all municipalities within Michoacán are required to be surveyed twice a year and found free of Conotrachelus aguacatae, Conotrachelus perseae, Heilipus lauri, Stenoma catenifer, which are the pests capable of inflicting the most damage if they were allowed to become established. APHIS and the Mexican NPPO have agreed that before another Mexican State is eligible to participate in the export program, at least 2 years of survey data establishing that the avocado plant pests and diseases of concern are not present in that region will be provided to APHIS. Mitigation measures for the pests of concern in the remainder of Mexico will be the same as those currently required for fresh Hass avocados from Michoacán, Mexico. Producers will have to demonstrate municipality and orchard freedom from these and other major pests of concern. Shipment of fresh Hass avocado fruit to the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico from any additional Mexican areas will not be approved until APHIS and the Mexican NPPO have agreed that those new areas have met the requirements of the systems approach.

Another commenter said that the required pest control measures were not specified in the proposed rule. The commenter asked if those measures will affect the quality of the fresh Hass avocado fruit or represent a threat to consumer health.

As stated in the CIED that accompanied the proposed rule, if any of the avocado pests of concern are detected during the semiannual pest surveys in a packinghouse, certified orchard or areas outside of certified orchards, or via other monitoring or inspection activity in the municipality, the Mexican NPPO must immediately initiate an investigation and take measures to isolate and eradicate the pests. The Mexican NPPO must also provide APHIS with information regarding the circumstances of the infestation and the pest risk mitigation measures taken in response. In accordance with the operational workplan, depending upon the nature of the pest detection, affected orchards may lose their export certification, and avocado exports from that orchard may be suspended until APHIS and the Mexican NPPO agree that the pest eradication measures taken by the affected orchard have been effective. As for the human health implications of pesticide usage, as stated previously, the FDA samples and tests imported fruits and vegetables for pesticide residues that may be harmful to humans. Yearly monitoring reports and information on the program may be found here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Pesticides/UCM2006797.htm.

Comments on the Systems Approach

With the exception of a clarification of the language in § 319.56-30, paragraph (c)(3)(vii) concerning when sealed, insect-proof containers would be required to be used in shipping of the fruit and the removal of mandatory fruit cutting at land and maritime borders found in § 319.56-30(f), we did not propose any changes to the systems approach required for the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Michoacán, Mexico, which will be required for the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from other approved areas in Mexico. Specifically, these requirements are found in § 319.56-30(c) and include orchard certification, traceback labeling, pre-harvest orchard surveys, orchard sanitation, post-harvest safeguards, and fruit cutting and inspection at the packinghouse.

One commenter stated that discretionary fruit cutting will rely more heavily on inspector expertise to determine whether to perform samplings. The commenter wanted to know whether APHIS or CBP will provide inspectors with training to decide when it is appropriate to perform a fruit cutting on a shipment of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico. If so, the commenter wanted to know how this training would differ from current inspector training.

The operational workplan requires any shipment that arrives with a broken seal to be inspected, which would include fruit cutting. Shipments may also be subject to random sampling as dictated by local CBP port procedures. We are confident that existing inspector training will continue to provide APHIS and CBP inspectors with the necessary expertise.

APHIS is removing specific pest names from the regulations and replacing them with references to the “avocado pests listed in the operational workplan.” The same commenter asked what criteria will be considered in adding pests to or removing pests from the list in the operational workplan, whether proposed changes would be subject to public review and comment, and whether the operational workplan would be available to the public for review and, if so, where it would be located.

Generally speaking, we do not list every possible quarantine pest associated with a particular commodity in the regulations, as this would require a lengthy and cumbersome rulemaking process every time the pest list changed due to factors such as a new pest discovery or emerging research involving a given pest. The regulations governing the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Michoacán, Mexico, did contain the specific names of all pests of concern at the time, however that inclusion was not intended to serve as and was not an all-inclusive pest list. This is consistent with and is in line with our most recent policies to move specifics such as pest names from the regulations to the operational workplan, which provides a greater degree of flexibility in the face of any potential changes to the pest situation in any country. Changes to the list of quarantine pests in the operational workplan governing the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico will require a bilateral agreement between APHIS and the Mexican NPPO and will not involve publication of a Federal Register notice with regard to the updated pests. Operational workplans are and will continue to be available upon request.

Another commenter said that mandatory sampling and cutting requirements at U.S. ports of entry should be maintained for a period of 2 years following the acceptance of fresh Hass Avocado fruit from any new Mexican State or production region in order to fully assess the efficacy of the systems approach in those areas.

Since 2004, approximately 181,000 consignments totaling over 3.2 million metric tons of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Michoacán, Mexico, have been imported into the United States. None of the pests listed in the Mexican Hass avocado PRAs (1996, 2004, and 2014) as following the pathway of fresh Hass avocado fruit have ever been intercepted in any commercial consignment since Mexico was granted market access in 1997. This record demonstrates the efficacy of the required phytosanitary measures, which are largely identical to those that will be required to be met by any Mexican States approved after publication of this rule, particularly as the pests of concern for fresh Hass avocado fruit throughout Mexico are identical.

One commenter recommended that a number of provisions specified in the 2011 operational workplan be included in the regulations. The commenter stated that it is not clear whether the conditions of the operational workplan would be required by the regulations. Finally, the commenter said that certain provisions in the 2011 operational workplan related to orchards and packinghouses should be modified.

As stated previously, APHIS no longer includes highly specific, prescriptive phytosanitary measures in the regulations, but rather we utilize broader requirements. Operational workplans establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. Paragraph 319.56-30(d) requires that all consignments of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the Mexican NPPO with an additional declaration certifying that the conditions specified in the regulations have been met. The commenter's suggestions regarding amendments to the 2011 operational workplan are outside the scope of the current regulation as the contents of the operational workplan are agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of the exporting country.

Comments on Program Oversight

Two commenters said that APHIS is dependent on local authorities in Mexico to enforce the requirements set forth in the regulations and the operational workplan. The commenters cited the Corruption Perceptions Index issued by Transparency International 3 as proof that corruption within Mexico will most certainly occur in connection with the export of fresh Hass avocado fruit.

3 The Corruption Perceptions Index may be viewed here: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results.

Like the United States, Mexico is a signatory to the SPS Agreement. As such, it has agreed to respect the phytosanitary measures the United States imposes on the importation of plants and plant products from Mexico when the United States demonstrates the need to impose these measures in order to protect plant health within the United States. The CIED that accompanied the proposed rule provided evidence of such a need. That being said, as we mentioned in the proposed rule, APHIS will monitor and audit Mexico's implementation of the systems approach for the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. If we determine that the systems approach has not been fully implemented or maintained, we will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from all of Mexico does not result in the dissemination of plant pests within the United States.

One commenter suggested that APHIS require at least 2 years of survey data establishing that the avocado plant pests and diseases of concern are not present in any potential additional exporting Mexican States or areas. The commenter also suggested that potential additional exporting States or areas demonstrate their ability to successfully adhere to the requirements set out in the regulations via exporting fresh Hass avocado fruit to countries other than the United States for a period of at least 2 years under the those requirements.

We will be requiring 2 years of survey data for the pests of concern from each Mexican area seeking approval to export fresh Hass avocado fruit to the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The commenter's point about exports of fresh Hass avocado fruit to countries other than the United States under U.S. requirements is not feasible. Every country sets its own requirements for importation of a given commodity and exercises a level of phytosanitary protection at its borders that it deems appropriate. APHIS makes its phytosanitary decisions based on our own research, experience, and expertise.

Two commenters said that adequate oversight of the current program is only possible because the export area was confined to the State of Michoacán, and therefore easy to oversee. The commenters claimed that the entire country of Mexico will prove almost impossible to monitor for compliance with the regulations. The commenter concluded that this will be magnified by the fact that the whole of Mexico will be allowed to export fresh Hass avocado fruit upon the effective date of this final rule.

As stated in the proposed rule, the whole of Mexico will not immediately begin shipment of fresh Hass avocado fruit to the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Rather, Mexican States will likely be approved piecemeal as they meet the requirements established in the regulations. Currently, only the State of Jalisco is prepared to meet the requirements set out in the regulations for eligibility to ship fresh Hass avocado fruit into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. APHIS will monitor and audit Mexico's implementation of the systems approach for the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from all of Mexico into the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. If we determine that the systems approach has not been fully implemented or maintained, we will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that the importation of fresh avocado fruit from Mexico does not result in the dissemination of plant pests within the United States. In addition, APHIS has reviewed its resources and believes it has adequate coverage across the United States to ensure compliance with its regulations, including an expansion of the Mexican avocado import program, as established by this rule. APHIS has Pre-clearance and Offshore Program staff in Mexico monitoring many export programs, including the avocado program.

Comments on the Economic Analysis

We prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) in connection with the proposed rule regarding the economic effects of the rule on small entities. We invited comments on any potential economic effects and received a number of comments.

In the initial regulatory flexibility analysis we stated that, “we do not currently have all the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule.” One commenter said that, since we do not know what the precise economic impact will be, the economic risk is unnecessary. The commenter argued that we do not know if the potential influx of fresh Hass avocado fruit from all of Mexico will prove disastrous for domestic growers.

While it is true that precise, future price impacts of this rule are not known, the additional quantity of fresh Hass avocado fruit that will be imported from Mexico as a result of this rule is expected to be relatively small; price effects are therefore also likely to be small. Michoacán, Mexico, from which all fresh Hass avocado fruit imports from Mexico currently originate, produces 85 percent of Mexico's fresh Hass avocado fruit. Jalisco, the only other Mexican State prepared to meet the phytosanitary requirements necessary to export fresh Hass avocado fruit to the United States, produces 3 percent of Mexico's fresh Hass avocado fruit, and only a fraction of Jalisco's avocado production volume is expected to meet the rigorous phytosanitary requirements necessary for export to the United States.

Another commenter stated that the initial regulatory flexibility analysis is based on the expected impact of a “fraction” of the 90,000 pounds of fresh Hass avocado fruit available for immediate yearly importation from the State of Jalisco under the new rule. The commenter claimed that this assumption is unrealistic given that future approved Mexican States are likely to increase that yearly amount.

Our economic analysis is near term, not long term. Even so, future effects of the rule will be limited since, as stated previously, only 15 percent of Mexico's fresh Hass avocado fruit is grown outside of the State of Michoacán (3 percent in Jalisco). Only a fraction of that 15 percent (3 percent in Jalisco) is expected to satisfy U.S. phytosanitary import requirements.

The same commenter observed that the analysis assumes that the exponential increase for the demand of avocados in the United States seen over the last decade will continue indefinitely. The commenter found that assumption unlikely and noted that there are indicators that the rate of increased demand for avocados in the United States has begun, and will continue, to level off.

Although future growth in the U.S. demand for avocado may not match that experienced during the past decade, the factors that contributed to the recent history of expanded consumption—a growing U.S. population generally and a growing Hispanic share of the population, greater awareness of the avocado's health benefits, restaurants incorporating avocados into their menu offerings, a year-round supply of affordable, fresh Hass avocado fruit, and increased disposable income remain the same. We are unaware of any indications that the consumer market for fresh Hass avocado fruit has plateaued and the commenter did not provide a reference for that statement.

Several commenters said that, as pointed out in the IFRA, most of the 7,495 U.S. avocado growers are small entities and that these domestic growers produce roughly 230,000 metric tons of fresh Hass avocado fruit each year at a cost of $1.09 per pound, whereas the United States imports 462,000 metric tons each year from the Mexican State of Michoacán at a cost of $0.87 per pound. The commenters stated that a slowing in the increase of U.S. demand for avocados or an increase in the availability of cheaper imports would reduce the ability of domestic growers to compete in the avocado market, and both occurring at the same time would devastate domestic growers. The commenters concluded that this devastation would be experienced most acutely by small entities, which are generally less able to cut costs than larger growers and asked why we did not consider such losses as a significant economic impact on small entities.

As stated previously, the scale of additional imports makes it highly unlikely that any entities, large or small, will suffer significant economic hardship.

Two commenters observed that, according to the USDA Economic Research Service, imports accounted for 71.1 percent of the domestic fresh avocado consumed in the United States during 2011, down from 72.4 percent the previous year. The commenters argued that producers in California, Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico could benefit via increased production if those import levels were curtailed, given that California, Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are areas where year-round avocado production may occur.

APHIS' primary responsibility with regard to international import trade is to identify and manage the phytosanitary risks associated with importing commodities. When we determine that the risk associated with the importation of a commodity can be successfully mitigated, it is our responsibility under the trade agreements to which we are signatory to make provisions for the importation of that commodity.

Comments on General Economic Effects

While specific comments on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis are addressed above and in the final regulatory flexibility analysis, we received a number of comments concerning the overall economic effect of the rule as it relates to U.S. trade policies concerning Mexico.

Three commenters argued that allowing for the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico would lead to American job loss. The commenters said that inexpensive imports will drive down prices, decreasing profits for domestic producers, and thereby triggering layoffs. The commenters stated that domestic avocado production is already subject to such limiting factors as high labor costs and droughts and that allowing for importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from all of Mexico will decrease domestic profits.

Another commenter asked how prices for fresh Hass avocados could be regulated in order to allow domestic producers to fairly compete and thrive given the high volume of Mexican production.

Such actions would be beyond the scope of APHIS' statutory authority under the Plant Protection Act, whereby APHIS may prohibit the importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States only if we determine that the prohibition is necessary in order to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States. Additionally, as a signatory to the SPS Agreement, the United States has agreed that any prohibitions it places on the importation of fruits and vegetables will be based on scientific evidence related to phytosanitary measures and issues, and will not be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. The price regulation requested by the second commenter would not be in keeping with this agreement.

We are making two miscellaneous changes to the regulations not mentioned in the proposed rule. Currently, paragraph (c)(2)(iv) requires that harvested fresh Hass avocado fruit be moved from the orchard to the packinghouse within 3 hours of harvest or they must be protected from fruit fly infestation until moved. Given that some production areas are more than 3 hours away from the nearest approved packinghouse, we are altering the language to state that the fresh Hass avocado fruit must be moved to the packinghouse the same day as they are harvested. Given that there have been no interceptions of fruit flies in connection with the current fresh Hass avocado export program and the current PRA states that uninjured, commercially produced fresh Hass avocado fruit do not serve as hosts for fruit flies, we are confident that this change will not impact the phytosanitary efficacy of the program.

We also specify in the regulations that pest surveys must be performed at least semiannually. References to this requirement are found in §§ 319.56-30(c)(1)(ii), 319.56-30(c)(2)(i), and 319.56-30(e). We are amending this requirement slightly to specify that semiannual surveys must be conducted for at least 5 years. Thereafter, only one survey per year will be required provided no pests of concern are discovered during the 5 years of semiannual surveys. We are adding a time limit for the semiannual survey requirement based on the lack of pest discovery and interceptions associated with the importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Michoacán, Mexico.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Mexican officials have requested that additional States in Mexico be allowed to export fresh Hass avocado fruit to the United States under the same systems approach that currently applies to fresh Hass avocado fruit from approved municipalities in Michoacán. Imports of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Mexico into the United States have increased significantly over the years, from 311 million pounds in 2003 to over 1.1 billion pounds in 2013. A growing U.S. population and growing Hispanic share of the population, greater awareness of the avocado's health benefits, year-round availability of affordable fresh Hass avocado fruit, and greater disposable income have contributed to the increased demand.

The dramatic increase in demand over the past decade has enabled domestic producers to maintain production levels despite the large increase in fresh Hass avocado fruit imports. Annual U.S. avocado production, 2002/03 to 2011/12, averaged 423 million pounds, of which California accounted for 87.5 percent or over 375 million pounds. Nearly all of California's production is of the Hass variety.

Potential economic effects of this rule are estimated using a partial equilibrium model of the U.S. fresh Hass avocado fruit sector. There are 2,653 hectares in Jalisco that are registered in Mexico's SRRC (Contamination Risk Reduction System) as qualified to export fresh Hass avocado fruit to the United States. Avocados are expected to be shipped from one-half of these orchards (1,326.5 hectares) in the first year that this rule is implemented. Assuming an average yield of 10 metric tons (MT) per hectare, we expect fresh Hass avocado fruit imports from Jalisco to total approximately 13,265 MT (29 million pounds) in the first year, and between 13,265 and 26,530 MT (29 to 58 million pounds) in subsequent years.

If the United States were to import between 13,265 and 26,530 MT of fresh Hass avocado fruit from Jalisco and there were no displacement of avocado imports from other sources, the decline in avocado prices may range from 1.7 percent to 3 percent. Consumer welfare gains of about $24 million to $45 million would outweigh producer welfare losses of about $6 million to $11 million, resulting in net welfare gains of about $18 million to $34 million.

More reasonably, partial import displacement would occur, and price and welfare effects would be proportional to the net increase in U.S. fresh Hass avocado imports. If 20 percent of the 13,625 to 26,530 MT of fresh Hass avocado fruit imported from Jalisco were to displace avocado imports from elsewhere (e.g., Chile), including the State of Michoacán in Mexico, then the price decline would be about 1.3 to 2.5 percent; consumer welfare gains of $19 million to $36 million and producer welfare losses of $5 million to $9 million yield net welfare benefits of $14 million to $27 million.

While APHIS does not have information on the size distribution of U.S. avocado producers, according to the Census of Agriculture, there were a total of 93,020 Fruit and Tree Nut farms in the United States in 2012. The average value of agricultural products sold by these farms was less than $274,000, which is well below the Small Business Administration's small-entity standard of $750,000. It is reasonable to assume that most avocado farms qualify as small entities. Between 2002 and 2012, the number of avocado operations in California grew by approximately 17 percent, from 4,801 to 5,602 operations.

Executive Order 12988

This final rule allows fresh Hass avocado fruit to be imported into the United States from all of Mexico. State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh Hass avocado fruit imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

2. Section 319.56-30 is amended as follows: a. By revising the section heading. b. In the introductory text, by removing the words “Michoacan, Mexico,” and adding the word “Mexico” in their place. c. By revising paragraph (c), introductory text. d. In paragraph (c)(1)(i), by removing the words “bilateral work plan” and adding the words “operational workplan” in their place. e. By revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii). f. In paragraph (c)(2), introductory text, by removing the words “annual work plan” and adding the words “operational workplan” in their place. g. By revising paragraph (c)(2)(i). h. In paragraph (c)(2)(iv), by removing the words “within 3 hours” and adding the words “the day” in their place. i. In paragraph (c)(3), introductory text, by removing the words “annual work plan” and adding the words “operational workplan” in their place. j. By revising paragraph (c)(3)(vii). k. In paragraph (c)(3)(viii), by adding two sentences at the end of the paragraph. l. By revising paragraph (e). m. In paragraph (f), by removing the word “will” and adding the word “may” in its place.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 319.56-30 Hass avocados from Mexico.

(c) Safeguards in Mexico. The avocados must have been grown in an orchard located in a municipality that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The orchard in which the avocados are grown must meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The avocados must be packed for export to the United States in a packinghouse that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The Mexican national plant protection organization (NPPO) must provide an annual operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the Mexican NPPO will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of this section. APHIS will be directly involved with the Mexican NPPO in the monitoring and supervision of those activities. The personnel conducting the trapping and pest surveys must be hired, trained, and supervised by the Mexican NPPO or by the State delegate of the Mexican NPPO.

(1) * * *

(ii) The municipality must be surveyed at least semiannually (once during the wet season and once during the dry season) for a period of at least 5 years and found to be free from the avocado pests listed in the operational workplan. Thereafter, the municipality must be surveyed at least once per year provided the municipality remains pest free.

(2) * * *

(i) The orchard and all contiguous orchards and properties must be surveyed semiannually for a period of at least 5 years and found to be free from the avocado pests listed in the operational workplan. Thereafter, the orchard and all contiguous orchards and properties must be surveyed at least once per year provided the orchard and all contiguous orchards and properties remain pest free.

(3) * * *

(vii) The avocados must be packed in clean, new boxes or bulk shipping bins, or in clean plastic reusable crates. The boxes, bins, or crates must be clearly marked with the identity of the grower, packinghouse, and exporter.

(viii) * * * If, at the port of export for consignments shipped by air or sea, the packed avocados are transferred into a non-refrigerated container, the boxes, bins, or crates must be covered with a lid, insect-proof mesh, or other material to protect the avocados from fruit-fly infestation prior to leaving the packinghouse. Those safeguards must be intact at the time the consignment arrives in the United States.

(e) Pest detection. If any of the avocado pests listed in the operational workplan are detected during the pest surveys in a packinghouse, certified orchard or areas outside of certified orchards, or other monitoring or inspection activity in the municipality, the Mexican NPPO must immediately initiate an investigation and take measures to isolate and eradicate the pests. The Mexican NPPO must also provide APHIS with information regarding the circumstances of the infestation and the pest risk mitigation measures taken. In accordance with the operational workplan, depending upon the nature of the pest detection, affected orchards may lose their export certification, and avocado exports from that orchard may be suspended until APHIS and the Mexican NPPO agree that the pest eradication measures taken have been effective.

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of May 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-12586 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6628; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-013-AD; Amendment 39-18514; AD 2016-10-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to Viking Air Limited Model DHC-3 airplanes that are modified with the Baron Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) kit (Supplemental Type Certificate SA94-114 or SA 00287NY). The Code of Federal Regulations reference for records maintenance cited in last sentence in paragraph (f) is incorrect. This document corrects that error. In all other respects, the original document remains the same; however we are publishing the entire rule in the Federal Register.

DATES:

This final rule is effective May 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6628; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone: (516) 287-7329; fax: (516) 794-5531; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Airworthiness Directive 2016-10-03, Amendment 39-18514 (81 FR 29125, May 11, 2016), requires removing whichever previous revision of the Otter Baron short take-off and landing (STOL) kit installation flight manual supplement (FMS) that is currently being used and incorporate Stolairus Aviation Inc. Flight Manual Supplement #4 for de Havilland DHC-3 Otter with the Baron STOL Kit Installation, Revision 3, dated May 22, 2015, for Viking Air Limited Model DHC-3 airplanes that are modified with the Baron Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) kit (Supplemental Type Certificate SA94-114 or SA 00287NY).

As published, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) reference for records maintenance cited in the last sentence in paragraph (f) is incorrect. The published reference is 14 CFR 91.173 or 135.439, and it is should be 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, we are publishing the entire rule in the Federal Register.

The effective date of this AD remains May 31, 2016.

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2016-10-03 Viking Air Limited: Amendment 39-18514; Docket No. FAA-2016-6628; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-013-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 31, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Viking Air Limited Model DHC-3 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:

(1) Modified with the Baron Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) kit (Supplemental Type Certificate SA94-114 or SA 00287NY); and

(2) certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 8: Leveling and Weighing.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an accident report that indicated that the center of gravity was too far aft and contributed to a stall during takeoff. We are issuing this AD to correct the center of gravity and prevent such a stall during takeoff and loss of control during other phases of flight.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, within 30 days after May 31, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), remove whichever previous revision of the Otter Baron short take-off and landing (STOL) kit installation flight manual supplement (FMS) that is currently being used and incorporate Stolairus Aviation Inc. Flight Manual Supplement #4 for de Havilland DHC-3 Otter with the Baron STOL Kit Installation, Revision 3, dated May 22, 2015. This action may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone: (516) 287-7329; fax: (516) 794-5531; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD CF-2016-05, dated January 25, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6628.

(i) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Stolairus Aviation Inc., Flight Manual Supplement #4, de Havilland DHC-3 Otter, Baron STOL Kit Installation, DOT STC # SA 94-114/FAA STC # SA 00287 NY, Revision 3, dated May 22, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Stolairus Aviation Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Stolairus Aviation Inc. (formerly known as AOG Air Support, Inc.), 6095 Airport Way, Kelowna, British Columbia V1V 1S1; phone: (250) 491-7511; fax: (25) 491-7522; Internet: http://www.stolairus.com.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6628.

(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 Kansas City, Missouri, on May 20, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-12468 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 171 [Public Notice: 9523] RIN 1400-AD88 Privacy Act; STATE-81, Office of Foreign Missions Records AGENCY:

Department of State.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of State is issuing a final rule to amend its Privacy Act regulation exempting portions of a system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.

DATES:

This final rule is effective May 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William P. Fischer, Acting Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8001, or at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The system, Office of Foreign Missions Records, designated as STATE-81, supports the Office of Foreign Missions, Department of State, in the implementation of the Foreign Missions Act, the operation of foreign missions, and the United States' extension of privileges, exemptions, immunities, benefits, and courtesies to foreign government officials, members/employees and officers of foreign missions and certain international organizations in the United States, their immediate family members, and domestic workers who are in the United States in nonimmigrant A-3 or G-5 visa status.

For additional background, see the notice of proposed rulemaking and the system of records notice published on December 17, 2015 (80 FR 78704 and 80 FR 78812, respectively). The Department received no public comment on these documents.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 171

Privacy.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 22 CFR part 171 is amended as follows:

PART 171—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows: Authority:

22 U.S.C. 2651a; 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a; E.O. 12600 (52 FR 23781); Pub. L. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824 (codified as amended as 5 U.S.C. app. 101-505); 5 CFR part 2634.

§ 171.26—[Amended]
2. Section § 171.26 is amended by adding an entry, in alphabetical order, for “Office of Foreign Missions Records, STATE-81” to the list in paragraph (b)(2).
Joyce A. Barr, Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2016-12621 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-43-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-1011] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Broad Creek, Laurel, DE AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is changing the regulation that governs the operation of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge over Broad Creek, mile 8.0, at Laurel, DE. This final rule changes the current regulation requiring a four-hour advance notice and allows the bridge to remain in the closed to navigation position. This final rule aligns the operating schedule with the observed lack of marine traffic that requires a bridge opening and the operating regulations for the Poplar Street and US Highway 13A, which also cross Broad Creek.

DATES:

This rule is effective June 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG 2015-1011 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mrs. Jessica Shea, Fifth Coast Guard District (dpb), at (757) 398-6422, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On February 3, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Broad Creek, Laurel, DE in the Federal Register (81 FR 5679). We received one comment on this rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The bridge owner, Norfolk Southern, made a request under 33 CFR 117.39 that the operating regulations be revised due to infrequent openings. The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge over Broad Creek, mile 8.0, at Laurel, DE, is a swing bridge that has a vertical clearance of fourteen feet above mean high water in the closed to navigation position and is unlimited in the open to navigation position.

Presently, the bridge opens with 4 hour advance notice in accordance with 33 CFR 117.233(a). This final rule changes the status of the Norfolk Southern Broad Creek railroad bridge to need not open for the passage of vessels. There have been no requests for openings from vessels since Norfolk Southern acquired the bridge in 1999. In order to align the operating schedule of the bridge with observed marine traffic, this change amends the regulation to state that the bridge need not open. The lack of requests from vessels for bridge openings since 1999 illustrate that the vessels that use this waterway can safely navigate while the drawbridge is in the closed-to-navigation position.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

One comment was made in response to the NPRM. The comment was in favor of the need not open status. There were no changes made to the final rule from what was proposed in the NPRM.

This rule changes the status of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge to need not open for the passage of vessels. This action aligns the operating schedule of the bridge with the lack observed marine traffic that requires an opening and with the operating schedule for other drawbridges on this waterway. The change amends the regulation to state that the bridge need not open.

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 protesters.

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 observed lack of marine traffic that requires a bridge opening.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. As discussed in the NPRM, commercial traffic on Broad Creek, DE has not been present since the 1970s. The gradual change in the characteristics of the waterway shows that there will not be a significant economic impact of changing the drawbridge operating regulations on Broad Creek, DE.

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, above.

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 calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this 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.

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 an 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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

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 117

Bridges.

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

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

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

2. Revise § 117.233 to read as follows:
§ 117.233 Broad Creek.

The draws of the Norfolk Southern bridge, mile 8.0, the Poplar Street Bridge, mile 8.2 and the U.S. 13A Bridge, mile 8.25, all in Laurel, need not open for the passage of vessels.

Dated: May 18, 2016. Meredith L. Austin, Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-12627 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 11 [Docket No.: PTO-C-2015-0018] RIN 0651-AC99 USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program AGENCY:

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Office” or “USPTO”) is issuing a final rule to comply with a Public Law enacted on December 16, 2014. This law requires the USPTO Director to establish regulations and procedures for application to, and participation in, the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program. The program allows students enrolled in a participating law school's clinic to practice patent and trademark law before the USPTO under the direct supervision of an approved faculty clinic supervisor by drafting, filing, and prosecuting patent or trademark applications, or both, on a pro bono basis for clients who qualify for assistance from the law school's clinic.

DATES:

This rule is effective on June 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William R. Covey, Deputy General Counsel and Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED”), by telephone at 571-272-4097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary

Purpose: This final rule implements Public Law 113-227 (Dec. 16, 2014). The law requires the USPTO Director to establish regulations and procedures for application to, and participation in, the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program. The program allows students enrolled in a participating law school's clinic to practice patent and trademark law before the USPTO by drafting, filing, and prosecuting patent or trademark applications, or both, on a pro bono basis for clients who qualify for assistance from the law school's clinic. The program provides law students enrolled in a participating clinic the opportunity to practice patent and trademark law before the USPTO under the direct supervision of an approved faculty clinic supervisor. In this way, these student practitioners gain valuable experience drafting, filing, and prosecuting patent and trademark applications that would otherwise be unavailable to them. The program also facilitates the provision of pro bono services to trademark and patent applicants who lack the financial resources to pay for legal representation.

Summary of Major Provisions: The USPTO is adding §§ 11.16 and 11.17 to part 11 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations to formalize the process by which law schools, law school faculty, and law school students may participate in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program.

Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

Discussion of Specific Rules

The following is a discussion of the amendments to part 11, title 37, of the Code of Federal Regulations in this final rule.

Section 11.1: Section 11.1 is amended to clarify the definition of “attorney” or “lawyer” by inserting the word “active” before “member,” inserting the phrase “of the bar” before the phrase “of the highest court,” and deleting the clause “including an individual who is in good standing of the highest court of one State and not under an order of any court or Federal agency suspending, enjoining, restraining, disbarring or otherwise restricting the attorney from practice before the bar of another State or Federal agency.”

This revision clarifies that to be considered an “attorney” or “lawyer” one must be an active member, in good standing, of the highest court of any State, and otherwise eligible to practice law. With such revision the aforementioned clause had become surplusage and was struck for that reason. The term “State” is elsewhere defined in § 11.1 to mean any of the 50 states of the United States of America, the District of Columbia, and any Commonwealth or territory of the United States of America.

Section 11.1 is also amended to ensure the term “practitioner” includes students admitted to the program by insertion of the following language: “(4) An individual authorized to practice before the Office under § 11.16(d).”

The USPTO is amending the term “practitioner” to specifically include those students authorized to participate in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program. The mechanism by which such students are authorized to participate is through a grant of limited recognition. Once granted limited recognition, students are deemed practitioners for the term of the limited recognition and, as such, are subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct. By definition, only “practitioners” may represent others before the Office. Law school students who are not participating in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program may not practice before the USPTO, unless otherwise authorized to do so.

Section 11.16, previously reserved, is amended to add: Criteria for admission to, and continuing participation in, the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program; the qualifications necessary for approval as a Faculty Clinic Supervisor; and the requirements for granting limited recognition to law school students. Schools participating in the program as of the date the final rule is published will not be required to reapply for admission but must apply for renewal at such time as the OED Director establishes. These criteria, deadlines for admission, and any ancillary requirements, are published in a bulletin on OED's law school clinic Web page.

Section 11.16(a) describes the purpose of the program.

Section 11.16(b) establishes rules regarding applying for, and renewing, admission to the program. Law schools already enrolled in the program are not required to submit a new application. Although not required to apply for re-admission, participating law schools seeking to add a practice area (i.e., patents or trademarks) are required to submit an application for such practice area. This section also establishes that all law schools are required to submit a renewal application on a biennial basis.

Section 11.16(c) specifies that Faculty Clinic Supervisors are subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, including those governing supervisory practitioners. See e.g., 37 CFR 11.501 and 11.502. As such, Faculty Clinic Supervisors, as well as the respective law school deans, are responsible for ensuring their schools have established a process that identifies potential conflicts of interest.

Generally, the OED Director makes a determination regarding a proposed Faculty Clinic Supervisor's eligibility as part of the process of considering a law school's application for admission to the program. The OED Director may also make a determination whether to approve an additional, or a replacement, supervisor for a currently participating clinic. In determining whether a Faculty Clinic Supervisor candidate possesses the number of years of experience required by paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2)(ii), the OED Director will measure the duration of experience from the date of the candidate's request for approval. Any additional criteria established by the OED Director, as set forth in paragraphs (c)(1)(v) and (c)(2)(v), will be published in a bulletin on the Office of Enrollment and Discipline's law school clinic Web page.

Each practice area must be led by a fully-qualified, USPTO-approved, Faculty Clinic Supervisor. A law school's clinic may include a patent practice, a trademark practice, or both, provided that they are approved by the USPTO. The USPTO does not have a preference whether a law school includes both practice areas in one clinic or separates each discipline into its own clinic. For law school clinics approved to practice in both the patent and trademark practice areas, the USPTO may approve one individual to serve as a Faculty Clinic Supervisor for both practice areas, provided that the individual satisfies the USPTO's criteria to be both a Patent Faculty Clinic Supervisor and a Trademark Faculty Clinic Supervisor.

Section 11.16(d) provides the rules for providing limited recognition to students for the purpose of practicing before the USPTO. It provides that registered patent agents, and attorneys enrolled in a Master of Laws (L.L.M.) program, who wish to participate in a clinic must abide by the same rules and procedures as other students in the program.

Section 11.17 establishes rules concerning the continuing obligations of schools participating in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program and specifies those circumstances that may result in inactivation or removal of a school from the program.

Section 11.17(a) restates the requirement in Public Law 113-227 that services rendered under the program will be provided on a pro bono basis.

Section 11.17(b) establishes procedures for law schools to report their program activities to the USPTO.

Section 11.17(c) establishes procedures for inactivating a law school clinic. Inactive law schools are still considered by the USPTO to be “participating” in the program.

Section 11.17(d) establishes procedures for removing a law school from the program and explains the obligations of student practitioners in such event.

Comments and Responses to Comments: The Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking on December 16, 2015, proposing to amend its rules to implement Public Law 113-227 by creating rules governing the Law School Clinic Certification Program. See USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program, 80 FR 78155 (Dec. 16, 2015). Six members of the public submitted comments. Of these commenters, five are currently participating law school clinics. These comments are discussed below.

Comment 1: Five commenters addressed the reporting requirement in § 11.17(b). As proposed, that provision would have required participating schools to provide OED each quarter with: (1) The number of law students participating in each of the patent and trademark practice areas of the school's clinic in the preceding quarter; (2) The number of faculty participating in each of the patent and trademark practice areas of the school's clinic in the preceding quarter; (3) The number of consultations provided to persons who requested assistance from the law school clinic in the preceding quarter; (4) The number of client representations undertaken for each of the patent and trademark practice areas of the school's clinic in the preceding quarter; (5) The identity and number of applications and responses filed in each of the patent and/or trademark practice areas of the school's clinic in the preceding quarter; (6) The number of patents issued, or trademarks registered, to clients of the clinic in the preceding quarter; and (7) any other information specified by the OED Director. Four comments recommended that this information be provided annually or semi-annually. Three commenters pointed out that the Internal Revenue Service's clinical program requires only semi-annual reporting. Two commenters suggested that § 11.17(b) should not require the reporting of information already in the possession of the USPTO. These commenters asserted that the number of participating students and faculty is already known to OED. The commenters also contended that OED can easily use a clinic's customer number(s) to look up patent filings as well as registrations. As for trademark applications, the commenters contended that these are easily identifiable as the school's TMCP tracking code must be included in the application.

Response: After due consideration of the comment, the Office agrees to reduce the reporting requirement to two times per year. The final rule incorporates these commenters' suggestions in this regard but leaves in place the other items required to be reported. Public Law 113-227 requires the USPTO to provide the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the program that describes the number of law schools and law students participating in the program, the work done through the program, the benefits of the program, and any recommendations of the USPTO Director for modifications to the Program. This reporting requirement is designed to allow the USPTO to satisfy the requirements of the law. Each clinic director should at all times know the number of participating students and faculty, and should be keeping a running tally of the number of client visits, the numbers of filings, and the numbers of patents issued or trademarks registered. Gathering and reporting the information should be of minimal burden.

The recommendation to eliminate the requirement to report participating students is based on an incorrect premise that OED is already in possession of such data. Although OED records the names of clinic students who have been granted limited recognition, students may participate in a clinic without limited recognition. Therefore, OED cannot know the total number of participating students without the assistance of the law schools.

Similarly, OED's ability to measure program success would be made significantly more difficult if the requirement to report trademark and patent filings were eliminated. OED is not resourced to review multiple applications for the purpose of discerning those submitted under the program. Conversely, each participating clinic prosecutes a relatively small number of applications. For 2015, patent clinics filed fewer than five applications, on average. Trademark clinics averaged fewer than 14 applications for the year. The Office notes that the IRS requires a significantly greater amount of information in the semi-annual reports required of its Low Income Taxpayer Clinic programs. IRS clinics must file nearly 20 pages of forms requiring the input of hundreds of data fields. See Appendix C, IRS Pub. 3319 (2016). As a final point, the feedback the Office has received from the vast majority of the clinics is that this reporting requirement is not burdensome. For these reasons, the Office does not find that this reporting item is overly burdensome.

Comment 2: Section 11.17(b) would have required law school clinics to report the numbers of consultations and representations undertaken each quarter. Three commenters recommended defining the terms “consultations” and “representations.”

Response: After due consideration of the comment, the Office agrees with the recommendations that the term “consultation” be clarified, and has revised the final rule to eliminate any ambiguities. The final rule now eliminates the word “consultation” and simply requires reporting the “number of persons to whom the school's clinic provided assistance in any given patent or trademark matter but with whom no practitioner-client relationship had formed.” The term “representation,” on the other hand, requires no definition. Within the legal field, the term is well-understood as the act of providing legal advice to a client, or serving as an attorney for a client in a proceeding or transaction. For example, clinics should take credit for having undertaken a representation where the clinic has: (1) Issued a client an opinion regarding patentability, infringement, or the registrability of a trademark; (2) given advice, or taken action, regarding a patent or trademark application, or (3) provided any other service directly related to practice before the USPTO.

Comment 3: Four commenters stated that the USPTO should withdraw § 11.17(b)(7), the provision granting the OED Director the authority to ask for additional information not already specified. One commenter also sought to remove or amend §§ 11.16(c)(1)(v), 11.16(c)(2)(v), 11.16(c)(3)(vii), 11.16(d)(2)(ix), and 11.16(d)(3)(viii), as well. These provisions allow the OED Director to establish additional criteria for approving the participation of Faculty Clinic Supervisors and law students. The commenters expressed concern with the open-ended nature of these provisions. Three commenters argued that any additional information-reporting requirements could serve as a disincentive to law schools from joining the program and could actually cause schools to leave the program rather than comply with the reporting requirement.

Response: After due consideration of the comment, the Office declines to adopt the recommendations. In order to effectively monitor the program and meet Congressional intent, the OED Director must retain flexibility to run the program so as to properly protect the public and gauge program impact. Since the inception of the pilot program in 2008, the OED Director has had wide latitude in this regard. The Office is aware of no law school that was dissuaded from joining the program, or withdrew from the program, because the participation requirements were set by the OED Director rather than by regulation. OED has always sought to minimize administrative burdens on the clinics and will endeavor to do so in the future.

Comment 4: Section 11.16(d)(2)(viii) requires participating students to demonstrate they possess the scientific and technical qualifications necessary for rendering valuable services to patent applicants to obtain limited recognition. One commenter requested that this provision be withdrawn. The commenter argued that there is no harm to granting a non-qualified student limited recognition to practice before the Office in patent matters. The commenter also pointed out that it is difficult to find students with such qualifications. The commenter posited that by allowing non-qualified students to participate, they may become motivated to obtain the requisite scientific and technical competencies.

Response: After due consideration of the comment, the Office declines to adopt the recommendation. The Office appreciates the difficulties law schools face in trying to find technically qualified students for the patent practice area. During the pilot program, OED entertained requests to grant limited recognition, on a case-by-case basis, to students with a strong technical or scientific background where the student needed only a few credit hours to become fully qualified. OED will continue this practice. Any such student who is granted limited recognition must meet all qualifications and requirements before the student may become a registered practitioner. Finally, as discussed above in the response to Comment 1, students without technical or scientific backgrounds may participate in patent clinics. They cannot, however, receive limited recognition, actually file papers with the Office, or be of record in a patent application.

Comment 5: One commenter suggested OED should consider whether Faculty Clinic Supervisors are attorneys when evaluating their fitness. The comment appears to argue that patent agents are not qualified to serve as patent Faculty Clinic Supervisors on account of the fact that they are not necessarily trained in areas of the law that overlap with patent prosecution, such as licensing and corporate organization.

Response: Patent agents are eligible to serve as Faculty Clinic Supervisors provided they meet the criteria set forth in the final rule. With regard to practice in patent prosecution matters before the Office, patent agents and patent attorneys stand on an equal footing. To the extent this comment is proposing to exclude patent agents from service as Faculty Clinic Supervisors, the Office declines to incorporate such revisions in the final rule. Patent agents are fully capable of advising clients on patent matters before the Office and imparting relevant knowledge to their students. See generally Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963); see also In re Queen's Univ. at Kingston, No. 2015-145 at 14 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2016) (“patent agents are not simply engaging in law-like activity, they are engaging in the practice of law itself”). The USPTO's interest lies in ensuring that Faculty Clinic Supervisors are qualified to practice in patent matters before the Office. To the extent a law school should seek to supplement the instruction given to its students in other areas of the law, it is free to so act.

Comment 6: One commenter urges the rule to make permanent the “Request to Make Special Program.” This program allows patent clinics to submit a predetermined number of requests to make special per semester.

Response: After due consideration of the comment, the Office declines to revise the rule accordingly. Such a revision would be outside the scope of this rulemaking, which is designed to establish the framework for administering the program. This rulemaking is not designed to regulate the manner in which individual patents are to be prosecuted.

Comment 7: One commenter urges the rule to include a provision to grant law school clinics the full six months allowed by 35 U.S.C. 133 to respond to an Office action.

Response: After due consideration of the comment, the Office declines to revise the rule accordingly. Such a revision would be outside the scope of this rulemaking, which is designed to establish the framework for administering the program. The rulemaking is not designed to regulate the manner in which individual patents are to be prosecuted.

Comment 8: One commenter urged revision of § 11.16(c)(1)(iv), (c)(2)(iv), and (c)(3). These provisions keep in place the requirement established in the pilot program that Faculty Clinic Supervisors bear full responsibility for the legal services provided by their clinics. The commenter suggested that Faculty Clinic Supervisors should only bear “supervisory responsibility” for the legal services provided.

Response: After due consideration of the comment, the Office declines to revise the rule to include this provision. During the course of prosecution of a patent application, students assisting in the prosecution will enter and depart the program. During the summer months and semester breaks, there may be no students participating in a particular clinic. Only a Faculty Clinic Supervisor has the permanence to be able to properly prosecute an application. Moreover, only a Faculty Clinic Supervisor is a registered patent practitioner. The Office also notes that the fully responsible standard has been in place since the inception of the pilot program.

Rulemaking Considerations

A. Administrative Procedure Act: The changes in this final rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure, and/or interpretive rules. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015) (interpretive rules “advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Nat'l Org. of Veterans'Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive); Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules governing an application process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (rules for handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims). The Office received no public comment on this section or any of the other sections under Rulemaking Considerations.

Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes in this final rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1206 (notice-and-comment procedures are required neither when an agency “issue[s] an initial interpretive rule” nor “when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule”); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice,” (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). The Office, however, published proposed changes for comment as it sought the benefit of the public's views on the Office's proposed rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Deputy General Counsel, United States Patent and Trademark Office, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, that the changes in this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program is voluntary. Law schools, clinics, and clients may elect whether to participate in the program, and receive the benefits thereof. The primary effect of this rulemaking is not economic, but simply to formalize the requirements and procedures developed and implemented during the pilot phase of the program. The rulemaking implements certain basic semi-annual reporting requirements by participating law school clinics in order to provide information to the Office pertaining to the quality and use of their pro bono services. The information required for the report should be readily available to participating law school clinics and presents a minimal administrative burden. Additionally, the Office currently has 47 participating law school clinics, and it is expected that this number may increase slightly. Accordingly, this reporting requirement and the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 1993).

D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review): The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563. Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector and the public as a whole, and provided on-line access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes.

E. Executive Order 13132: This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).

G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).

H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).

I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).

J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).

K. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the United States Patent and Trademark Office will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this final rule are not expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this document is not expected to result in a “major rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes in this final rule do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

M. National Environmental Policy Act: This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act: The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions which involve the use of technical standards.

O. Paperwork Reduction Act: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the Office consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. This rulemaking involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549). New information will be collected in the Law School Clinic Certification Program, OMB Control No. 0651-0081. Information about the collection is available at the OMB's Information Collection Review Web site (www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain).

The following item was formerly in a different OMB-approved collection (0651-0012 Admission to Practice): Application by Student to Become a Participant in the Program (PTO-158LS). This form has now been transferred to the Law School Clinic Certification Program (0651-0081). This transfer has consolidated all information collections relating to law student involvement in the Law School Clinic Certification Program into a single collection.

Notwithstanding any other provision of 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 Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 11

Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents, Lawyers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 37 CFR part 11 is amended as follows:

PART 11—REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1. The authority citation for part 11 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 500; 15 U.S.C. 1123; 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 32, 41; Sec. 1, Pub. L. 113-227, 128 Stat. 2114.

2. In § 11.1, the definitions of “Attorney or lawyer” and “Practitioner” are revised to read as follows:
§ 11.1 Definitions.

Attorney or lawyer means an individual who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any State. A non-lawyer means a person who is not an attorney or lawyer.

Practitioner means:

(1) An attorney or agent registered to practice before the Office in patent matters;

(2) An individual authorized under 5 U.S.C. 500(b), or otherwise as provided by § 11.14(a), (b), and (c), to practice before the Office in trademark matters or other non-patent matters;

(3) An individual authorized to practice before the Office in a patent case or matters under § 11.9(a) or (b); or

(4) An individual authorized to practice before the Office under § 11.16(d).

3. Add § 11.16 to read as follows:
§ 11.16 Requirements for admission to the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program.

(a) The USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program allows students enrolled in a participating law school's clinic to practice before the Office in patent or trademark matters by drafting, filing, and prosecuting patent or trademark applications on a pro bono basis for clients that qualify for assistance from the law school's clinic. All law schools accredited by the American Bar Association are eligible for participation in the program, and shall be examined for acceptance using identical criteria.

(b) Application for admission and renewal—(1) Application for admission. Non-participating law schools seeking admission to the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program, and participating law schools seeking to add a practice area, shall submit an application for admission for such practice area to OED in accordance with criteria and time periods set forth by the OED Director.

(2) Renewal application. Each participating law school desiring to continue in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program shall, biennially from a date assigned to the law school by the OED Director, submit a renewal application to OED in accordance with criteria set forth by the OED Director.

(3) The OED Director may refuse admission or renewal of a law school to the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program if the OED Director determines that admission, or renewal, of the law school would fail to provide significant benefit to the public or the law students participating in the law school's clinic.

(c) Faculty Clinic Supervisor. Any law school seeking admission to or participating in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program must have at least one Faculty Clinic Supervisor for the patent practice area, if the clinic includes patent practice; and at least one Faculty Clinic Supervisor for the trademark practice area, if the clinic includes trademark practice.

(1) Patent Faculty Clinic Supervisor. A Faculty Clinic Supervisor for a law school clinic's patent practice must:

(i) Be a registered patent practitioner in active status and good standing with OED;

(ii) Demonstrate at least 3 years experience in prosecuting patent applications before the Office within the 5 years immediately prior to the request for approval as a Faculty Clinic Supervisor;

(iii) Assume full responsibility for the instruction and guidance of law students participating in the law school clinic's patent practice;

(iv) Assume full responsibility for all patent applications and legal services, including filings with the Office, produced by the clinic; and

(v) Comply with all additional criteria established by the OED Director.

(2) Trademark Faculty Clinic Supervisor. A Faculty Clinic Supervisor for a law school clinic's trademark practice must:

(i) Be an attorney as defined in § 11.1;

(ii) Demonstrate at least 3 years experience in prosecuting trademark applications before the Office within the 5 years immediately prior to the date of the request for approval as a Faculty Clinic Supervisor;

(iii) Assume full responsibility for the instruction, guidance, and supervision of law students participating in the law school clinic's trademark practice;

(iv) Assume full responsibility for all trademark applications and legal services, including filings with the Office, produced by the clinic; and

(v) Comply with all additional criteria established by the OED Director.

(3) A Faculty Clinic Supervisor under paragraph (c) of this section must submit a statement:

(i) Assuming responsibility for performing conflicts checks for each law student and client in the relevant clinic practice area;

(ii) Assuming responsibility for student instruction and work, including instructing, mentoring, overseeing, and supervising all participating law school students in the clinic's relevant practice area;

(iii) Assuming responsibility for content and timeliness of all applications and documents submitted to the Office through the relevant practice area of the clinic;

(iv) Assuming responsibility for all communications by clinic students to clinic clients in the relevant clinic practice area;

(v) Assuming responsibility for ensuring that there is no gap in representation of clinic clients in the relevant practice area during student turnover, school schedule variations, inter-semester transitions, or other disruptions;

(vi) Attesting to meeting the criteria of paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section based on relevant practice area of the clinic; and

(vii) Attesting to all other criteria as established by the OED Director.

(d) Limited recognition for law students participating in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program. (1) The OED Director may grant limited recognition to practice before the Office in patent or trademark matters, or both, to law school students enrolled in a clinic of a law school that is participating in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program upon submission and approval of an application by a law student to OED in accordance with criteria established by the OED Director.

(2) In order to be granted limited recognition to practice before the Office in patent matters under the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program, a law student must:

(i) Be enrolled in a law school that is an active participant in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program;

(ii) Be enrolled in the patent practice area of a clinic of the participating law school;

(iii) Have successfully completed at least one year of law school or the equivalent;

(iv) Have read the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct and the relevant rules of practice and procedure for patent matters;

(v) Be supervised by an approved Faculty Clinic Supervisor pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section;

(vi) Be certified by the dean of the participating law school, or one authorized to act for the dean, as: Having completed the first year of law school or the equivalent, being in compliance with the law school's ethics code, and being of good moral character and reputation;

(vii) Neither ask for nor receive any fee or compensation of any kind for legal services from a clinic client on whose behalf service is rendered;

(viii) Have proved to the satisfaction of the OED Director that he or she possesses the scientific and technical qualifications necessary for him or her to render patent applicants valuable service; and

(ix) Comply with all additional criteria established by the OED Director.

(3) In order to be granted limited recognition to practice before the Office in trademark matters under the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program, a law student must:

(i) Be enrolled in a law school that is an active participant in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program;

(ii) Be enrolled in the trademark practice area of a clinic of the participating law school;

(iii) Have successfully completed at least one year of law school or the equivalent;

(iv) Have read the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct and the relevant USPTO rules of practice and procedure for trademark matters;

(v) Be supervised by an approved Faculty Clinic Supervisor pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section;

(vi) Be certified by the dean of the participating law school, or one authorized to act for the dean, as: Having completed the first year of law school or the equivalent, being in compliance with the law school's ethics code, and being of good moral character and reputation;

(vii) Neither ask for nor receive any fee or compensation of any kind for legal services from a clinic client on whose behalf service is rendered; and

(viii) Comply with all additional criteria established by the OED Director.

(4) Students registered to practice before the Office in patent matters as a patent agent, or authorized to practice before the Office in trademark matters under § 11.14, must complete and submit a student application pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section and meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section, as applicable, in order to participate in the program.

4. Add § 11.17 to read as follows:
§ 11.17 Requirements for participation in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program.

(a) Each law school participating in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program must provide its patent and/or trademark services on a pro bono basis.

(b) Each law school participating in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program shall, on a semi-annual basis, provide OED with a report regarding its clinic activity during the reporting period, which shall include:

(1) The number of law students participating in each of the patent and trademark practice areas of the school's clinic;

(2) The number of faculty participating in each of the patent and trademark practice areas of the school's clinic;

(3) The number of persons to whom the school's clinic provided assistance in any given patent or trademark matter but with whom no practitioner-client relationship had formed;

(4) The number of client representations undertaken for each of the patent and trademark practice areas of the school's clinic;

(5) The identity and number of applications and responses filed in each of the patent and/or trademark practice areas of the school's clinic;

(6) The number of patents issued, or trademarks registered, to clients of the clinic; and

(7) All other information specified by the OED Director.

(c) Inactivation of law schools participating in the USPTO Law School Certification Program. (1) The OED Director may inactivate a patent and/or trademark practice area of a participating law school:

(i) If the participating law school does not have an approved Faculty Clinic Supervisor for the relevant practice area, as described in § 11.16(c);

(ii) If the participating law school does not meet each of the requirements and criteria for participation in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program as set forth in § 11.16, this section, or as otherwise established by the OED Director; or

(iii) For other good cause as determined by the OED Director.

(2) In the event that a practice area of a participating school is inactivated, the participating law school students must:

(i) Immediately cease all student practice before the Office in the relevant practice area and notify each client of such; and

(ii) Disassociate themselves from all client matters relating to practice before the Office in the relevant practice area, including complying with Office and State rules for withdrawal from representation.

(3) A patent or trademark practice area of a law school clinic that has been inactivated may be restored to active status, upon application to and approval by the OED Director.

(d) Removal of law schools participating in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program. (1) The OED Director may remove a patent and/or trademark practice area of the clinic of a law school participating in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program:

(i) Upon request from the law school;

(ii) If the participating law school does not meet each of the requirements and criteria for participation in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program as set forth in § 11.16, this section, or as otherwise established by the OED Director; or

(iii) For other good cause as determined by the OED Director.

(2) In the event that a practice area of a participating school is removed by the OED Director, the participating law school students must:

(i) Immediately cease all student practice before the Office in the relevant practice area and notify each client of such; and

(ii) Disassociate themselves from all client matters relating to practice before the Office in the relevant practice area, including complying with Office and State rules for withdrawal from representation.

(3) A school that has been removed from participation in the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program under this section may reapply to the program in compliance with § 11.16.

Dated: May 23, 2016. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2016-12498 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8433] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

DATES:

The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

Flood insurance, Floodplains.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

§ 64.6 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community
  • No.
  • Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain Federal
  • assistance
  • no longer
  • available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region II New Jersey: Alloway, Township of, Salem County 340413 March 7, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1979, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. June 16, 2016 June 16, 2016. Bridgeton, City of, Cumberland County 340165 May 19, 1975, Emerg; January 18, 1984, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do *   Do. Carneys Point, Township of, Salem County 340424 March 3, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Commercial, Township of, Cumberland County 340166 July 23, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Deerfield, Township of, Cumberland County 340553 September 15, 1975, Emerg; November 4, 1981, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Downe, Township of, Cumberland County 340167 October 22, 1971, Emerg; February 15, 1978, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Elmer, Borough of, Salem County 340414 May 19, 1975, Emerg; April 8, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Elsinboro, Township of, Salem County 340415 May 28, 1974, Emerg; August 2, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Fairfield, Township of, Cumberland County 340168 June 23, 1972, Emerg; November 19, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Greenwich, Township of, Cumberland County 340169 September 29, 1975, Emerg; March 11, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Hopewell, Township of, Cumberland County 340170 June 30, 1975, Emerg; December 15, 1978, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Lawrence, Township of, Cumberland County 340171 July 21, 1975, Emerg; November 26, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Lower Alloways Creek, Township of, Salem County 340416 May 20, 1975, Emerg; April 18, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Mannington, Township of, Salem County 340417 February 19, 1975, Emerg; November 18, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Maurice River, Township of, Cumberland County 340172 April 14, 1972, Emerg; January 19, 1978, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Millville, City of, Cumberland County 340173 May 2, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Oldmans, Township of, Salem County 340418 July 15, 1975, Emerg; January 7, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Penns Grove, Borough of, Salem County 340419 August 7, 1975, Emerg; July 5, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Pennsville, Township of, Salem County 340512 August 5, 1974, Emerg; December 15, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Pilesgrove, Township of, Salem County 340420 March 31, 1975, Emerg; October 21, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Pittsgrove, Township of, Salem County 340421 September 8, 1981, Emerg; November 18, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Quinton, Township of, Salem County 340422 April 28, 1975, Emerg; April 15, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Salem, City of, Salem County 340423 March 31, 1975, Emerg; August 2, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Stow Creek, Township of, Cumberland County 340174 July 1, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1979, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Upper Deerfield, Township of, Cumberland County 340175 March 25, 1975, Emerg; March 25, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Upper Pittsgrove, Township of, Salem County 340425 March 19, 1975, Emerg; January 21, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Vineland, City of, Cumberland County 340176 December 17, 1971, Emerg; July 5, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Woodstown, Borough of, Salem County 340426 June 25, 1975, Emerg; May 11, 1979, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. New York: Andes, Town of, Delaware County 360188 August 28, 1975, Emerg; May 1, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Bovina, Town of, Delaware County 360190 August 12, 1975, Emerg; May 1, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Colchester, Town of, Delaware County 360191 September 8, 1975, Emerg; January 3, 1986, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Delhi, Town of, Delaware County 360193 August 5, 1975, Emerg; July 18, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Delhi, Village of, Delaware County 361572 February 11, 1974, Emerg; July 18, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Fleischmanns, Village of, Delaware County 360197 December 17, 1975, Emerg; January 17, 1986, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Franklin, Town of, Delaware County 360198 July 2, 1975, Emerg; April 1, 1988, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Hamden, Town of, Delaware County 360200 September 12, 1975, Emerg; March 4, 1986, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Harpersfield, Town of, Delaware County 360203 August 15, 1975, Emerg; June 5, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Hobart, Village of, Delaware County 360204 July 7, 1975, Emerg; May 15, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Kortright, Town of, Delaware County 360205 July 28, 1975, Emerg; May 15, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Margaretville, Village of, Delaware County 360208 May 9, 1975, Emerg; June 4, 1990, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Meredith, Town of, Delaware County 360207 July 21, 1976, Emerg; May 15, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Middletown, Town of, Delaware County 360209 July 30, 1976, Emerg; May 15, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Roxbury, Town of, Delaware County 361036 August 1, 1975, Emerg; May 15, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Stamford, Town of, Delaware County 360212 September 28, 1977, Emerg; October 1, 1986, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Stamford, Village of, Delaware County 360213 August 7, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1987, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Tompkins, Town of, Delaware County 360214 July 3, 1975, Emerg; November 15, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Walton, Town of, Delaware County 360215 November 10, 1975, Emerg; September 2, 1988, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Walton, Village of, Delaware County 360216 May 19, 1975, Emerg; April 2, 1991, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Region III Pennsylvania: Allison, Township of, Clinton County 421534 November 11, 1975, Emerg; September 3, 1980, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Bald Eagle, Township of, Clinton County 420319 May 22, 1973, Emerg; February 4, 1981, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Castanea, Township of, Clinton County 420322 April 10, 1973, Emerg; February 2, 1977, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Dunnstable, Township of, Clinton County 420325 May 23, 1973, Emerg; March 1, 1977, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Flemington, Borough of, Clinton County 420326 March 9, 1973, Emerg; February 2, 1977, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Lamar, Township of, Clinton County 420327 July 9, 1973, Emerg; March 16, 1988, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Lock Haven, City of, Clinton County 420328 November 17, 1972, Emerg; February 2, 1977, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Mill Hall, Borough of, Clinton County 420330 April 17, 1973, Emerg; February 16, 1977, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Woodward, Township of, Clinton County 420337 March 16, 1973, Emerg; January 16, 1980, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Region V Wisconsin: Belleville, Village of, Dane and Green Counties 550159 July 15, 1975, Emerg; November 19, 1980, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Black Earth, Village of, Dane County 550079 August 7, 1975, Emerg; January 2, 1981, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Cross Plains, Village of, Dane County 550081 June 16, 1975, Emerg; February 16, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Dane County Unincorporated Areas 550077 October 20, 1972, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Mazomanie, Village of, Dane County 550085 July 29, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1981, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Region VI Louisiana: Colfax, Town of, Grant Parish 220077 May 21, 1973, Emerg; September 5, 1979, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Grant Parish, Unincorporated Areas 220076 May 7, 1973, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Montgomery, Town of, Grant Parish 220256 March 6, 1979, Emerg; May 4, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Pollock, Town of, Grant Parish 220305 August 14, 1978, Emerg; May 25, 1982, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Region X Washington: Union Gap, City of, Yakima County 530229 April 30, 1975, Emerg; May 2, 1983, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Yakima, City of, Yakima County 530311 January 20, 1975, Emerg; December 15, 1981, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. Yakima County Unincorporated Areas 530217 April 11, 1974, Emerg; June 5, 1985, Reg; June 16, 2016, Susp. ......do   Do. * -do- = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12127 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 25 [IB Docket No. 12-267; FCC 13-111] Comprehensive Review of Licensing and Operating Rules for Satellite Services; Correction AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a final regulation published in the Federal Register, 79 FR 8325, February 12, 2014. The regulation concerns a transmitter identification requirement on digital video transmissions by temporary-fixed earth stations.

    DATES:

    Effective May 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clay DeCell, 202-418-0803.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A final regulation published on February 12, 2014, provides that, as of a certain future date, temporary-fixed earth stations transmitting digital video information must include a signal identifying the source of the transmission. A two-year grace period was adopted for the new regulation, beginning on its effective date. The regulation became effective on September 3, 2014. 79 FR 52224. To accurately reflect this two-year grace period, the date specified in 47 CFR 25.281(b) is corrected from June 1, 2016, to September 3, 2016.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

    Earth stations.

    Accordingly, 47 CFR part 25 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

    PART 25—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Interprets or applies 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.

    § 25.281 [Corrected]
    2. In the introductory text of § 25.281(b), remove “June 1” and add, in its place, “September 3”.
    Dated: May 20, 2016. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12482 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE 48 CFR Part 633 [Public Notice: 9539] RIN 1400-AD92 Department of State Acquisition Regulation; Technical Amendments; Correction AGENCY:

    Department of State.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of State published in the Federal Register of April 27, 2016 a rule amending the Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) to make non-substantive corrections and editorial changes. It mistakenly added a section heading as a subpart heading. This document corrects that error.

    DATES:

    Effective May 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Colleen Kosar, Policy Division, Office of the Procurement Executive, A/OPE, 2201 C Street NW., Suite 1060, State Annex Number 15, Washington, DC 20520. Telephone: 703-516-1685. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In rule FR Doc. 2016-09570 published on April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24706), in instruction 12 on page 24707, section 633.214 was inadvertently added as a subpart. This correcting amendment removes the subpart heading for 633.214 and adds a section heading for 633.214.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 633

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State corrects 48 CFR chapter 6 by making the following correcting amendments:

    PART 633—PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 633 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    22 U.S.C. 2651a, 40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    Subpart 633.214—[Amended] 2. Remove the subpart heading for 633.214. 3. Add a section heading for 633.214 to read as follows:
    633.214 Alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
    Dated: May 19, 2016. Corey M. Rindner, Procurement Executive, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12355 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 172 Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements, and Security Plans CFR Correction

    In Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100 to 177, revised as of October 1, 2015, in § 172.101, in the Hazardous Materials Table, reinstate the following entries:

    1. On page 202, for “Cyanuric triazide”;

    2. On page 211, for “Dinitrosobenzylamidine and salts of (dry)”;

    3. On page 275, for “Power device, explosive, see Cartridges, power device”.

    § 172.101 Purpose and use of hazardous materials table. Symbols Hazardous
  • materials
  • descriptions and proper
  • shipping names
  • Hazard
  • class or
  • division
  • Identification Nos. PG Label codes Special
  • provisions
  • (§ 172.102)
  • (8)
  • Packaging
  • (§ 173.***)
  • Exceptions Non-bulk Bulk (9)
  • Quantity limitations
  • (see §§ 173.27 and 175.75)
  • Passenger aircraft/rail Cargo aircraft only (10)
  • Vessel stowage
  • Location Other
    (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8A) (8B) (8C) (9A) (9B) (10A) (10B) *         *         *         *         *         *         * Cyanuric triazide Forbidden *         *         *         *         *         *         * Dinitrosobenzylamidine and salts of (dry) Forbidden *         *         *         *         *         *         * Power device, explosive, see Cartridges, power device *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-12598 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 150413357-5999-02] RIN 0648-XE634 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Blacknose Sharks and Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks in the Atlantic Region South of 34° N. Latitude; Closure AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is closing the fisheries for commercial blacknose sharks and non-blacknose small coastal sharks (SCS) in the Atlantic region south of 34°00′ N. lat. This action is necessary because the commercial landings of Atlantic blacknose sharks for the 2016 fishing season are projected to exceed 80 percent of the available commercial quota as of May 27, 2016, and the blacknose shark and non-blacknose SCS fisheries south of 34°00′ N. lat. are quota-linked under current regulations.

    DATES:

    The commercial fisheries for blacknose sharks and non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region south of 34°00′ N. lat. are closed effective 11:30 p.m. local time May 29, 2016, until the end of the 2016 fishing season on December 31, 2016, or until and if NMFS announces via a notice in the Federal Register that additional quota is available and the season is reopened.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Guy DuBeck or Karyl Brewster-Geisz 301-427-8503; fax 301-713-1917.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP), its amendments, and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 635) issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

    Under § 635.5(b)(1), dealers must electronically submit reports on sharks that are first received from a vessel on a weekly basis through a NMFS-approved electronic reporting system. Reports must be received by no later than midnight, local time, of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week unless the dealer is otherwise notified by NMFS. The quotas for blacknose sharks and the non-blacknose SCS management group south of 34°00′ N. lat. in the Atlantic region are linked (§ 635.28(b)(4)(iv)). Under § 635.28(b)(3), when NMFS calculates that the landings for any species and/or management group of a linked group has reached or is projected to reach 80 percent of the available quota, NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure for all of the species and/or management groups in a linked group that will be effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure until and if NMFS announces, via a notice in the Federal Register, that additional quota is available and the season is reopened, the fisheries for all linked species and/or management groups are closed, even across fishing years.

    On December 1, 2015 (80 FR 74999), NMFS announced that for the Atlantic region, the 2016 commercial Atlantic blacknose shark quota is 15.7 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (34,653 lb dw), and the non-blacknose SCS quota is 264.1 mt dw (582,333 lb dw). At § 635.27(b)(1), the boundary between the Atlantic region and the Gulf of Mexico region is defined as a line beginning on the East Coast of Florida at the mainland at 25°20.4′ N. lat, proceeding due east. Any water and land to the north and east of that boundary is considered, for the purposes of monitoring and setting quotas, to be within the Atlantic region.

    Dealer reports received through May 23, 2016, indicated that 9.3 mt dw or 59 percent of the available Atlantic blacknose shark quota had been landed and 31.5 mt dw or 12 percent of the available Atlantic non-blacknose SCS quota had been landed. Based on catch rates from these dealer reports, NMFS estimates that the 80-percent limit specified for closure for blacknose sharks will be exceeded as of May 27, 2016. Accordingly, NMFS is closing both the commercial blacknose shark fishery and non-blacknose SCS management group in the Atlantic region south of 34°00′ N. lat. as of 11:30 p.m. local time May 29, 2016. All other shark species or management groups that are currently open in the Atlantic region will remain open, including the commercial Atlantic non-blacknose SCS management group north of 34°00′ N. lat.

    During the closure, retention of blacknose sharks and non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region south of 34°00′ N. lat. is prohibited for persons fishing aboard vessels issued a commercial shark limited access permit (LAP) under § 635.4. However, persons aboard a commercially permitted vessel that is also properly permitted to operate as a charter vessel or headboat for highly migratory species (HMS) and is engaged in a for-hire trip could fish under the recreational retention limits for sharks and “no sale” provisions (§ 635.22(a) and (c)).

    During this closure, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may not purchase or receive blacknose sharks in the Atlantic region from a vessel issued a shark LAP, except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess blacknose sharks and/or non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region south of 34°00′ N. lat. that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage consistent with § 635.28(b)(6) and non-blacknose SCS that were harvested in the Atlantic region north of 34°00′ N. lat. Similarly, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4, in accordance with relevant state regulations, may purchase or receive blacknose sharks and/or non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region if the sharks were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel that fishes only in state waters and that has not been issued a shark LAP, HMS Angling permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit pursuant to § 635.4.

    Classification

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that providing prior notice and public comment for this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the fisheries are currently underway and any delay in this action would result in overharvest of the Atlantic blacknose quota and be inconsistent with management requirements and objectives. Similarly, affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action is contrary to the public interest because if the quota is exceeded, the stock may be negatively affected and fishermen ultimately could experience reductions in the available quota and a lack of fishing opportunities in future seasons. For these reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    This action is required under § 635.28(b)(3) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12631 Filed 5-24-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 103 Friday, May 27, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 29 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6939; Notice No. 29-038-SC] Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Interaction of Systems and Structures AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    We propose special conditions for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW FCS) functions that affect the structural integrity of the rotorcraft. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on or before July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-6939] using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The aircraft is a medium twin engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,000 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 16 passengers and a crew of 2.

    The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a FBW FCS. The control functions of the FBW FCS and its related systems affect the structural integrity of the rotorcraft. Current regulations do not take into account loads for the rotorcraft due to the effects of systems on structural performance including normal operation and failure conditions with strength levels related to probability of occurrence. Special conditions are needed to account for these features.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model 525 helicopter meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendment 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification basis date is December 15, 2011, the date of application to the FAA.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the BHTI Model 525 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BHTI Model 525 helicopter must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: FBW FCS, and its related systems (stability augmentation system, load alleviation system, flutter control system, and fuel management system), with control functions that affect the structural integrity of the rotorcraft. Current regulations are inadequate for considering the effects of these systems and their failures on structural performance. The general approach of accounting for the effect of system failures on structural performance would be extended to include any system where partial or complete failure, alone or in combination with any other system's partial or complete failure, would affect structural performance.

    Discussion

    Active flight control systems are capable of providing automatic responses to inputs from sources other than the pilots. Active flight control systems have been expanded in function, effectiveness, and reliability to the point that FBW FCS systems are being installed on new rotorcraft. As a result of these advancements in flight control technology, 14 CFR part 29 does not provide a basis to achieve an acceptable level of safety for rotorcraft so equipped. Certification of these systems requires issuing special conditions under the provisions of § 21.16.

    In the past, traditional rotorcraft flight control system designs have incorporated power-operated systems, stability or control augmentation with limited control authority, and autopilots that were certificated partly under § 29.672 with guidance from Advisory Circular 29-2C, Section AC 29.672. These systems are integrated into the primary flight controls and are given sufficient control authority to maneuver the rotorcraft up to its structural design limits in 14 CFR part 29 subparts C and D. The FBW FCS advanced technology with its full authority necessitates additional requirements to account for the interaction of control systems and structures.

    The regulations defining the loads envelope in 14 CFR part 29 do not fully account for the effects of systems on structural performance. Automatic systems may be inoperative or they may operate in a degraded mode with less than full system authority and associated built-in protection features. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the structural factors of safety and operating margins such that the probability of structural failures due to application of loads during FBW FCS malfunctions is not greater than that found in rotorcraft equipped with traditional flight control systems. To achieve this objective and to ensure an acceptable level of safety, it is necessary to define the failure conditions and their associated frequency of occurrence.

    Traditional flight control systems provide two states, either fully functioning or completely inoperative. These conditions are readily apparent to the flight crew. Newer active flight control systems have failure modes that allow the system to function in a degraded mode without full authority and associated built-in protection features. As these degraded modes are not readily apparent to the flight crew, monitoring systems are required to provide an annunciation of degraded system capability.

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general applicability.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters:

    Interaction of Systems and Structures

    For rotorcraft equipped with systems that affect structural performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 29 subparts C and D.

    The following criteria must be used for showing compliance with these special conditions for rotorcraft equipped with FCSs, autopilots, stability augmentation systems, load alleviation systems, flutter control systems, fuel management systems, and other systems that either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction affects structural performance. If these special conditions are used for other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the specific system.

    (a) The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural consequences of the system responses and performance. They cannot be considered in isolation but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of the rotorcraft. These criteria may in some instances duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These criteria are only applicable to structure whose failure could prevent continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements when operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode are not provided in these special conditions.

    (b) Depending upon the specific characteristics of the rotorcraft, additional studies may be required that go beyond the criteria provided in this special condition in order to demonstrate the capability of the rotorcraft to meet other realistic conditions such as alternative gust or maneuver descriptions for a rotorcraft equipped with a load alleviation system.

    (c) The following definitions are applicable to these special conditions:

    (1) Structural performance: Capability of the rotorcraft to meet the structural requirements of 14 CFR part 29.

    (2) Flight limitations: Limitations that can be applied to the rotorcraft flight conditions following an in-flight occurrence and that are included in the flight manual (e.g., speed limitations and avoidance of severe weather conditions).

    (3) Operational limitations: Limitations, including flight limitations, which can be applied to the rotorcraft operating conditions before dispatch (e.g., fuel, payload, and Master Minimum Equipment List limitations).

    (4) Probabilistic terms: The terms “improbable” and “extremely improbable” are the same as those used in § 29.1309.

    (5) Failure condition: The term “failure condition” is the same as that used in § 29.1309; however, these special conditions apply only to system failure conditions that affect the structural performance of the rotorcraft (e.g., system failure conditions that induce loads, change the response of the rotorcraft to inputs such as gusts or pilot actions, or lower flutter margins).

    Effects of Systems on Structures

    (a) General. The following criteria will be used in determining the influence of a system and its failure conditions on the rotorcraft structure.

    (b) System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the following apply:

    (1) Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in Subpart C (or defined by special condition or equivalent level of safety in lieu of those specified in Subpart C), taking into account any special behavior of such a system or associated functions or any effect on the structural performance of the rotorcraft that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant nonlinearity (rate of displacement of control surface, thresholds or any other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.

    (2) The rotorcraft must meet the strength requirements of part 29 (static strength, residual strength), using the specified factors to derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the rotorcraft has design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit conditions.

    (3) The rotorcraft must meet the flutter and divergence requirements of § 29.629.

    (c) System in the failure condition. For all system failure conditions shown to be not extremely improbable, the following apply:

    (1) At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1-g level flight conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions, must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of failure and immediately after the failure.

    (i) For static strength substantiation, these loads multiplied by an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of occurrence of the failure are the ultimate loads that must be considered for design. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 1.

    EP27MY16.018

    (ii) For residual strength substantiation, the rotorcraft must be able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of these special conditions.

    (iii) Freedom from flutter and divergence must be shown under all conditions of operation including:

    (A) Airspeeds up to 1.11 VNE (power on and power off).

    (B) Main rotor speeds from 0.95 multiplied by the minimum permitted speed up to 1.05 multiplied by the maximum permitted speed (power on and power off).

    (C) The critical combinations of weight, center of gravity position, load factor, and altitude.

    (iv) For failure conditions that result in excursions beyond operating limitations, freedom from flutter and divergence must be shown to increased speeds, so that the margins intended by paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of these special conditions are maintained.

    (v) Failures of the system that result in forced structural vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.

    (2) For the continuation of the flight. For the rotorcraft in the system failed state, and considering all appropriate reconfiguration and flight limitations, the following apply:

    (i) The loads derived from the following conditions (or defined by special conditions or equivalent level of safety in lieu of the following conditions) at speeds up to VNE (power on and power off) (or the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of the flight) and at the minimum and maximum main rotor speeds, if applicable, must be determined:

    (A) The limit maneuvering conditions specified in §§ 29.337 and 29.339.

    (B) The limit gust conditions specified in § 29.341.

    (C) The limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in § 29.351.

    (D) The limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in § 29.427.

    (E) The limit ground loading conditions specified in § 29.473.

    (ii) For static strength substantiation, each part of the structure must be able to withstand the loads in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of these special conditions multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 2.

    EP27MY16.019 Qj = (Tj)(Pj) Where: Tj = Average time spent in failure condition j (in hours) Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode j (per hour) Note:

    If Pj is greater than 10 3 per flight hour, then a 1.5 factor of safety must be applied to all limit load conditions specified in Subpart C.

    (iii) For residual strength substantiation, the rotorcraft must be able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of these special conditions.

    (iv) If the loads induced by the failure condition have a significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance, then their effects must be taken into account.

    (v) Freedom from flutter and divergence must be shown up to 1.11 VNE (power on and power off).

    (vi) Freedom from flutter and divergence must also be shown up to 1.11 VNE (power on and power off) for all probable system failure conditions combined with any damage required or considered under § 29.571(g) or § 29.573(d)(3).

    (3) Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by other sections of 14 CFR part 29 regardless of calculated system reliability. Where the failure analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be less than 10 9, criteria other than those specified in this paragraph may be used for structural substantiation to show continued safe flight and landing.

    (d) Failure indications. For system failure detection and indication, the following apply:

    (1) The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the level required by 14 CFR part 29 or that significantly reduce the reliability of the remaining operational portion of the system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flight crew must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of the control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may use special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use daily checks, in lieu of detection and indication systems to achieve the objective of this requirement. These other means of detecting failures before flight will become part of the certification maintenance requirements (CMRs) and must be limited to components that are not readily detectable by normal detection and indication systems, and where service history shows that inspections will provide an adequate level of safety.

    (2) The existence of any failure condition, shown to be not extremely improbable, during flight that could significantly affect the structural capability of the rotorcraft and for which the associated reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight limitations, must be signaled to the flight crew. For example, failure conditions that result in a factor of safety between the rotorcraft strength and the loads of Subpart C below 1.25, or flutter and divergence margins below 1.11 VNE (power on and power off), must be signaled to the crew during flight.

    (e) Dispatch with known failure conditions. If the rotorcraft is to be dispatched in a known system failure condition that affects structural performance, or that affects the reliability of the remaining operational portion of the system to maintain structural performance, then the provisions of these special conditions must be met, including the provisions of paragraph (b) for the dispatched condition and paragraph (c) for subsequent failures. Expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing Pj as the probability of failure occurrence for determining the safety margin in Figure 1 of these special conditions. Flight limitations and expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing Qj as the combined probability of being in the dispatched failure condition and the subsequent failure condition for the safety margins in Figure 2 of these special conditions. These limitations must be such that the probability of being in this combined failure state and then subsequently encountering limit load conditions is extremely improbable. No reduction in these safety margins is allowed if the subsequent system failure rate is greater than 10 3 per hour.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 18, 2016. Jorge Castillo, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12497 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0733; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-040-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson) Model R44, R44 II, and R66 helicopters. This proposed AD would require a visual inspection of the main rotor blade (MRB) and either removing or altering it. This proposed AD is prompted by a report that a fatigue crack was found at an MRB's trailing edge and a determination that some MRBs may have reduced blade thickness due to blending out corrosion. The proposed actions are intended to prevent an MRB fatigue crack, which could lead to MRB failure and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0733, or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505; telephone (310) 539-0508; fax (310) 539-5198; or at http://www.robinsonheli.com. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5232; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

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

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

    Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Robinson Model R44 and R44 II helicopters with an MRB part number (P/N) C016-7, Revisions N/C, A through Z, and AA through AE; and Model R66 helicopters with an MRB P/N F016-2, Revisions A through E. The proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the MRB for a crack, corrosion, dent, nick, or scratch, and either altering the MRB or removing it from service.

    On February 23, 2015, we issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) SW-15-08 for Robinson Model R44 and R44 II helicopters with part numbered C016-7 MRBs. SAIB SW-15-08 was prompted by a report of an in-flight failure of a MRB on a Robinson Model R44 II helicopter, which resulted in severe MRB vibration that prompted an emergency landing. SAIB SW-15-08 recommended daily pre-flight visual checks of the MRB trailing edge and having a qualified technician examine any damage before further flight. SAIB SW-15-08 also recommended, if unusual rotor system vibration was detected in flight, landing immediately and having a qualified mechanic examine the MRBs.

    After we issued SAIB SW-15-08, Robinson published R44 Service Bulletin SB-89, dated March 30, 2015 (SB-89), and R66 Service Bulletin SB-13, dated March 30, 2015 (SB-13), recommending inspecting and modifying the MRB trailing edge. Therefore, on March 31, 2015, we revised the SAIB and issued SAIB SW-15-08R1 to advise that the MRB trailing edge has a corner where the blade chord begins to increase that can result in high stresses. SAIB SW-15-08R1 recommends inspecting and modifying the MRB by following the actions in the service information.

    When the SAIBs were issued, we did not consider the reported incident to be an airworthiness concern that would warrant AD action. The FAA subsequently determined that some of the affected blades have been repaired by blending out corrosion in the area of the crack site radius, resulting in a reduced blade thickness. Also, reports to Robinson following the SB-89 and SB-13 inspections revealed corrosion remaining undetected between scheduled maintenance intervals. The presence of corrosion and a reduction in blade thickness could result in the development of a fatigue crack on the trailing edge at the transition radius before the MRB reaches its retirement life. Altering the MRB by smoothing the transition at the chord increase, as specified in SB-89 and SB-13, reduces the stress concentration and corrects this unsafe condition. The proposed actions are intended to prevent a fatigue crack, which could lead to failure of the MRB and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed SB-89 for Model R44 and R44 II helicopters and SB-13 for Model R66 helicopters. SB-89 and SB-13 provide a one-time procedure to inspect each MRB for cracks, corrosion, and damage that may indicate a crack. If there is a crack, corrosion, or any damage, SB-89 and SB-13 specify removing the MRB from service and contacting Robinson. Otherwise, SB-89 and SB-13 describe procedures to smooth the transition at the chord increase of each MRB to reduce the stress concentration.

    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.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, cleaning the MRB and visually inspecting it for a crack, nick, corrosion, scratch, or dent. If there is any crack, nick, corrosion, scratch or dent, this proposed AD would require repairing it or removing the MRB from service. If the MRB is repaired, or if there are no cracks, nicks, corrosion, scratches, or dents, this proposed AD would require altering the MRB.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    This proposed AD would require compliance within the next 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first. The service information recommends compliance within 15 hours TIS or by May 31, 2015, whichever occurs first, for the R44 and R44II helicopters and 10 hours TIS or by May 31, 2015, whichever occurs first, for the R66 helicopters.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 2,236 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

    • The visual inspection would require 1 work hour. No parts would be needed, so the cost per helicopter would total $85. The cost for the U.S. fleet would total $190,060.

    • Altering each MRB, if necessary, would require 2 work hours and $65 for parts. We estimate a total cost of $235 per helicopter and $525,460 for the U.S. fleet.

    • Replacing a MRB, if necessary, would require 3 work hours. Parts would cost $19,900 for the Model R44 and R44 II and $20,900 for the R66 helicopter for a total cost of $20,155 and $21,155, respectively, per MRB.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Robinson Helicopter Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-0733; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-040-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson) Model R44 and R44 II helicopters with a main rotor blade (MRB) part number (P/N) C016-7 Revision N/C, A through Z, and AA through AE installed; and Model R66 helicopters with a MRB P/N F016-2 Revision A through E installed; certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a fatigue crack on an MRB. This condition could result in failure of an MRB and loss of helicopter control.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 26, 2016.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    Within 100 hours time-in-service or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first:

    (1) Clean each MRB in the area depicted in Figure 1 of Robinson R44 Service Bulletin SB-89, dated March 30, 2015 (SB-89), or Robinson R66 Service Bulletin SB-13, dated March 30, 2015 (SB-13), as applicable to your model helicopter.

    (2) Using 10X or higher power magnification and a light, visually inspect the upper and lower MRB surfaces and trailing edge as depicted in Figure 1 of SB-89 or SB-13 for a crack, a nick, a scratch, a dent, or corrosion. If there is a crack, a nick, a scratch, a dent, or any corrosion, repair the MRB to an airworthy configuration if the damage is within the maximum repair damage limits or remove the MRB from service.

    (3) Alter the MRB in accordance with Compliance Procedure, paragraphs 4 through 19, of SB-89 or SB-13, as applicable to your model helicopter. Equivalent tubing may be used for R7769-1 and R7769-6 tubes. Power tools may not be used for this procedure.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5232; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6210, Main Rotor Blades.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 19, 2016. Scott A. Horn, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12442 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0797; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-007-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

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

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and 767-300F series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require modification and installation of components in the main equipment center. For certain other airplanes, the NPRM proposed to require modification, replacement, and installation of flight deck air relief system (FDARS) components. The NPRM was prompted by reports of malfunctions in the flight deck display units, which resulted in blanking, blurring, or loss of color on the display. This action revises the NPRM by revising the applicability; adding certain modifications; and clarifying certain requirements. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to prevent malfunctions of the flight deck display units, which could affect the ability of the flightcrew to read the displays for airplane attitude, altitude, or airspeed, and consequently reduce the ability of the flightcrew to maintain control of the airplane. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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-2013-0797.

    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-2013-0797; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Controls Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6596; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2013-0797; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-007-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and 767-300F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2013 (78 FR 58970) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require modification and installation of components in the main equipment center. For certain other airplanes, the NPRM proposed to require modification, replacement, and installation of FDARS components.

    Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013 (for Model 767-300F series airplanes). We referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21-0245, Revision 1, dated September 30, 2010, as an appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain actions specified in the NPRM. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013, adds instructions for modifications to reduce noise in the flight compartment when the 3-way valve is operating by removing flex ducts that connect the center and aft parts of the air distribution diffuser in the main deck cargo compartment, installing caps and an orifice assembly in the area forward of the main equipment center and under the flight deck floor, and installing an FDARS. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013, also identifies concurrent actions (relay installation and related wiring changes). Those concurrent actions are described in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011.

    We have also reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013 (for Model 767-300F series airplanes). We referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, dated October 10, 2011, as an appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain actions specified in the NPRM. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013, adds airplanes to the effectivity of the service bulletin and includes procedures for changes to the 3-way valve control logic, modifications to reduce noise in the flight compartment and main cargo air distribution system (MCADS), and installation of an FDARS. The service bulletin also adds concurrent actions (relay installation and related wiring changes) for a certain group of airplanes. Those concurrent actions are described in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011.

    We also have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0073, dated October 12, 1995, which is referred to as concurrent service information in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010 (which is referred to as an appropriate source of service information for changing the 3-way valve control logic and installing a cooling system for the flight deck display equipment). Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0073, dated October 12, 1995, describes procedures for installation of an in-flight engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) for the maintenance data selection system.

    We have revised paragraphs (c)(2), (h)(1), and (j) of this proposed AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013. We have also revised paragraphs (c)(3) and (h)(2) of this proposed AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013.

    In addition, we removed paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), “Credit for Previous Actions,” from this proposed AD because operators that have accomplished the actions in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0245, dated April 16, 2010; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 1, dated September 30, 2010; must do additional work when accomplishing the procedures specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013. We have redesignated paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), “Concurrent Requirements,” as paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. In addition, we have added a new paragraph (k)(2) to this proposed AD to address the concurrent actions (relay installation and related wiring changes) identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013.

    Also since the issuance of the NPRM, we have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013 (which was not referenced in the NPRM). Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013, describes procedures for installing the FDARS and activating the 3-way valve control logic change for certain Model 767-300F series airplanes. We have redesignated paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) as paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD, and added a new paragraph (g)(2) to this proposed AD to require the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013.

    Comments

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

    Request To Clarify the Applicability of the Proposed AD (in the NPRM)

    Boeing requested we state that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) does not apply to Model 767-300 (passenger) series airplanes. Boeing explained that the 3-way valve control logic for Model 767-300 (passenger) series airplanes is significantly different from the 3-way valve control logic for Model 767-300F and Model 767-300BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter) series airplanes. Boeing indicated that, on Model 767-300 (passenger) series airplanes, pack air (which is a moisture source on the freighter airplanes) to the flight deck instruments and equipment is rarely used. Boeing added that Model 767-300 (passenger) series airplanes only utilize airplane pack air during override and fuel jettison modes, and there have not been reports of moisture-related display blanking on these airplanes.

    We find that clarification is necessary. This proposed AD applies to Model 767-300 and 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in certain service information. “Model 767-300 series airplanes” could include both passenger and BCF series airplanes. According to the U.S. type certificate data sheet for Model 767 airplanes, a Model 767-300BCF series airplane is a Model 767-300 (passenger) series airplane that has been modified in accordance with specific service information to operate in a freighter configuration. The service information identified in the applicability of this proposed AD addresses Model 767-300BCF series airplanes and Model 767-300F series airplanes—not passenger airplanes. Therefore, this proposed AD does not apply to Model 767-300 (passenger) series airplanes. We have added this clarification to paragraphs (c), (i), and (k)(3) of this proposed AD.

    Request To Revise the Proposed AD (in the NPRM) To Remove Certain Service Information References

    Boeing asked that all references to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0240 be removed from the NPRM, including the applicability statement. Boeing stated that the intent of this service information is to incorporate display improvements on Model 767-300BCF series airplanes. Boeing has confirmed that the actions to prevent display unit blanking included in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0240 have already been incorporated on Model 767-300BCF series airplanes during the conversion, prior to re-delivery.

    Boeing also asked that all references to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244 be removed from the NPRM, including the applicability statement. Boeing stated that the intent of this service information is also to incorporate display improvements on Model 767-300BCF series airplanes. Boeing has confirmed that the actions to prevent display unit blanking included in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244 have already been incorporated on Model 767-300BCF series airplanes in advance of this proposed AD.

    Since Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0240 has been incorporated on the affected airplanes during the conversion and prior to re-delivery, we agree with the commenter's request to remove references to that service bulletin from this proposed AD. Paragraph (c) of this proposed AD has been revised to omit Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0240, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2009, from paragraph (c)(1), and subsequent subparagraphs in paragraph (c) have been redesignated accordingly.

    However, we do not agree with the commenter's request to remove references to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244 from this proposed AD. The commenter has not submitted documentation to the FAA for verification that the affected operators of Model 767-300BCF series airplanes have accomplished the actions to prevent display unit blanking that are included in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010. Therefore, Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010, is still referenced in this proposed AD.

    Paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) has been omitted from this proposed AD because it referred to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0240, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2009 (which affects airplanes on which the service information has been done during the conversion and prior to re-delivery), and the airplanes identified in this service information have been removed from the applicability of this proposed AD, as explained previously. However, the requirements for the remaining Model 767-300BCF series airplanes (i.e., those subject to accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244) have been moved from paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to new paragraph (i) of this proposed AD. Paragraph (k) of this proposed AD, which correlates to paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), has been revised to remove the concurrent requirements for Model 767-300BCF series airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0240, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2009. The concurrent requirements for Model 767-300BCF series airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010, are retained in paragraph (k)(3) of this proposed AD.

    Request To Clarify the Requirements of the Proposed AD (in the NPRM)

    Boeing requested that the requirements of the proposed AD for Model 767-300BCF versus Model 767-300F series airplanes be clarified. Boeing stated that the intended function of the 3-way valve control logic change is to provide moisture control to mitigate display blanking; however, the intended function of the FDARS is to mitigate the noise that resulted from the 3-way valve control logic change, not to control moisture and mitigate display blanking. Boeing stated that the proposed 3-way valve control logic change and addition of the FDARS should be required for Model 767-300F series airplanes, and only the 3-way valve control logic change should be required for Model 767-300BCF series airplanes.

    We agree to clarify the requirements of this proposed AD. In light of the commenter's remarks, we revised paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this proposed AD to state that, for Model 767-300F series airplanes, the required actions include the installation of an FDARS and activation of or change to the 3-way valve control logic. We also revised the heading for paragraph (g) of this proposed AD accordingly.

    In addition, we revised paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this proposed AD to state that, for Model 767-300F series airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013, respectively, the required actions include a change of the 3-way valve control logic and MCADS, and installation of an FDARS. We also revised the heading for paragraph (h) of this proposed AD accordingly.

    As previously discussed, a new paragraph (i) is included in this proposed AD. This paragraph specifies that, for Model 767-300BCF series airplanes, only the installation of the 3-way valve control logic and flight deck display equipment cooling system is required. The subsequent paragraphs have been redesignated accordingly.

    Request To Revise the Number of Affected Airplanes

    Boeing requested that the number of affected airplanes be changed from 43 to 58. Boeing stated that based on its current records of operators, there are 58 Model 767-300F series airplanes of U.S. registry.

    Based on the number of affected Model 767-300 and 767-300F series airplanes currently on the U.S. Register, we changed the number of affected airplanes to 52 in the “Costs of Compliance” section of this SNPRM. We also made additional changes to the “Costs of Compliance” section to account for any added requirement of this proposed AD.

    Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/59027f43b9a7486e86257b1d006591ee/$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

    We agree with the commenter that STC ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/59027f43b9a7486e86257b1d006591ee/$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.

    Additional Change Made to This Proposed AD

    We incorrectly referred to the original issue date of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235 as July 29, 2011, throughout the NPRM. We have specified the correct date of the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235 as October 8, 2009, in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this proposed AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013. The service information describes procedures for changing the 3-way valve control logic and MCADS, and installing an FDARS.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013. The service information describes procedures for changing the 3-way valve control logic and MCADS and installing an FDARS.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012. The service information describes procedures for replacing the existing duct, installing an FDARS, changing the 3-way valve control logic, and installing a new altitude switch and pitot tube.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013. The service information describes procedures for replacing the existing duct with a new duct; installing an FDARS; and activating the 3-way valve control logic.

    • Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011. The service information describes procedures for the relay installation and related wiring changes.

    • Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010. The service information describes procedures for changing the 3-way valve control logic and installing a cooling system for the flight deck display equipment.

    • Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0073, dated October 12, 1995. The service information describes procedures for installation of an in-flight EICAS for the maintenance data selection system.

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

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

    Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This proposed AD would require, depending on airplane model and configuration, the following actions:

    • Replacing the existing duct with a new duct.

    • Installing an FDARS.

    • Changing or activating the 3-way valve control logic.

    • Installing a new altitude switch and pitot tube.

    • Changing the 3-way valve control logic and MCADS.

    • Installing a flight deck display equipment cooling system.

    • Doing a relay installation and related wiring changes.

    • Installing an in-flight EICAS for the maintenance data selection system.

    Refer to the service information described previously for details on the procedures and compliance times.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    3-way valve control logic and MCADS change, and installation of an FDARS (Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013; Groups 2 and 3 airplanes) 46 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,910 $21,865 $25,775 $1,185,650 (46 airplanes). 3-way valve control logic and MCADS change, and installation of an FDARS (Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013) 64 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,440 18,315 23,755 47,510 (2 airplanes). Replacement of the existing duct, installation of an FDARS, 3-way valve control logic change, and installation of a new altitude switch and pitot tube (Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012) 76 work-hours × $85 per hour = $6,460 55,663 62,123 248,492 (4 airplanes). 3-way valve control logic change and installation of a flight deck display equipment cooling system (Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010) 33 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,805 0 2,805 8,415 (3 airplanes). Relay installation and related wiring changes (Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011) Up to 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $850 Up to $955 Up to $1,805 Up to $88,445 (49 airplanes). Installing an in-flight EICAS for the maintenance data selection system (Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0073, dated October 12, 1995) Up to 13 work-hours Up to $3,535 Up to $4,640 Up to $13,920 (3 airplanes). Replacement of the existing duct, installation of an FDARS and activation of 3-way valve control logic (Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013) 51 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,335 16,338 20,673 (0 airplanes).

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0797; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-007-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 11, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and 767-300F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in the service information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD. This AD does not apply to The Boeing Company Model 767-300 (passenger) series airplanes.

    (1) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010.

    (2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013.

    (3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013.

    (4) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012.

    (5) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of malfunctions in the flight deck display units resulting in blanking, blurring, or loss of color on the display. We are issuing this AD to prevent malfunctions of the flight deck display units, which could affect the ability of the flightcrew to read the displays for airplane attitude, altitude, or airspeed, and consequently reduce the ability of the flightcrew to maintain control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation of Flight Deck Air Relief System (FDARS), 3-Way Valve Control Logic Change or Activation, and Additional Actions

    (1) For Model 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, in the main equipment center and the area under the left and right sides of the flight deck floor, replace the existing duct with a new duct; install an FDARS (including the installation of mounting brackets, ducts, orifice, outlet valve, and screen); change the 3-way valve control logic (including modification of the associated wiring and related actions); and install a new altitude switch and pitot tube; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0253, dated October 12, 2012.

    (2) For Model 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, in the main equipment center and the area under the left and right sides of the flight deck floor, replace the existing duct with a new duct; install an FDARS (including the installation of mounting brackets, ducts, orifice, outlet valve, and screen); and activate the 3-way valve control logic (including modification of the associated wiring and related actions); in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0254, dated June 7, 2013.

    (h) Installation of FDARS and a 3-Way Valve Control Logic and Main Cargo Air Distribution System (MCADS) Change

    (1) For Model 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, in the main equipment center and the area under the left and right sides of the flight deck floor, change the 3-way valve control logic and MCADS, and install an FDARS, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instruction of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (2) For Model 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, change the 3-way valve control logic and MCADS and install an FDARS, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013.

    (i) Installation of a Flight Deck Display Equipment Cooling System and a 3-Way Valve Control Logic Change

    For Model 767-300 series airplanes that have been converted by Boeing to Model 767-300BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter) airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, change the 3-way valve control logic and install a flight deck display equipment cooling system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010.

    (j) Exception to Paragraph (h)(1) of This AD

    For Model 767-300F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013: If the 3-way valve control logic change specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; or Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011; is done prior to or concurrent with the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, operators need to do only the functional test, FDARS installation, and flex duct change, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013. Operators do not need to do the other actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013, if the actions in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; or Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011; are done concurrently. If the functional test fails, before further flight, do corrective actions that are approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (k) Concurrent Requirements

    (1) For Groups 1 and 3 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, do the relay installation and related wiring changes specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011.

    (2) For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, do the relay installation and related wiring changes specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, dated October 8, 2009; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0235, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011.

    (3) For Model 767-300 series airplanes that have been converted by Boeing to Model 767-300BCF airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-21-0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, do the installation of an in-flight engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) for the maintenance data selection system specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0073, dated October 12, 1995.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Controls Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6596; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12353 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0323] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Allegheny River Mile 43.5 to 44.5, 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 from mile 43.5 to mile 44.5. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created from a barge-based firework display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port 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 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0323 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 10, 2016, the Fort Armstrong Folk Festival notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a 30-minute fireworks display between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. on August 6, 2016. The fireworks will be launched from a barge in the vicinity of Allegheny River mile 43.5 to mile 44.5. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event by establishing a 90-minute safety zone beginning 30 minutes before the display until 30 minutes after the display is over during the hours of 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on the same date. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) proposes to establish a safety zone lasting 90 minutes between the hours of 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. on August 6, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Allegheny River from mile 43.5. to mile 44.5. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the fireworks display scheduled to take place for 30 minutes between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. on the same date. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, 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 less than two hours. 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 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a 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.T08-0323 under the undesignated center heading Eighth Coast Guard District to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0323 Safety Zone; Allegheny River Mile 43.5 to Mile 44.5, Kittanning, PA

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Allegheny River from mile 43.5 to mile 44.5.

    (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, 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 for 90 minutes during the hours of 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 6, 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 enforcement period.

    Dated: April 25, 2016. L. McClain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12628 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Parts 2 and 7 [Docket No. PTO-T-2016-0005] RIN 0651-AD08 Trademark Fee Adjustment AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) proposes to set or increase certain trademark fees, as authorized by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The proposed fees will allow the Office to recover the aggregate estimated cost of Trademark and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) operations and USPTO administrative services that support Trademark operations. The proposals will further USPTO strategic objectives by: Better aligning fees with the full cost of products and services; protecting the integrity of the register by incentivizing more timely filing or examination of applications and other filings and more efficient resolution of appeals and trials; and promoting the efficiency of the process, in large part through lower-cost electronic filing options.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The USPTO prefers that comments be submitted via electronic mail message to [email protected] Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, attention Jennifer Chicoski; by hand delivery to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, attention Jennifer Chicoski; or by electronic mail message via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site (http://www.regulations.gov) for additional instructions on providing comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. All comments submitted directly to the USPTO or provided on the Federal eRulemaking Portal should include the docket number (PTO-T-2016-0005).

    The comments will be available for public inspection on the USPTO's Web site at http://www.uspto.gov, on the Federal eRulemaking Portal, and at the Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Because comments will be made available for public inspection, information that is not desired to be made public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Chicoski, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at (571) 272-8943.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose: Section 10 of the AIA (Section 10) authorizes the Director of the USPTO (Director) to set or adjust by rule any fee established, authorized, or charged under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., as amended (the Trademark Act or the Act) for any services performed by, or materials furnished by, the Office. See section 10 of the AIA, Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 316-17. Section 10 prescribes that fees may be set or adjusted only to recover the aggregate estimated costs to the Office for processing, activities, services, and materials relating to trademarks, including administrative costs to the Office with respect to such Trademark and TTAB operations. The Director may set individual fees at, below, or above their respective cost. Section 10 authority includes flexibility to set individual fees in a way that furthers key policy considerations, while taking into account the cost of the respective services. Section 10 also establishes certain procedural requirements for setting or adjusting fee regulations, such as public hearings and input from the Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) and oversight by Congress. Accordingly, on October 14, 2015, the Director notified the TPAC of the Office's intent to set or adjust trademark fees and submitted a preliminary trademark fee proposal with supporting materials. The preliminary trademark fee proposal and associated materials are available at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The fee proposal had three objectives to achieve the goals of recovering prospective aggregate costs of operation while furthering key policy considerations: (1) To better align fees with full costs; (2) to protect the integrity of the register; and (3) to promote the efficiency of the trademark process.

    The TPAC held a public hearing in Alexandria, Virginia on November 3, 2015. Transcripts of this hearing and comments submitted to the TPAC in writing are available for review at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The TPAC released its report regarding the preliminary proposed fees on November 30, 2015. The report can be found online at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The Office has considered the comments, advice, and recommendations received from the TPAC and the public in setting the fees proposed herein.

    In the report, the TPAC expressed general support for an increase in fees in order to recover full costs and maintain a sufficient operating reserve. The TPAC also expressed concerns over some of the fee increases and the potential impact on customers and included alternative fee proposals. The USPTO has reviewed the report and has amended the initial fee proposal to address some of the concerns, where possible, so as to remain consistent with the rulemaking goals and objectives.

    The TPAC expressed general support for the stated goals of full cost recovery with an increase in certain trademark fees and, in particular, for the goal of recovering more of the costs for TTAB operations. The report specifically expressed uniform support for the proposal to increase paper filing fees to encourage applicants to commit to complete electronic processing, due to the additional costs of processing paper filings as well as the availability of lower-cost electronic filing options. However, the TPAC report did recommend that the USPTO provide a mechanism to enable applicants to request a waiver of the surcharge incurred for paper filings in the event of system outages or if the nature of the submission renders the use of electronic systems impossible. Although this comment refers to a matter that is outside the scope of this proposed rulemaking, which is intended to set or increase certain trademark fees, the USPTO notes that the appropriate mechanism for requesting a waiver of a rule is to file a petition to the Director under 37 CFR 2.146. The report noted no opposition to the proposed increases in paper and electronic fees for filing a Petition to the Director. The TPAC also suggested increasing the fee for filing a regular Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) application in order to further encourage complete electronic filing.

    A general lack of support was expressed for the proposal to increase the fees for electronically filing a request for extension of time for filing a statement of use. The TPAC, as well as comments made by the public, noted that the current fee adequately covers the USPTO's costs for processing these filings, that the increased fees would raise the fee burden placed on U.S.-based filers, who are not able to utilize either the Paris Convention or the Madrid Protocol, placing them at a disadvantage compared to filers from other countries, and that the increased fee could negatively impact pro se and small-business applicants in particular by making it more expensive to maintain a trademark application while preparing to bring a new product or service to the market as reasons for not increasing this pre-registration fee that only impacts filers under the intent-to-use filing basis. Concerns were also expressed regarding the proposed increases to the fees for requests to divide applications and notices of ex parte appeal, as well as the proposed new fees for filing a request for an extension of time to oppose a published trademark application. The report states that the increase to the fee for a request to divide adds costs to intent-to-use filers and will discourage them from filing a statement of use sooner for the goods/services in use, where possible, and could thereby deprive third parties searching the Register from gaining information about actual use of the relevant mark. The TPAC recommended establishing a fee increase that will have a more even impact on all filers. Regarding the proposed increased fee for filing a notice of appeal, the TPAC proposed that rather than increasing the current fee, a new fee for submission of an appeal brief be added. As to the proposed new fees for filing a request for an extension of time to oppose a published mark, the TPAC report noted that although some members raised concerns over the proposed fees, the TPAC held the majority view that such fees would be beneficial, as attaching a reasonable fee to obtaining extensions of time to oppose after the initial 30-day extension should both encourage potential opposers to engage more quickly in an analysis of the potential dispute and to seek resolution earlier in the process.

    The USPTO appreciates the overall support for an increase in fees to meet sufficient funding levels. After careful consideration of the comments and suggestions provided in the report, and keeping in mind the goals of this rulemaking, the USPTO has made some changes to the initial fee proposal, which are reflected in this proposed rulemaking. For example, in furtherance of the goal to encourage applicants to commit to complete electronic processing, the suggested increase in the fee for the regular TEAS application has been added. In addition, the increase would also apply to TEAS requests for transformation of an extension of protection to the United States into a U.S. application, filed pursuant to 37 CFR 7.31. Additionally, due to the concerns expressed by the TPAC, the proposed fees for a request to divide and a request for an extension of time to file a statement of use have been increased for such requests filed on paper, but will remain at the current fee levels for those filed electronically. In addition, the USPTO proposes to increase the fees for affidavits under sections 8 and 71 of the Act. This increase will help recover increasing costs to review these filings. Furthermore, increasing this fee will affect all filers post registration, which should address some of the concerns expressed by the TPAC regarding a possible increased burden placed predominantly on U.S. filers of applications. Detailed explanations for these and the other proposed fee increases can be found in the “Rulemaking Goals and Strategies” and “Individual Fee Rationale” sections of this rulemaking.

    The fee schedule proposed in this rulemaking will recover the aggregate estimated costs to the Office while achieving strategic and operational goals, such as maintaining an operating reserve, implementing measures to maintain trademark pendency and high quality, modernizing the trademark information technology (IT) systems, continuing programs for stakeholder and public outreach, and enhancing operations of the TTAB.

    The USPTO protects consumers and provides benefits to businesses by effectively and efficiently carrying out the trademark laws of the United States. The Office estimates that the additional aggregate revenue derived from the proposed fee schedule will achieve sustainable funding, mitigate the risk of immediate unplanned financial disruptions, and fund necessary upgrades to IT systems. The proposed rule will also advance key policy considerations, while taking into account the cost of individual services. For example, the proposal includes increased fees for paper filings, which aims to better align the required fees with the cost of processing paper filings and incentivize electronic filings to promote efficiency of the registration process. Other trademark fees were increased to encourage timely filings and notices to further promote the efficiency of the process.

    Summary of Major Provisions: The Office proposes to set or adjust 44 trademark processing fees. The proposed fee structure would increase the per-class fee for an initial application filed on paper by $225 to $600, and would increase the fees for 31 other paper filings by between $100 and $200 (per class, where applicable). The per-class fee for an initial application filed using the regular TEAS option would increase by $75 to $400. This increase would also apply to requests for extension of protection and subsequent designations filed under the Madrid Protocol. 15 U.S.C. 1141e; Madrid Protocol Article 8(7)(a). The proposed rule increases the fee for filing affidavits under sections 8 and 71 of the Act for both paper and electronic filings. In addition, ten TTAB-related fees are established or revised in the proposed rule, six of which would increase the fees for initiating a proceeding filed electronically or on paper, and four that would establish electronic and paper filing fees for requests to extend time to file a notice of opposition in certain circumstances. A full list of current and proposed fees including the unit cost by fee from fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015 is available in the Table of Trademark Fees—Current Proposed and Unit Cost at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

    Rulemaking Goals and Strategies: Consistent with the Office's goals and obligations under the AIA, the overall objective of this rulemaking is to ensure the fee schedule generates sufficient revenue to recover the prospective aggregate costs of Trademark and TTAB operations and the associated administrative costs. Fees must be set at levels projected to cover future budgetary requirements and maintain an operating reserve. A record number of over 500,000 classes were filed in fiscal year (FY) 2015, and the Office projects this trend of increased filings to continue for the foreseeable future. Additionally, to maintain trademark pendency and quality goals with the increased filings, the Office must ensure it has adequate resources and systems to support future requirements. The Office is in the midst of a multi-year IT systems and infrastructure upgrade, which is critical to the future of the U.S. trademark registration system.

    Maintaining the current fee schedule is unlikely to meet future budgetary requirements, including expenses resulting from the projected increases in filings; the full costs necessary to support Trademark and TTAB operations, necessary investments in IT systems, intellectual property (IP) policy, and USPTO programs; and the cost of maintaining sufficient operating reserves. Under the current fee schedule, these costs will exceed available revenues and operating reserve optimal balances through 2021. The USPTO FY 2017 President's Budget includes two revenue estimates: (1) The current fee schedule; and (2) the initial fee proposal as submitted to the TPAC and discussed in their public hearing and report. Additional information on estimated cost may be found in the USPTO FY 2017 President's Budget (Figure #4 page 23) at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy17pbr.pdf. Managing without an adequate operating reserve would put the USPTO in jeopardy of being unable to respond to emergency situations—such as unexpected economic downturns—thereby increasing the risk for dire short-term financial actions, such as halting investment in IT development projects that are crucial to operations and customer support. An adequate operating reserve also allows the USPTO to continue serving its users in the event of a short-term lapse in Congressional appropriations.

    The Office notes that because the FY 2017 President's Budget was submitted prior to the USPTO making final decisions on the proposed fee adjustments, the operating reserve amounts for FY 2017-FY 2021 included in that document differ from what would be generated by this NPRM. Given that the Office reduced several fees from the initial proposal in response to comments from the TPAC and the public, the aggregate revenue collected under the proposed fee schedule in this rule, and subsequently the amount expected to be allocated to the operating reserve, is lower than what appears in the President's Budget. With the proposed fee schedule, optimal operating reserves are projected by FY 2019. The USPTO would use its existing authority going forward to adjust fees to cover budgetary requirements and to maintain the optimal operating reserve balance. If the projected operating reserve exceeds the estimated optimal level by 15 percent for two consecutive years, the USPTO would consider lowering fees.

    Another goal of this rulemaking is to set individual fees to further key IP protection policy considerations while taking into account the cost of the particular service. The Office seeks to enhance trademark protection for IP rights holders by offering application processing options and promoting Administration innovation strategies.

    The proposal has three objectives to achieve the goals of recovering prospective aggregate costs of operation while furthering key policy considerations: (1) To better align fees with full costs; (2) to protect the integrity of the register; and (3) to promote the efficiency of the trademark process. Aggregate costs are estimated through the USPTO budget-formulation process with the annual preparation of a five-year performance-based budget request. Revenues are estimated based on the projected demand for trademark products and services and fee rates.

    These fee-schedule objectives are consistent with strategic goals and objectives detailed in the USPTO 2014-2018 Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) that is available at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_2014-2018_Strategic_Plan.pdf. The Strategic Plan defines the USPTO's mission and long-term goals and presents the actions the Office will take to realize those goals. The significant actions the Office describes in the Strategic Plan that are specifically related to the goals of this rulemaking are ensuring optimal IT service to all users, maintaining trademark pendency and high quality, continuing and enhancing stakeholder and public outreach, and enhancing operations of the TTAB.

    Better Align Fees with Cost: The first fee-setting objective is to set and adjust trademark fees to better align those fees with the full costs of providing the relevant services. The overall goal is to achieve aggregate cost recovery. In determining which fees to set or adjust, the fee proposal targets changes to fees where the gap between the cost of the service and the current fee rate is the greatest. Paper filings are generally more expensive to process than electronic filings. Currently, however, most fees for paper filings are not set at full cost; instead they are subsidized by electronic filers. Because of this, across-the-board increases in fees for paper filings are proposed to bring the respective fees closer to the actual cost of processing paper filings and incentivize lower-cost electronic options. Additionally, adjustments to TTAB fees, which have not been adjusted, depending on the fee, for 15-25 years, have been proposed to bring the fees closer to current processing costs, and new fees for extensions of time to file a notice of opposition will allow recovery of some of the cost of processing these filings.

    Improve the Accuracy of the Trademark Register: The second fee-setting objective is to set or adjust fees to further the policy objective of improving the accuracy of the trademark register by incentivizing timely filings, examination, and efficient trial and appeal resolutions. These fees are used to encourage actions that help to facilitate efficient processing and encourage the prompt conclusion of application prosecution. An accurate register allows the public to rely on the register to determine potential trademark rights. Filings that may result in a less-accurate register, including those to maintain registrations that may include goods or services no longer in use, are among those filings targeted under this objective.

    Improve the Efficiency of the Trademark Process: The third fee-setting objective pertains to furthering key policy objectives by improving the efficiency of the trademark process, primarily by incentivizing electronic filings. To reach this objective, the fee proposal targets changes to fees that could administratively improve application processing by encouraging more electronic filing. Electronic filing expedites processing, shortens pendency, minimizes manual processing and the potential for data-entry errors, and is more efficient for both the filer and the USPTO. The Office believes that the proposed increase in fees for paper filings, in conjunction with such prior rulemakings as the TEAS Reduced Fee (TEAS RF) rulemaking that took effect in January, 2015 (79 FR 74633 (Dec. 16, 2014)) and increased electronic filing options at lower rates, will continue to result in a greater percentage of electronic filings that will improve the efficiency of the trademark process.

    The trademark fee schedule proposed here will achieve the goals of recovering prospective aggregate costs of operation while furthering the key policy considerations of better aligning fees with full costs, protecting the integrity of the register, and promoting the efficiency of the trademark process in FY 2017 and beyond. It will also create a better and fairer cost-recovery system that balances subsidizing costs to encourage broader usage of IP rights protection mechanisms and participation by more trademark owners.

    Fees for Paper Filings 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee Proposed fee Change 2.6(a)(1)(i) 6001 Filing an Application on Paper, per Class $375 $600 $225 2.6(a)(19)(i) 6006 Request to Divide an Application Filed on Paper, per New Application Created 100 200 100 2.6(a)(1)(v) 6008 Additional Processing Fee under § 2.22(c) or § 2.23(c), per Class 50 125 75 2.6(a)(5)(i) 6201 Filing an Application for Renewal of a Registration on Paper, per Class 400 500 100 2.6(a)(6)(i) 6203 Additional Fee for Filing a Renewal Application During the Grace Period on Paper, per Class 100 200 100 2.6(a)(21)(i) 6204 Correcting a Deficiency in a Renewal Application via Paper Filing 100 200 100 2.6(a)(12)(i) 6205 Filing an Affidavit under sec. 8 of the Act on Paper, per Class 100 250 150 2.6(a)(14)(i) 6206 Additional Fee for Filing a sec. 8 Affidavit During the Grace Period on Paper, per Class 100 200 100 2.6(a)(20)(i) 6207 Correcting a Deficiency in a sec. 8 Affidavit via Paper Filing 100 200 100 2.6(a)(13)(i) 6208 Filing an Affidavit under sec. 15 of the Act on Paper, per Class 200 300 100 2.6(a)(7)(i) 6210 Filing to Publish a Mark under sec. 12(c) of the Act on Paper, per Class 100 200 100 2.6(a)(8)(i) 6211 Issuing New Certificate of Registration upon Request of Registrant, Request Filed on Paper 100 200 100 2.6(a)(9)(i) 6212 Certificate of Correction of Registrant's Error, Request Filed on Paper 100 200 100 2.6(a)(10)(i) 6213 Filing a Disclaimer to a Registration, on Paper 100 200 100 2.6(a)(11)(i) 6214 Filing an Amendment to a Registration, on Paper 100 200 100 2.6(a)(2)(i) 6002 Filing an Amendment to Allege Use under sec. 1(c) of the Act on Paper, per Class 100 200 100 2.6(a)(3)(i) 6003 Filing a Statement of Use under sec. 1(d)(1) of the Act on Paper, per Class 100 200 100 2.6(a)(4)(i) 6004 Filing a Request under sec. 1(d)(2) of the Act for a Six-Month Extension of Time for Filing a Statement of Use under sec. 1(d)(1) of the Act on Paper, per Class 150 250 100 7.6(a)(1)(i) 6901 Certifying an International Application Based on a Single Application or Registration, Filed on Paper, per Class 100 200 100 7.6(a)(2)(i) 6902 Certifying an International Application Based on More Than One Basic Application or Registration Filed on Paper, per Class 150 250 100 7.6(a)(4)(i) 6903 Transmitting a Request to Record an Assignment or Restriction, or Release of a Restriction, under § 7.23 or § 7.24 Filed on Paper 100 200 100 7.6(a)(5)(i) 6904 Filing a Notice of Replacement under § 7.28 on Paper, per Class 100 200 100 7.6(a)(6)(i) 6905 Filing an Affidavit under sec. 71 of the Act on Paper, per Class 100 250 150 7.6(a)(7)(i) 6906 Surcharge for Filing an Affidavit under sec. 71 of the Act During Grace Period on Paper, per Class 100 200 100 7.6(a)(3)(i) 6907 Transmitting a Subsequent Designation under § 7.21, Filed on Paper 100 200 100 7.6(a)(8)(i) 6908 Correcting a Deficiency in a sec. 71 Affidavit Filed on Paper 100 200 100 2.6(a)(16)(i) 6401 Filing a Petition to Cancel on Paper, per Class 300 500 200 2.6(a)(17)(i) 6402 Filing a Notice of Opposition on Paper, per Class 300 500 200 2.6(a)(18)(i) 6403 Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Filed on Paper, per Class 100 300 200 2.6(a)(22)(i) New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) on Paper 200 n/a 2.6(a)(23)(i) New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on Paper 300 n/a 2.6(a)(15)(i) 6005 Petitions to the Director Filed on Paper 100 200 100

    Individual Fee Rationale: The Office projects the aggregate revenue generated from current and proposed trademark fees will recover the prospective aggregate cost, including the operating reserve of its Trademark and TTAB operations. In addition, as described above, some of the proposed fees are set to balance several key policy factors, and executing these policy factors in the trademark fee schedule is consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan. Once the key policy factors are considered, fees are set at, above, or below individual cost-recovery levels for the service provided. For more information regarding the cost methodologies used to derive the historical fee unit expenses, please refer to USPTO Fee Setting—Activity Based Information and Trademark Fee Unit Expense Methodology available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

    Fees for Paper Filings: The proposed rulemaking increases the fees for paper filings in order to meet two objectives: Better aligning fees with costs and improve the efficiency of the trademark process. The fee for filing a trademark application for registration on paper would rise by $225, from $375 per International Class to $600 per International Class. Additionally, all trademark processing fees for paper filings would increase by $100 to $200 more than current fees (per class, when applicable).

    The costs of processing paper filings are generally higher than electronic filings and higher than current fee schedules. A full list of current and proposed fees including the unit cost by fee from fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015 is available in the Table of Trademark Fees—Current Proposed and Unit Cost at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. An increase in the fees for these filings will help to offset the higher processing costs and come closer to recovering the total processing costs. Furthermore, setting a higher fee for paper filings incentivizes electronic filings, which are more cost efficient for the Office to process and which reduce the possibility of data-entry errors. As a result, adjustments of 5-10% in the estimated number of paper filings have been made in projecting filings and estimating revenue considering the impact of the fee increase on the behavior of applicants and resulting revenues. The rationale behind this fee increase is consistent with prior fee reductions for electronic filings.

    A majority of comments received from the TPAC expressed support for increasing all paper filing fees, acknowledging the additional cost of processing paper filings and the fairly small impact on the overall system given the availability of lower-fee, more-efficient electronic alternatives. At present, the vast majority of filings are electronic. For example, in FY 2015, only 0.4% of initial applications for registration were filed on paper. With two exceptions, more than 95% of all fee-paid requests were filed electronically in FY 2015. Thus, an increase in all paper filing fees would have virtually no impact on the vast majority of applicants and registrants who file documents electronically.

    Other Trademark-Processing Fees: The Office also proposes to increase certain other trademark processing fees in order to further key policy considerations, as discussed below. The proposed rulemaking increases the per-class fee for an initial application filed through TEAS from $325 to $400. This fee increase would apply to both U.S. and foreign filers as well as to applications submitted under the Madrid Protocol as requests for extension of protection and subsequent designation. The proposal also increases the processing fee for failure to meet the requirements for a TEAS Plus or TEAS RF filing from $50 to $125 per International Class to better align the resulting total charge with the fee for filing a regular TEAS application. The proposed rule sets out increases to the fees for affidavits under sections 8 and 71 of the Act in the amount of $50 per class for electronic filings and $150 per class for paper filings.

    Initial Application Filed Through TEAS: The proposed rule increases the fee for an initial application filed through TEAS as a regular TEAS application in order to better align the fee with the costs and to incentivize subsequent electronic filing and communications. The fee is increased from $325 to $400 to bring the fee closer to the full processing cost. Unlike the TEAS Plus and TEAS RF application options, the regular TEAS application does not require the applicant to commit to communicating electronically with the Office throughout the course of prosecution of the application. Increasing the fee for this application option will encourage applicants to commit to complete electronic processing using one of the lower-cost application options. Corresponding increases to the individual fee for requests for protection of an International Registration through the Madrid Protocol would also be affected by invoking the relevant provisions under the Protocol and its Common Regulations to adjust fees at the request of a contracting party.

    Other Trademark-Processing Fees [Initial application filed through TEAS] 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee Proposed fee Change 2.6(a)(1)(ii) 7001 Filing and Application through TEAS, per Class $325 $400 $75

    (1) Processing Fee for Failure to Meet Requirements for TEAS Plus or TEAS RF: The proposed rule increases the fee for failure to meet TEAS Plus or TEAS RF filing requirements in order to promote the efficiency of the trademark application process by incentivizing electronic filings and communication. Both TEAS Plus and TEAS RF feature reduced filing fees in exchange for meeting certain requirements, including a requirement to file certain documents electronically. Applicants who fail to meet the requirements are charged a per-class processing fee. This fee is proposed to be increased from $50 to $125 to address the difference between the filing fees for these applications and the proposed filing fee for a regular TEAS application, and to further encourage applicants to maintain the discounted application status by meeting all TEAS Plus and TEAS RF requirements to avoid being assessed the additional processing fee. Thus, the Office will continue to promote use of electronic filings, which are more efficient and cost-effective to review.

    Other Trademark-Processing Fees [Processing fee for failure to meet requirements for TEAS Plus or TEAS RF] 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee Proposed fee Change 2.6(a)(1)(v) 6008 Additional Processing Fee under § 2.22(c) or § 2.23(c), per Class (paper) $50 $125 $75 2.6(a)(1)(v) 7008 Additional Processing Fee under § 2.22(c) or § 2.23(c), per Class (electronic) 50 125 75

    (2) Affidavits under sections 8 and 71 of the Act: In addition to aligning the fees with full costs, the increase in fees for submitting affidavits under sections 8 and 71 will help to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the trademark register. Costs are set to increase for these filings as a result of the need for increased legal examination. In 2012, the USPTO began the Post Registration Proof of Use Pilot Program, during which 500 registrations (for which section 8 or 71 Declarations of Use were filed) were reviewed to assess the accuracy and integrity of the trademark register as to the actual use of the mark with the goods and/or services identified in the registration. The findings of the pilot program demonstrated a need for ongoing measures for additional review of these filings on a permanent basis. Such additional measures, which are currently under development in a separate rulemaking, will help identify and remove registrations with insufficient maintenance filings, thereby reducing the number of invalid registrations, and resulting in a more accurate trademark register. Increased fees will be required to support the additional review.

    Other Trademark-Processing Fees [Affidavits under § 8 and § 71 of the Act] 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee Proposed fee Change 2.6(a)(12)(i) 6205 Filing an Affidavit under sec. 8 of the Act on Paper, per Class $100 $250 $150 2.6(a)(12)(ii) 7205 Filing an Affidavit under sec. 8 of the Act through TEAS, per Class 100 150 50 7.6(a)(6)(i) 6905 Filing an Affidavit under sec. 71 of the Act on Paper, per Class 100 250 150 7.6(a)(6)(ii) 7905 Filing an Affidavit under sec. 71 of the Act through TEAS, per Class 100 150 50

    Trademark Service Fees: The proposed rule discontinues two trademark service fees and replaces two “at-cost” service fees with a set fee. The proposal discontinues the deposit account set-up fee because the process will be handled electronically, thus reducing the cost to process. The proposed rule also discontinues the self-service copy fees because the service will be provided by a third-party vendor. Finally, the unspecified labor fees are being replaced with a set fee of $160 for expedited service and $40 for overnight delivery. The proposed fees are based on an average hourly cost of $40 per hour and the additional time estimated to fulfill the type of request.

    Trademark Service Fees 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee Proposed fee Change 2.6(b)(11) 8524 Unspecified Other Services, Excluding Labor At cost n/a n/a 2.6(b)(8) New Marginal Cost, Paid in Advance, For Each Hour of Terminal Session Time, Including Print Time, Using X-Search Capabilities, Prorated for the Actual Time Used. The Director May Waive the Payment by an Individual for Access to X-Search upon a Showing of Need or Hardship, and if Such Waiver is in the Public Interest $40 n/a 2.6(b)(13)(i) 9201 Establish Deposit Account $10 n/a n/a 2.6(b)(9) 8902 Self-Service Copy Charge, per Page Copishare Card $0.25 n/a n/a 2.6(b)(10) 8523 Labor Charges for Services, per Hour or Fraction Thereof $40 n/a n/a 2.6(b)(10) New Additional Fee for Expedited Service $160 n/a 2.6(b)(9) New Additional Fee for Overnight Delivery $40 n/a

    Existing Fees at the TTAB: This proposed rule also increases ex parte (i.e., appeal) fees, which have not been adjusted in more than 25 years, and inter partes (i.e., trial) fees, which have not been adjusted in 15 years. The proposal includes a $100 per-class increase in fees for electronic filings for petitions for cancellation, notices of opposition, and ex parte appeals. A $200 increase, per class, is proposed for paper filings for the same requests. Currently, the cost of TTAB operations is heavily subsidized by revenue from other trademark processing fees. The proposed increases will not recover the full costs of TTAB operations, but will bring the fees closer to the full costs in order to bring better alignment between costs and fees. Furthermore, the increased fees for paper filings will incentivize lower-cost electronic filing in order to improve the efficiency of processing and reduce total costs. In general, TPAC commenters supported these fee increases because of the recognized costs for processing.

    Existing Fees at the TTAB 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee Proposed fee Change 2.6(a)(16)(i) 6401 Filing a Petition to Cancel on Paper, per Class $300 $500 $200 2.6(a)(16)(ii) 7401 Filing a Petition to Cancel through ESTTA, per Class 300 400 100 2.6(a)(17)(i) 6402 Filing a Notice of Opposition on Paper, per Class 300 500 200 2.6(a)(17)(ii) 7402 Filing a Notice of Opposition through ESTTA, per Class 300 400 100 2.6(a)(18)(i) 6403 Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Filed on Paper, per Class 100 300 200 2.6(a)(18)(ii) 7403 Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Filed through ESTTA, per Class 100 200 100

    Establish Fees for Extensions of Time at the TTAB: New fees are proposed for requests for extensions of time to file a notice of opposition in order to better align the fees with the processing costs as well as to protect the integrity of the trademark register. The public has 30 days from the date of publication of an application to file a notice of opposition with the TTAB. However, a potential opposer has available to it several types of extensions, which currently have no fee, that allows the opposer to delay an application or delay making a decision regarding whether to file an opposition. Currently, there is no fee associated with extensions of time to file a notice of opposition. The rulemaking proposes a tiered fee structure for these filings. Under the proposed structure, applicants may request: (1) An initial 30-day extension for no fee; (2) a subsequent 60-day extension for a fee of $100 for electronic filings and $200 for paper filings; and (3) a final 60-day extension for a fee of $200 for electronic filings and $300 for paper filings.

    Establish Fees for Extensions of Time at the TTAB 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee Proposed fee Change 2.6(a)(22)(i) New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) on Paper $200 n/a 2.6(a)(22)(ii) New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) through ESTTA 100 n/a 2.6(a)(23)(i) New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on Paper 300 n/a 2.6(a)(23)(ii) New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) through ESTTA 200 n/a

    These fees would yield efficiencies by encouraging potential opposers to make decisions regarding filing an opposition sooner, thus reducing delays to applicants. Additionally, for those that file the notice of opposition, the fee will result in faster conclusion of TTAB cases by encouraging earlier decisions to initiate proceedings. This should also help to protect the integrity of the trademark register by encouraging timely decisions and filings to ensure that the rights of other applicants and the public are not adversely affected.

    The TPAC commenters expressed some concern over the establishment of these fees, noting that it may result in a higher number of oppositions being filed because the decision is rushed. Given that the fee for the notice of opposition has also been increased, the Office believes that the fees should encourage earlier calculated decisions based on all of the available information and fees. Furthermore, implementing a tiered-fee structure will reduce the number of potential opposers that use the extensions merely to delay applications.

    Finally, these fees will help offset the processing costs. In FY 2015, the Office received 17,000 requests for extensions of time to file a notice of opposition, but there has been no fee to cover the costs to process these filings. It is customary for requests that delay processing of records, such as extensions, to require a fee to contribute to the cost of processing the filing as well as the overall cost of processing of appeals and trials. These fees are necessary to help attain primary Office goals of recovering the aggregate cost of operations, along with key policy considerations such as encouraging efficient processing.

    Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not considered to be economically significant under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

    Discussion of Proposed Regulatory Changes

    The USPTO proposes to amend §§ 2.6 and 7.6 to establish new or increase certain existing trademark fees, and to make other conforming changes, as described in the section-by-section analysis below.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(1)(i) to increase the fee for an initial application filed on paper from $375 to $600 per class, and § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) to increase the fee for an initial application filed using the regular TEAS option from $325 to $400 per class. This increase would also apply to requests for extension of protection filed under the Madrid Protocol.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(1)(v) to increase the fee for failure to meet TEAS Plus or TEAS RF requirements from $50 to $125 per class.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(2) to read “Amendment to allege use” and to add §§ 2.6(a)(2)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing an amendment to allege use on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(2)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(3) to read “Statement of use” and to add § 2.6(a)(3)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a statement of use on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(3)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(4) to read “Extension of time for filing statement of use” and to add § 2.6(a)(4)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing an extension of time to file a statement of use on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(4)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $150 to $250.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(5)(i) to increase the fee for filing an application for renewal of a registration on paper from $400 to $500 per class.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(6) to read “Renewal during grace period” and to add § 2.6(a)(6)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a renewal application during the grace period on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(6)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(7) to read “Publishing mark under section 12(c)” and to add § 2.6(a)(7)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a request to publish a mark under section 12(c) on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(7)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(8) to read “New certificate of registration” and to add § 2.6(a)(8)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for a filing a request to issue a new certificate of registration on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(8)(i) increases the paper filing fee from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(9) to read “Certificate of correction of registrant's error” and to add § 2.6(a)(9)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a request to issue a certification of correction of a registrant's error on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(9)(i) increases the paper filing fee from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(10) to read “Disclaimer to a registration” and to add § 2.6(a)(10)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for submitting a disclaimer to a registration on paper and through TEAS or the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA), respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(10)(i) increases the paper filing fee from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(11) to read “Amendment of registration” and to add § 2.6(a)(11)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing an amendment to a registration on paper and through TEAS or ESTTA, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(11)(i) increases the paper filing fee from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(12) to read “Affidavit under section 8” and to add § 2.6(a)(12)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing an affidavit under section 8 of the Act on paper and through TEAS. The proposed § 2.6(a)(12)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $100 to $250, and the proposed § 2.6(a)(12)(ii) increases the electronic filing fee, per class, from $100 to $150.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(13) to read “Affidavit under section 15” and to add § 2.6(a)(13)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing an affidavit under section 15 of the Act on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(13)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $200 to $300.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(14) to read “Filing section 8 affidavit during grace period” and to add § 2.6(a)(14)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing an affidavit under section 8 of the Act during the grace period on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(14)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(15) to read “Petitions to the Director” and to add § 2.6(a)(15)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a petition to the Director on paper and through TEAS. The proposed § 2.6(a)(15)(i) increases the paper filing fee from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(16) to read “Petition to cancel” and to add § 2.6(a)(16)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a petition to cancel on paper and through ESTTA. The proposed § 2.6(a)(16)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $300 to $500 and § 2.6(a)(16)(ii) increases the electronic filing fee, per class, from $300 to $400.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(17) to read “Notice of opposition” and to add § 2.6(a)(17)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a notice of opposition on paper and through ESTTA. The proposed § 2.6(a)(17)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $300 to $500 and § 2.6(a)(17)(ii) increases the electronic filing fee, per class, from $300 to $400.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(18) to read “Ex parte appeal” and to add § 2.6(a)(18)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing an ex parte appeal on paper and through ESTTA. The proposed § 2.6(a)(18)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $100 to $300 and § 2.6(a)(18)(ii) increases the electronic filing fee, per class, from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(19) to read “Dividing an application” and to add § 2.6(a)(19)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a request to divide an application on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(19)(i) increases the paper filing fee from $100 to $200 per new application created.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(20) to read “Correcting deficiency in section 8 affidavit” and to add § 2.6(a)(20)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a correction in a section 8 affidavit on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(20)(i) increases the paper filing fee from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(21) to read “Correcting deficiency in renewal application” and to add § 2.6(a)(21)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a correction in a renewal application on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 2.6(a)(21)(i) increases the paper filing fee from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to add § 2.6(a)(22) to read “Extension of time for filing notice of opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2)” and § 2.6(a)(22)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of opposition pursuant to § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on paper and through ESTTA. The proposed § 2.6(a)(22)(i) sets the paper filing fee at $200 and § 2.6(a)(22)(ii) sets the electronic filing fee at $100.

    The USPTO proposes to add § 2.6(a)(23) to read “Extension of time for filing notice of opposition under § 2.102(c)(3)” and § 2.6(a)(23)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of opposition pursuant to § 2.102(c)(3) on paper and through ESTTA. The proposed § 2.6(a)(23)(i) sets the paper filing fee at $300 and § 2.6(a)(23)(ii) sets the electronic filing fee at $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(b)(9) to delete the current fee for self-service copies and replace it with a fee of $40 for overnight delivery.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.6(b)(10) to delete the current fee for labor charges and replace it with a fee of $160 for expedited service.

    The USPTO proposes to delete the current § 2.6(b)(11) and to redesignate the current § 2.6(b)(12) as § 2.6(b)(11).

    The USPTO proposes to delete the current § 2.6(b)(13) and (b)(13)(i), to redesignate the current § 2.6(b)(13)(ii) as § 2.6(b)(12), and to add the wording “Deposit account” at the beginning of the paragraph.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.200(b) to delete the reference to the extra charge in § 2.6(b)(10), pursuant to the proposed change to § 2.6(b)(10) set forth above.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.208(a) to delete the reference to the fee for establishing a deposit account and amend the reference regarding the service charge to § 2.6(b)(12), pursuant to the proposed changes to §§ 2.6(b)(13) through (13)(ii) set forth above.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 7.6(a)(1) to read “Certification of international application based on single application or registration” and to add § 7.6(a)(1)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for certifying an international application based on a single basic application or registration on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 7.6(a)(1)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 7.6(a)(2) to read “Certification of international application based on more than one application or registration” and to add § 7.6(a)(2)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for certifying an international application based on a more than one application or registration on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 7.6(a)(2)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $150 to $250.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 7.6(a)(3) to read “Transmission of subsequent designation” and to add § 7.6(a)(3)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for transmitting a subsequent designation under § 7.21 on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 7.6(a)(3)(i) increases the paper filing fee from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 7.6(a)(4) to read “Transmission of request to record an assignment or restriction” and to add § 7.6(a)(4)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for transmitting a request to record an assignment or restriction under § 7.23 or § 7.24 on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 7.6(a)(4)(i) increases the paper filing fee from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 7.6(a)(5) to read “Notice of replacement” and to add § 7.6(a)(5)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a notice of replacement under § 7.28 on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 7.6(a)(5)(i) increases the fee, per class, for filing a notice of replacement on paper from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 7.6(a)(6) to read “Affidavit under section 71” and to add § 7.6(a)(6)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 7.6(a)(6)(i) increases the paper filing fee, per class, from $100 to $250, and the proposed § 7.6(a)(6)(ii) increases the electronic filing fee, per class, from $100 to $150.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 7.6(a)(7) to read “Filing affidavit under section 71 during grace period” and to add § 7.6(a)(7)(i) and (ii) to set out the surcharge for filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act during the grace period on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 7.6(a)(7)(i) increases the surcharge, per class, for filing an affidavit during the grace period on paper from $100 to $200.

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 7.6(a)(8) to read “Correcting deficiency in section 71 affidavit” and to add §§ 7.6(a)(8)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for correcting a deficiency in a section 71 affidavit on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The proposed § 7.6(a)(8)(i) increases the fee for filing the correction on paper from $100 to $200.

    Rulemaking Requirements America Invents Act

    This rulemaking proposes to set and adjust fees under section 10(a) of the AIA. Section 10(a) of the AIA authorizes the Director to set or adjust by rule any trademark fee established, authorized, or charged under the Trademark Act for any services performed by, or materials furnished by the Office. See section 10 of the AIA, Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 316-17. Section 10(e) of the AIA sets forth the general requirements for rulemakings that set or adjust fees under this authority. In particular, section 10(e)(1) requires the Director to publish in the Federal Register any proposed fee change under section 10, and include in such publication the specific rationale and purpose for the proposal, including the possible expectations or benefits resulting from the proposed change. For such rulemakings, the AIA requires that the Office provide a public comment period of not less than 45 days.

    The TPAC advises the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO on the management, policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of Trademark operations. When adopting fees under section 10, the AIA requires the Director to provide the TPAC with the proposed fees at least 45 days prior to publishing the proposed fees in the Federal Register. The TPAC then has at least 30 days within which to deliberate, consider, and comment on the proposal, as well as hold public hearing(s) on the proposed fees. The TPAC must make a written report available to the public of the comments, advice, and recommendations of the committee regarding the proposed fees before the Office issues any final fees. The Office will consider and analyze any comments, advice, or recommendations received from the TPAC before finally setting or adjusting fees.

    Consistent with the requirements of the AIA, on October 14, 2015, the Director notified the TPAC of the Office's intent to set or adjust trademark fees and submitted a preliminary trademark fee proposal with supporting materials. The preliminary trademark fee proposal and associated materials are available at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The revenue estimate for the fee proposal considered by the TPAC was included in the USPTO FY 2017 President's Budget request. The fee schedule associated with the original proposal is presented as Alternative 4—Original Proposal to TPAC.

    The TPAC held a public hearing in Alexandria, Virginia on November 3, 2015. Transcripts of this hearing and comments submitted to the TPAC in writing are available for review at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The TPAC released its report regarding the preliminary proposed fees on November 30, 2015. The report can be found online at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The USPTO publishes this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to examine the impact of the Office's proposed changes to trademark fees on small entities and to seek the public's views. Under the RFA, whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553 (or any other law) to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the agency must prepare and make available for public comment an IRFA, unless the agency certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule, if implemented, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603, 605.

    Items 1-5 below discuss the five items specified in 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(1) through (5) to be addressed in an IRFA. Item 6 below discusses alternatives to this proposal that the Office considered.

    1. Description of the reasons that action by the USPTO is being considered:

    The USPTO proposes setting and adjusting certain trademark fees as authorized by section 10 of the AIA. The fee schedule proposed under section 10 in this rulemaking will recover the aggregate estimated trademark costs of the Office while achieving strategic and operational goals, such as maintaining an operating reserve, implementing measures to maintain trademark pendency and high trademark quality, modernizing the trademark IT systems, continuing programs for stakeholder and public outreach, and enhancing operations of the TTAB. Aggregate costs are estimated through the USPTO budget-formulation process with the annual preparation of a five-year performance-based budget request. Revenues are estimated based on the projected demand for trademark products and services and fee rates.

    2. Succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule:

    The policy objectives of the proposed rules are to: (1) Better align fees with full costs; (2) protect the integrity of the register; and (3) promote the efficiency of the trademark process. As to the legal basis for the proposed rules, Section 10 of the AIA provides the authority for the Director to set or adjust by rule any fee established, authorized, or charged under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., as amended. See also section 31 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1113.

    3. Description of and, where feasible, estimate of the number of affected small entities:

    The USPTO does not collect or maintain statistics in trademark cases on small- versus large-entity applicants, and this information would be required in order to determine the number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed rules. The USPTO believes that the overall impact of the proposed fee structure on applicants and registrants will be positive, because it promotes the more cost-effective electronic filing system. There will be little or no impact for the majority of applicants and registrants that file electronically and communicate on a timely basis.

    The proposed rules could apply to any entity filing with USPTO. The USPTO estimates that during the first fiscal year under the rules as proposed, assuming an expected implementation date of January 2017, the USPTO would expect to collect approximately $18.4 million more in trademark processing, service, and TTAB fees. The USPTO would receive an additional $0.7 million in fees from paper-filed applications and $17.7 million more from electronically filed applications, including $3 million from TEAS applications for the registration of a mark, $3.2 million from requests for extension of protection and subsequent designations, $0.3 million for additional fees for applications failing to meet the TEAS Plus or TEAS RF requirements, and $7.8 million for affidavits of use under sections 8 and 71. TTAB fees would increase by $3.6 million, of which $2.1 million is expected from the newly established fees for filing extensions of time to file an opposition after the initial request.

    Trademark fee category Estimated
  • collections
  • with current
  • fees
  • Estimated
  • collections
  • with
  • proposed fees
  • Change
    Total Trademark Fees $307,468,600 $325,869,200 $18,400,600 Paper-Filed Applications 1,752,750 2,467,350 714,600 Electronically Filed Applications 294,063,575 311,739,100 17,675,500 TEAS Applications for the Registration of a Mark 17,787,900 20,763,600 2,975,700 Request for Extension of Protection and Subsequent Designations 19,384,950 22,567,950 3,183,000 Failing to Meet the TEAS Plus or TEAS RF Requirements 320,800 663,200 342,400 Affidavit under § 8 and § 71 of the Act 21,654,300 29,456,400 7,802,100 TTAB Fees 4,742,000 8,310,700 3,568,700 New TTAB Fees 0 2,142,300 2,142,300 Trademark Service Fees 11,652,240 11,663,440 11,200

    4. Description of the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record:

    The proposed rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

    The proposed rule sets and adjusts trademark fees. The USPTO does not anticipate that the proposed rule would have a disproportionate impact upon any particular class of small or large entities.

    5. Description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities:

    The USPTO considered a total of five alternatives for setting fee rates before recommending this proposal. A full list of current and proposed fees for each of the alternatives is available in the IRFA Tables and the Trademark Fee Aggregate Revenue Tables at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The alternatives are explained here with additional information regarding how each proposal was developed and the aggregate revenue was estimated. A description of the Aggregate Revenue Estimating Methodologies is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

    The USPTO chose the alternative proposed herein because it will enable the Office to achieve its goals effectively and efficiently without unduly burdening small entities, erecting barriers to entry, or stifling incentives to innovate. The alternative proposed here secures the Office's required revenue to meet its aggregate costs, while meeting the strategic goals of better aligning fees with full costs, protecting the integrity of the register, and promoting the efficiency of the trademark process. The increased efficiencies realized through the proposed rule will benefit all applicants and registrants by allowing registrations to be granted sooner and more efficiently removing unused marks from the register, thus allowing mark owners to more quickly and assuredly register their marks. All trademark applicants should benefit from the reduced pendency that will be realized under the proposed alternative. The proposed fee schedule for this alternative (labeled NPRM Proposal) is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

    One alternative to setting and increasing the proposed fees would be to take no action at this time regarding trademark fees and to leave all trademark fees as currently set. This alternative was rejected because, due to rising personnel and IT costs, the Office has determined that a fee increase is needed to accomplish the stated objective of better aligning fees with the full cost of products and services. In addition, increasing the trademark fees will assist in protecting the integrity of the register by incentivizing more timely filing of applications and other filings and more efficient resolution of appeals and trials and will promote the efficiency of the process by, in part, increasing the affordability of electronic filing options relative to paper filings. The proposed fee schedule for this alternative (labeled Alternative 1—No Change) is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

    Another alternative to setting and increasing the proposed fees that was considered was to tie all trademark fees to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), applying a 9.956%, multi-year, across-the-board inflationary increase to all trademark fees. The 9.956% represents the estimated cumulative inflationary adjustment from FY 2017 through FY 2021. As estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, projected inflationary rates by fiscal year are: 2.17% in FY 2017, 2.39% in FY 2018, 2.38% in FY 2019, 2.42% in FY 2020, and 2.42% in FY 2021. This alternative was rejected because, unlike the proposed fee structure, there would be no improvements in fee design to accomplish the stated objectives of protecting the integrity of the register by incentivizing more timely filing of applications and other filings and more efficient resolution of appeals and trials. In addition, it was determined that adjusting trademark fees in accordance with increases or decreases in the CPI would likely lead to user confusion as fees would be adjusted by what could be viewed as non-traditional or unpredictable increments. The proposed fee schedule for this alternative (labeled Alternative 2—CPI Increase) is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

    Another alternative that was considered was full cost recovery per fee. This would require USPTO to set each trademark fee at 100% of unit cost to allow the USPTO to recover full cost per fee based on the most recent fee unit cost trends. The USPTO uses Activity Based Information to determine the historical costs of activities related to each fee. Additional information about the methodology is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

    It is common practice in the Federal Government to set a particular fee at a level to recover the cost of a given good or service. In OMB Circular A-25: User Charges, the OMB states that user charges (fees) should be sufficient to recover the full cost to the Federal Government of providing the particular service, resource, or good, when the government is acting in its capacity as sovereign. This alternative was rejected because it was determined that the costs for any given product or service can vary from year to year, such that a yearly review of all, and adjustment to many, trademark fees would be required, and could also lead to consumer confusion regarding what any given trademark fee was currently set at and what the relevant fee would be in the future. This alternative would have increased revenue by more than the current proposal in part because workloads are expected to increase. In addition, it was determined that setting the trademark fees to recover 100% of all costs associated with each product or service would not properly promote the efficiency of the process. The proposed fee schedule for this alternative (labeled Alternative 3—Individual Cost Recovery) is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

    For purposes of this discussion, the preliminary trademark fee proposal presented to the TPAC is identified as alternative 4 in the Trademark Fee Aggregate Revenue Tables available at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The revenue estimate for the preliminary proposal considered by the TPAC was included in the USPTO FY 2017 President's Budget request. That proposal, as previously addressed in this notice, has been modified based on the feedback from the TPAC report received November 30, 2015 and feedback received from public comments. The preliminary proposal included an increase in the fee to file a request for an extenstion of time to file a statement of use that would apply only to U.S.-based applicants that filed an application based on a future intention to use the mark. The current proposal no longer includes an increase to that fee unless it is filed on paper, consistent with the increase in all paper-filed requests. Instead, the current proposal includes an increase in the fee for filing an affidavit under section 8 and 71 that would apply to the continued maintenance of a registration. The current proposal also increases the fee for filing a TEAS application. The proposed fee schedule for this alternative (labeled Alternative 4—Original Proposal to TPAC (FY 17 PB)) is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

    6. Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule:

    The proposed rules would not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

    Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review): The USPTO has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). Specifically, the USPTO has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) provided the public with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the regulatory process, including soliciting the views of those likely affected prior to issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, and provided online access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes, to the extent applicable.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).

    Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the USPTO will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this notice are not expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this action is not expected to result in a “major rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

    Paperwork Reduction Act: This proposed rule involves information collection requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The collection of information involved in this rule has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control numbers 0651-0009, 0651-0040, 0651-0050, 0651-0051, 0651-0054, and 0651-0055.

    You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Commissioner for Trademarks, by mail to P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, attention Catherine Cain; by hand delivery to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, attention Catherine Cain; or by electronic mail message via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. All comments submitted directly to the USPTO or provided on the Federal eRulemaking Portal should include the docket number (PTO-T-2016-0005).

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    List of Subjects 37 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.

    37 CFR Part 7

    Administrative practice and procedure, International registration, Trademarks.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority contained in section 10(a) of the AIA, 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the USPTO proposes to amend parts 2 and 7 of title 37 as follows:

    PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10 of Pub. L. 112-29, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Revise § 2.6 to read as follows:
    § 2.6 Trademark fees.

    (a) Trademark process fees.

    (1) Application filing fees.

    (i) For filing an application on paper, per class—$600.00

    (ii) For filing an application through TEAS, per class—$400.00

    (iii) For filing a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application through TEAS under § 2.23, per class—$275.00

    (iv) For filing a TEAS Plus application through TEAS under § 2.22, per class—$225.00

    (v) Additional processing fee under § 2.22(c) or 2.23(c), per class—$125.00

    (2) Amendment to allege use.

    (i) For filing an amendment to allege use under section 1(c) of the Act on paper, per class—$200.00

    (ii) For filing an amendment to allege use under section 1(c) of the Act through TEAS, per class—$100.00

    (3) Statement of use.

    (i) For filing a statement of use under section 1(d)(1) of the Act on paper, per class—$200.00

    (ii) For filing a statement of use under section 1(d)(1) of the Act through TEAS, per class—$100.00

    (4) Extension of time for filing statement of use.

    (i) For filing a request under section 1(d)(2) of the Act for a six-month extension of time for filing a statement of use under section 1(d)(1) of the Act on paper, per class—$250.00

    (ii) For filing a request under section 1(d)(2) of the Act for a six-month extension of time for filing a statement of use under section 1(d)(1) of the Act through TEAS, per class—$150.00

    (5) Application for renewal of a registration fees.

    (i) For filing an application for renewal of a registration on paper, per class—$500.00

    (ii) For filing an application for renewal of a registration through TEAS, per class—$300.00

    (6) Renewal during grace period.

    (i) Additional fee for filing a renewal application during the grace period on paper, per class—$200.00

    (ii) Additional fee for filing a renewal application during the grace period through TEAS, per class—$100.00

    (7) Publishing mark under section 12(c) of the Act.

    (i) For filing to publish a mark under section 12(c) of the Act on paper, per class—$200.00

    (ii) For filing to publish a mark under section 12(c) of the Act through TEAS, per class—$100.00

    (8) New certificate of registration.

    (i) For issuing a new certificate of registration upon request of registrant, request filed on paper—$200.00

    (ii) For issuing a new certificate of registration upon request of registrant, request filed through TEAS—$100.00

    (9) Certificate of correction of registrant's error.

    (i) For a certificate of correction of registrant's error, request filed on paper—$200.00

    (ii) For a certificate of correction of registrant's error, request filed through TEAS—$100.00

    (10) Disclaimer to a registration.

    (i) For filing a disclaimer to a registration, on paper—$200.00

    (ii) For filing a disclaimer to a registration, through TEAS or ESTTA—$100.00

    (11) Amendment of registration.

    (i) For filing an amendment to a registration, on paper—$200.00

    (ii) For filing an amendment to a registration, through TEAS or ESTTA—$100.00

    (12) Affidavit under section 8 of the Act.

    (i) For filing an affidavit under section 8 of the Act on paper, per class—$250.00

    (ii) For filing an affidavit under section 8 of the Act through TEAS, per class—$150.00

    (13) Affidavit under section 15 of the Act.

    (i) For filing an affidavit under section 15 of the Act on paper, per class—$300.00

    (ii) For filing an affidavit under section 15 of the Act through TEAS, per class—$200.00

    (14) Filing section 8 affidavit during grace period.

    (i) Additional fee for filing a section 8 affidavit during the grace period on paper, per class—$200.00

    (ii) Additional fee for filing a section 8 affidavit during the grace period through TEAS, per class—$100.00

    (15) Petitions to the Director.

    (i) For petitions to the Director filed on paper—$200.00

    (ii) For petitions to the Director filed through TEAS—$100.00

    (16) Petition to cancel.

    (i) For filing a petition to cancel on paper, per class—$500.00

    (ii) For filing a petition to cancel through ESTTA, per class—$400.00

    (17) Notice of opposition.

    (i) For filing a notice of opposition on paper, per class—$500.00

    (ii) For filing a notice of opposition through ESTTA, per class—$400.00

    (18) Ex parte appeal.

    (i) For ex parte appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed on paper, per class—$300.00

    (ii) For ex parte appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed through ESTTA, per class—$200.00

    (19) Dividing an application.

    (i) Request to divide an application filed on paper, per new application created—$200.00

    (ii) Request to divide an application filed through TEAS, per new application created—$100.00

    (20) Correcting deficiency in section 8 affidavit.

    (i) For correcting a deficiency in a section 8 affidavit via paper filing—$200.00

    (ii) For correcting a deficiency in a section 8 affidavit via TEAS filing—$100.00

    (21) Correcting deficiency in renewal application.

    (i) For correcting a deficiency in a renewal application via paper filing—$200.00

    (ii) For correcting a deficiency in a renewal application via TEAS filing—$100.00

    (22) Extension of time for filing notice of opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2).

    (i) For filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on paper—$200.00

    (ii) For filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) through ESTTA—$100.00

    (23) Extension of time for filing notice of opposition under § 2.102(c)(3).

    (i) For filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) on paper—$300.00

    (ii) For filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) through ESTTA—$200.00

    (b) Trademark service fees.

    (1) For printed copy of registered mark, copy only. Service includes preparation of copies by the Office within two to three business days and delivery by United States Postal Service; and preparation of copies by the Office within one business day of receipt and delivery to an Office Box or by electronic means (e.g., facsimile, electronic mail)—$3.00

    (2) Certified or uncertified copy of trademark application as filed processed within seven calendar days—$15.00

    (3) Certified or uncertified copy of a trademark-related official record—$50.00

    (4) Certified copy of a registered mark, showing title and/or status:

    (i) Regular service—$15.00

    (ii) Expedited local service—$30.00

    (5) Certified or uncertified copy of trademark records, per document except as otherwise provided in this section—$25.00

    (6) For recording each trademark assignment, agreement or other document relating to the property in a registration or application

    (i) First property in a document—$40.00

    (ii) For each additional property in the same document—$25.00

    (7) For assignment records, abstract of title and certification, per registration—$25.00

    (8) Marginal cost, paid in advance, for each hour of terminal session time, including print time, using X-Search capabilities, prorated for the actual time used. The Director may waive the payment by an individual for access to X-Search upon a showing of need or hardship, and if such waiver is in the public interest—$40.00

    (9) Additional Fee for Overnight Delivery—$40.00

    (10) Additional Fee for Expedited Service—$160.00

    (11) For processing each payment refused (including a check returned “unpaid”) or charged back by a financial institution—$50.00

    (12) Deposit account service charge for each month when the balance at the end of the month is below $1,000—$25.00

    3. Amend § 2.200 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 2.200 Assignment records open to public inspection.

    (b) An order for a copy of an assignment or other document should identify the reel and frame number where the assignment or document is recorded.

    4. Amend § 2.208 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 2.208 Deposit accounts.

    (a) For the convenience of attorneys, and the general public in paying any fees due, in ordering copies of records, or services offered by the Office, deposit accounts may be established in the Office. A minimum deposit of $1,000 is required for paying any fees due or in ordering any services offered by the Office. The Office will issue a deposit account statement at the end of each month. A remittance must be made promptly upon receipt of the statement to cover the value of items or services charged to the account and thus restore the account to its established normal deposit. An amount sufficient to cover all fees, copies, or services requested must always be on deposit. Charges to accounts with insufficient funds will not be accepted. A service charge (§ 2.6(b)(12)) will be assessed for each month that the balance at the end of the month is below $1,000.

    PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF MARKS 5. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 7 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.

    6. Revise § 7.6 to read as follows:
    § 7.6 Schedule of U.S. process fees.

    (a) The Office requires the following process fees:

    (1) Certification of international application based on single application or registration.

    (i) For certifying an international application based on a single basic application or registration, filed on paper, per class—$200.00

    (ii) For certifying an international application based on a single basic application or registration, filed through TEAS, per class—$100.00

    (2) Certification of international application based on more than one application or registration.

    (i) For certifying an international application based on more than one basic application or registration filed on paper, per class—$250.00

    (ii) For certifying an international application based on more than one basic application or registration filed through TEAS, per class—$150.00

    (3) Transmission of subsequent designation.

    (i) For transmitting a subsequent designation under § 7.21, filed on paper—$200.00

    (ii) For transmitting a subsequent designation under § 7.21, filed through TEAS—$100.00

    (4) Transmission of request to record an assignment or restriction.

    (i) For transmitting a request to record an assignment or restriction, or release of a restriction, under § 7.23 or § 7.24 filed on paper—$200.00

    (ii) For transmitting a request to record an assignment or restriction, or release of a restriction, under § 7.23 or § 7.24 filed through TEAS—$100.00

    (5) Notice of replacement.

    (i) For filing a notice of replacement under § 7.28 on paper, per class—$200.00

    (ii) For filing a notice of replacement under § 7.28 through TEAS, per class—$100.00

    (6) Affidavit under section 71 of the Act.

    (i) For filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act on paper, per class—$250.00

    (ii) For filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act through TEAS, per class—$150.00

    (7) Filing affidavit under section 71 of the Act during grace period.

    (i) Surcharge for filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act during the grace period on paper, per class—$200.00

    (ii) Surcharge for filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act during the grace period through TEAS, per class—$100.00

    (8) Correcting deficiency in section 71 affidavit.

    (i) For correcting a deficiency in a section 71 affidavit filed on paper—$200.00

    (ii) For correcting a deficiency in a section 71 affidavit filed through TEAS—$100.00

    (b) The fees required in paragraph (a) of this section must be paid in U.S. dollars at the time of submission of the requested action. See § 2.207 of this chapter for acceptable forms of payment and § 2.208 of this chapter for payments using a deposit account established in the Office.

    Dated: May 23, 2016. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12571 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0290; FRL-9946-95-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Spokane Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan submitted on May 11, 2016, by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), in cooperation with the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) for the Spokane carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance area (Spokane area or area). The Spokane area includes the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Millwood, and surrounding urban areas in Spokane County, Washington. This plan addresses the second 10-year maintenance period for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for CO, as revised in 1985. The Spokane area has had no exceedances of the CO NAAQS since 1997 and monitored CO levels in the area continue to decline steadily. The EPA is also proposing approval of an alternative CO monitoring strategy for the Spokane area which was submitted as part of the limited maintenance plan.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0290 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.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information that is restricted by statute from disclosure. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 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 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. This Action II. Background III. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for CO Areas A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option IV. Review of the State's Submittal A. Has the State demonstrated that the monitoring data meets the LMP Option criteria? B. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory? C. What are the control measures for this area? D. Does the limited maintenance plan include an assurance of continued operation of an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58? E. Does the plan meet the clean air act requirements for contingency provisions? V. Proposed Action VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. This Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan for CO submitted by the State of Washington (Washington or the State), on May 11, 2016, for the Spokane area. A limited maintenance plan is a means of meeting Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for formerly designated nonattainment areas that meet certain qualification criteria. The EPA is proposing to determine that Washington's submittal meets the limited maintenance plan criteria as described below.

    II. Background

    Under section 107(d)(1)(c) of the CAA, the Spokane area was designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). On June 29, 2005, the EPA redesignated the area to attainment for the CO NAAQS and approved Washington's first maintenance plan designed to ensure compliance with the standard through the year 2015 (70 FR 37269). To meet section 175A(b) of the CAA, Washington submitted a second 10-year CO maintenance plan for the Spokane area that will apply until 2025.

    III. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option for CO Areas A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The EPA's requirements for a limited maintenance plan (LMP) are outlined in an October 6, 1995 memorandum from Joseph Paisie titled, ”Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas” (CO LMP Option). To qualify for the LMP Option, the design value for an area, based on the eight consecutive quarters (two years of data) used to demonstrate attainment, must be at or below 7.65 parts per million (ppm). The CO LMP Option memo states the “EPA believes that the continued applicability of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, any control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures (such as the Federal motor vehicle control program) should provide adequate assurance of maintenance for these areas.” The EPA has determined that the CO LMP Option is also available to all states for second 10-year maintenance plans, regardless of the original nonattainment classification.

    B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the area.

    While qualification for the CO LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, conformity may be demonstrated without submitting an emissions budget. Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these areas need not be capped for the maintenance period and therefore a regional emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the “budget test” specified in 40 CFR 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.

    Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:

    (a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;

    (b) transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;

    (c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;

    (d) conformity of transportation plans is determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;

    (e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;

    (f) projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and

    (g) project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.

    In approving the 2nd 10-year limited maintenance plan, the Spokane maintenance area will continue to be exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, but must meet project-level conformity analyses as well as the transportation conformity criteria mentioned above.

    IV. Review of the State's Submittal A. Has the State demonstrated that the monitoring data meets the LMP Option criteria?

    The CO NAAQS is attained when the annual second highest 8-hour average CO concentration for an area does not exceed a concentration of 9.0 ppm. The last monitored violation of the CO NAAQS in the Spokane area occurred in 1996, and CO levels have steadily declined ever since.

    For areas using the CO LMP Option, the maintenance plan demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied when the second highest 8-hour CO concentration (design value) is at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO NAAQS) for 8 consecutive quarters. The 8-hour CO design value for the Spokane area is 2.3 ppm based on 2013-2014 data, the most recent quality-assured and quality-controlled data available. Therefore, Washington has demonstrated that the monitoring data for the Spokane area meets the CO LMP Option criteria.

    B. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory?

    The maintenance plan must contain an attainment year emissions inventory to identify a level of CO emissions that is sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS. The May 11, 2016 SIP submittal contains a CO emissions inventory for the Spokane area using a base year of 2011, matching the most recent data available in the EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which was then projected out to 2014 based on population growth. This inventory was then supplemented with more recent information for point sources and onroad motor vehicles. Onroad mobile emissions were calculated using the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014) model. Historically, exceedances of the CO NAAQS in the Spokane area have occurred during the winter months, when cooler temperatures contribute to incomplete combustion from motor vehicles. Therefore, consistent with the EPA's guidance, the emissions inventory is in a “typical winter day” format. Onroad mobile sources represent 69.4% of the typical winter day CO emissions, followed by 17.9% from area sources (primarily residential wood combustion), 12.3% from nonroad mobile sources, and 0.5% from point sources. With respect to calculating emissions inventories for the LMP, point sources were defined as any stationary source with CO emissions greater than or equal to 100 tons per year.

    Emissions Inventory, Main Source Category Subtotals Main source category CO emissions pounds per winter day Point Sources 1,418 Onroad Mobile Sources 213,760 Non-road Mobile Sources 37,221 Area Sources 54,303 Total 306,702 C. What are the control measures for this area?

    The first 10-year maintenance plan approved by the EPA for the Spokane area relied on the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program establishing emission standards for new motor vehicles (40 CFR part 86), a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and an administrative order and amendment for the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation Mead Works facility. The EPA's 2005 approval of the first 10-year maintenance plan anticipated that more stringent Federal automobile standards and the removal of older, less efficient cars over time would result in an overall decline in CO emissions despite expected increases in vehicle miles traveled in the area (70 FR 37269, June 29, 2005, at page 37271). Consistent with the EPA's CO LMP Option memo, Washington concluded that continued applicability of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements, any control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures (such as the Federal motor vehicle control program) will provide adequate assurance of maintenance for the Spokane area. Based on our review of the 2011 attainment emissions inventory, showing dramatic emissions reductions as a result of the Federal motor vehicle control program, it is highly unlikely CO emissions in the Spokane area will violate the NAAQS. We also note that Washington's most recent updates to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitting program were approved by the EPA on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23721).

    Lastly, Washington is requesting no changes to the control measures contained in the SIP, except for one minor revision. As discussed in Washington's submittal, the first 10-year maintenance plan included administrative order number DE 01 AQIS-3285, and amendment #1 of that order, for the former Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation's aluminum reduction plant located in Mead, Washington, north of the City of Spokane. During the EPA's action on the first 10-year plan it was not known at that time whether the then closed facility or some portion of it would reopen, so the EPA retained the existing administrative order and amendment in the SIP to ensure that the facility could not contribute to an exceedance of the CO NAAQS if it reopened at some point in the future. On April 11, 2013, NMC Mead, LLC, the new owners of the facility, notified the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) that the facility, “. . . has permanently shut down and is in the process of dismantling all equipment permitted under Air Operating Permit No. AOP-19-Renewal Permit #1. NMC Mead will not be renewing this Air Operating Permit, and is requesting that this permit be revoked effective March 31, 2013.” On April 26, 2013, SRCAA voided the Air Operating Permit and all associated orders stating that, “[i]f NMC Mead, LLC ever wants to operate any of the emission units at the facility again in the future, a new Notice of Construction (NOC) permit must be approved by the SRCAA prior to the installation and/or operation of the equipment.” See Appendix D of Washington's submission. Because any potential, future NOC permit will be subject to the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program to ensure compliance with all NAAQS, Washington requested that the EPA remove the voided administrative order No. DE 01 AQIS-3285 and amendment #1 from the SIP codified in 40 CFR 52.2470(d) EPA-Approved State Source-Specific Requirements. The EPA is proposing to grant this request because the EPA has confirmed the facility is shutdown and dismantled.

    C. Does the limited maintenance plan include an assurance of continued operation of an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58?

    The EPA's CO LMP Option memo states, “[t]o verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate, EPA approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.” Washington's most recent EPA-approved annual air quality monitoring network plan is included in the docket for this action. Under this plan, Washington currently operates a Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) CO monitor at 3rd and Washington in downtown Spokane. Due to the low and continually declining levels of CO monitored at this site over the past two decades since the last exceedance of the NAAQS, Washington requested the EPA's approval of an alternative monitoring strategy for verifying maintenance of the CO NAAQS similar to other altenative approaches used in CO areas in the nation (see 80 FR 17331, April 1, 2015, Great Falls, Montana; 80 FR 16571, March 30, 2015, Billings, Montana; and 73 FR 36439, June 27, 2008, Vancouver, Washington, for a few recent examples).

    Washington's proposed alternative monitoring strategy generally mirrors the approach recently approved for the Grants Pass CO area on July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44864). Washington proposes that total CO emissions will be calculated, as detailed below, every three years in conjunction with the Statewide Emissions Inventory development process, which populates the EPA NEI. Under the proposed alternative monitoring strategy, SRCAA, in cooperation with Ecology, commits to reviewing future year 2017, 2020 and 2023 CO estimates for the three primary source categories (onroad mobile, nonroad mobile, and residential wood combustion (area sources)) which comprise 97% of CO emissions in the Spokane area. The aggregate total of these three source categories would then be compared to the corresponding 2002 level, which represents the emissions at the time EPA redesignated the area to attainment and approved the first 10-year maintenance plan. The 2002 emission level corresponds to a design value of 5.2 ppm, well below the CO NAAQS of 9.0 ppm and the LMP qualification threshold of 7.65 ppm, giving adequate buffer to reestablish monitoring before any potential violation of the NAAQS and resulting contingency measures.

    Because the calculated amounts of both the onroad and nonroad mobile CO emissions can change depending on the version of the EPA model required for use at that time (currently MOVES2014), SRCAA and Ecology commit to recalculating 2002 emission estimates for these two source categories using national default settings at the county-wide level with the most current EPA-mandated model, in order to ensure consistency in comparing future year inventories to 2002 levels. For the remaining source category, residential wood combustion, SRCAA and Ecology will compare future year inventories, calculated using the most up to date activity level, emission factor, and population data available, in accordance with the EPA's NEI guidance, to the annual 2002 county-wide inventories approved in the first 10-year maintenance plan (19,937 tons per year). If a future year aggregate total of the three source categories calculated for 2017, 2020, or 2023 exceeds the corresponding aggregate total of 2002 emissions, Ecology must reestablish monitoring in the area. In order to verify continued attainment in the area, continued qualification for the CO LMP Option, and provisions for triggering contingency measures should the area violate the CO NAAQS in the future, this review will be submitted annually by Ecology to the EPA as part of the monitoring network report for compliance under 40 CFR part 58.1 Washington's annual network monitoring reports are available to the public at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/UIPages/Home.aspx.

    1 The EPA notes that emission inventory development for the NEI is done on a triennial basis, so reporting during off years between the 2017, 2020, and 2023 inventory cycles will likely refer back to the most recent inventory data available.

    The State's request was made under 40 CFR 58.14(c) which allows approval of requests to discontinue ambient monitors “on a case-by-case basis if discontinuance does not compromise data collection needed for implementation of a NAAQS and if the requirements of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, if any, continue to be met.” The EPA proposes to find that the alternative monitoring strategy meets the criteria of 40 CFR 58.14(c) for the Spokane area. Given the long history of low CO concentrations in the Spokane area, and the commitment to reestablish monitoring should NEI data show the potential for increasing CO emissions, the EPA is proposing to approve the State's request to discontinue the Spokane CO monitor and use the alternative monitoring strategy in its place.

    D. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act requirements for contingency provisions?

    CAA section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of any violation of the relevant NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to attainment. Washington's submittal makes no changes to the contingency provisions approved as part of the first 10-year maintenance plan (70 FR 37269, June 29, 2005, at page 37271). The EPA is proposing to determine that the existing contingency measure provisions from the first 10-year maintenance plan continue to satisfy the requirement under CAA section 175A.

    V. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the LMP submitted by the State of Washington, on May 11, 2016, for the Spokane CO area. We are proposing to approve the request to remove the associated order and amendment for the former Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation's aluminum reduction plant located in Mead, Washington from incorporation by reference in the Washington SIP because the facility has been shut down, dismantled, and the operating permit has been revoked. We are also proposing to approve the State's alternative CO monitoring strategy for the Spokane area. If finalized, the EPA's approval of this LMP will satisfy the CAA section 175A requirements for the second 10-year period in the Spokane CO area.

    VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to revise the incorporation by reference contained in 40 CFR 52.2470(d) EPA-Approved State Source-Specific Requirements to remove the associated order and amendment for the former Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation's aluminum reduction plant located in Mead, Washington, as described above in Section V. Proposed Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal 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 submittals, 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 the 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).

    This SIP revision is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Spokane Tribe in a letter dated September 11, 2015. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12529 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 97 [FRL-9947-02-OAR] Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2016 Compliance Year AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of data availability (NODA).

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of preliminary calculations of emission allowance allocations to certain units under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Under the CSAPR federal implementation plans (FIPs), portions of each covered state's annual emissions budgets for each of the four CSAPR emissions trading programs are reserved for allocation to electricity generating units that commenced commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010 (new units) and certain other units not otherwise obtaining allowance allocations under the FIPs. The quantities of allowances allocated to eligible units from each new unit set-aside (NUSA) under the FIPs are calculated in an annual one- or two-round allocation process. EPA has completed preliminary calculations for the first round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2016 compliance year and has posted spreadsheets containing the calculations on EPA's Web site. EPA will consider timely objections to the preliminary calculations (including objections concerning the identification of units eligible for allocations) and will promulgate a notice responding to any such objections no later than August 1, 2016, the deadline for recording the first-round allocations in sources' Allowance Management System accounts. This notice may concern CSAPR-affected units in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

    DATES:

    Objections to the information referenced in this notice must be received on or before June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your objections via email to [email protected] Include “2016 NUSA allocations” in the email subject line and include your name, title, affiliation, address, phone number, and email address in the body of the email.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 343-9077 or [email protected] or Kenon Smith at (202) 343-9164 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the CSAPR FIPs, the mechanisms by which initial allocations of emission allowances are determined differ for “existing” and “new” units. For “existing” units—that is, units commencing commercial operation before January 1, 2010—the specific amounts of CSAPR FIP allowance allocations for all compliance years have been established through rulemaking. EPA has announced the availability of spreadsheets showing the CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units in previous notices.1

    1 The latest spreadsheet of CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units, updated in 2014 to reflect changes to CSAPR's implementation schedule but with allocation amounts unchanged since June 2012, is available at http://www3.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html. See Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances to Existing Electricity Generating Units, 79 FR 71674 (December 3, 2014).

    “New” units—that is, units commencing commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010—as well as certain older units that would not otherwise obtain FIP allowance allocations do not have pre-established allowance allocations. Instead, the CSAPR FIPs reserve a portion of each state's total annual emissions budget for each CSAPR emissions trading program as a new unit set-aside (NUSA) 2 and establish an annual process for allocating NUSA allowances to eligible units. States with Indian country within their borders have separate Indian country NUSAs. The annual process for allocating allowances from the NUSAs and Indian country NUSAs to eligible units is set forth in the CSAPR regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b) and 97.412 (NOX Annual Trading Program), 97.511(b) and 97.512 (NOX Ozone Season Trading Program), 97.611(b) and 97.612 (SO2 Group 1 Trading Program), and 97.711(b) and 97.712 (SO2 Group 2 Trading Program). Each NUSA allowance allocation process involves up to two rounds of allocations to new units followed by the allocation to existing units of any allowances not allocated to new units. EPA provides public notice at certain points in the process. This notice concerns preliminary calculations for the first round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2016 compliance year.3

    2 The NUSA amounts range from two percent to eight percent of the respective state budgets. The variation in percentages reflects differences among states in the quantities of emission allowances projected to be required by known new units at the time the budgets were set or amended.

    3 At this time, EPA is not aware of any unit eligible for a first-round allocation from any Indian country NUSA.

    The units eligible to receive first-round NUSA allocations are defined in §§ 97.412(a)(1), 97.512(a)(1), 97.612(a)(1), and 97.712(a)(1). Generally, eligible units include any CSAPR-affected unit that has not been allocated allowances as an existing unit as well as certain units that have been allocated allowances as existing units but whose allocations have been deducted or not recorded because of corrections or multi-year breaks in operations. EPA notes that a valid allowance allocation may consist of zero allowances; thus, an existing unit specifically allocated zero allowances in the spreadsheet of CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units is generally ineligible to receive a NUSA allowance allocation.

    The quantity of allowances to be allocated through the 2016 NUSA allowance allocation process for each state and emissions trading program is generally the state's 2016 emissions budget less the sum of (1) the total of the 2016 CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units and (2) the amount of the 2016 Indian country NUSA, if any.4 The amounts of NUSA allowances may be increased in certain circumstances as set forth in §§ 97.412(a)(2), 97.512(a)(2), 97.612(a)(2), and 97.712(a)(2).

    4 The quantities of allowances to be allocated through the NUSA allowance allocation process may differ slightly from the NUSA amounts set forth in §§ 97.410(a), 97.510(a), 97.610(a), and 97.710(a) because of rounding in the spreadsheet of CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units.

    The amounts of first-round allocations to eligible units from each NUSA are calculated according to the procedures set forth in §§ 97.412(a)(3)-(7) and (12), 97.512(a)(3)-(7) and (12), 97.612(a)(3)-(7) and (12), and 97.712(a)(3)-(7) and (12). Generally, the procedures call for each eligible unit to receive a first-round 2016 NUSA allocation equal to its 2015 emissions as reported under 40 CFR part 75 unless the total of such allocations to all eligible units would exceed the amount of allowances in the NUSA, in which case the allocations are reduced on a pro-rata basis.5

    5 Subsequent allocations of any allowances remaining in any 2016 NUSA after first-round allocations will be addressed in future notices. Any such allocations will be made according to the procedures set forth in §§ 97.412(a)(9), (10) and (12), 97.512(a)(9), (10) and (12), 97.612(a)(9), (10) and (12), and 97.712(a)(9), (10) and (12). Generally, new units that commenced commercial operations in 2015 or 2016 will receive second-round 2016 NUSA allocations sufficient to bring the totals of their first- and second-round allocations up to their 2016 emissions as reported under 40 CFR part 75 unless the total of such second-round allocations for all eligible units would exceed the remaining amount of allowances in the NUSA, in which case the second-round allocations will be reduced on a pro-rata basis. Any allowances remaining in any NUSA after second-round allocations to new units—along with any allowances remaining in any corresponding Indian country NUSA—will be allocated to the state's existing units in proportion to their respective 2016 CSAPR FIP allocations of non-NUSA allowances.

    EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given EGU does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the EGU. EPA also notes that allocations are subject to potential correction.

    The detailed unit-by-unit data and preliminary allowance allocation calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2016_NOX_Annual_1st_Round_Prelim_Data”, “CSAPR_NUSA_2016_NOX_OS_1st_Round_Prelim_Data”, and “CSAPR_NUSA_2016_SO2_1st_Round_Prelim_Data,” available on EPA's Web site at http://www3.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html. The three spreadsheets show EPA's initial determinations of 2016 NUSA allocations for new units subject to the CSAPR NOX Annual, NOX Ozone Season, and SO2 (Group 1 and Group 2) trading programs, respectively. Each of the spreadsheets contains a separate worksheet for each state covered by that program showing, for each unit identified as eligible for a first-round NUSA allocation, (1) the unit's emissions in the 2015 control period (annual or ozone season as applicable), (2) the maximum first-round 2016 NUSA allowance allocation for which the unit is eligible (typically the unit's emissions in the 2015 control period), (3) various adjustments to the unit's maximum allocation, many of which are necessary only if the NUSA pool is oversubscribed, and (4) the preliminary calculation of the unit's first-round 2016 NUSA allowance allocation.

    Each state worksheet also contains a summary showing (1) the quantity of allowances initially available in that state's 2016 NUSA, (2) the sum of the first-round 2016 NUSA allowance allocations that will be made to new units in that state, assuming there are no corrections to the data, and (3) the quantity of allowances that would remain in the 2016 NUSA for use in second-round allocations to new units (or ultimately for allocation to existing units), again assuming there are no corrections to the data.

    Objections should be strictly limited to the data and calculations upon which the NUSA allowance allocations are based and should be emailed to the address identified in ADDRESSES. Objections must include: (1) Precise identification of the specific data and or calculations the commenter believes are inaccurate, (2) new proposed data and or calculations upon which the commenter believes EPA should rely instead to determine allowance allocations, and (3) the reasons why EPA should rely on the commenter's proposed data and or calculations and not the data referenced in this notice.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 97.411(b), 97.511(b), 97.611(b), and 97.711(b).

    Dated: May 19, 2016. Reid P. Harvey, Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12485 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 46 CFR Parts 502, 503, 515, 520, 530, 535, 540, 550, 555, and 560 [Docket No. 16-06] RIN 3072-AC34 Update of Existing and Addition of New User Fees AGENCY:

    Federal Maritime Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) proposes amending its current user fees and invites public comment on whether the Commission should amend its user fees. Specifically, the Commission proposes increasing fees for: Filing complaints and certain petitions; records searches, document copying, and admissions to practice; paper filing of ocean transportation intermediary (OTI) applications; filing applications for special permission; and filing agreements.

    The Commission also proposes lowering fees for: Reviewing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests; revising clerical errors on service contracts; Revising clerical errors on non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVOCC) service agreements; and Commission services to passenger vessel operators (PVOs).

    In addition, the Commission proposes repealing four existing fees for: Adding interested parties to a specific docket mailing list; the Regulated Persons Index database; database reports on Effective Carrier Agreements; and filing petitions for rulemaking. The Commission also proposes adding a new fee for requests for expedited review of an agreement filing.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]. Include in the subject line: “Docket No. 16-06, Comments on “Update of User Fees.” Comments should be attached to the email as a Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF document. Comments containing confidential information should not be submitted by email.

    Mail: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001. Phone: (202) 523-5725. Email: [email protected].

    • Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.fmc.gov/16-06.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001. Phone: (202) 523-5725. Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission's current user fees are based on an assessment of fiscal year 2004 costs and have not been updated since 2005.1 Consequently, many of the current user fees no longer represent the Commission's actual costs for providing services. The Commission is seeking comments on possible adjustments to its user fees based on fiscal year 2015 costs assessed through a new methodology for calculating costs for services provided by the Commission.

    1 The Commission established the fee for filing or updating OTI license applications electronically in 2007.

    The Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, authorizes agencies to establish charges (user fees) for services and benefits that it provides to specific recipients. Under the IOAA, charges must be fair and based on the costs to the Government, the value of the service or thing to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant facts. The IOAA also provides that regulations implementing user fees are subject to policies prescribed by the President, which are currently set forth in OMB Circular A-25, User Charges (revised July 8, 1993).

    OMB Circular A-25 requires agencies to conduct a periodic reassessment of costs and, if necessary, adjust or establish new fees. Under OMB Circular A-25, fees should be established for Government-provided services that confer benefits on identifiable recipients over and above those benefits received by the general public. OMB Circular A-25 also provides that agencies should determine or estimate costs based on the best available records in the agency, and that cost computations must cover the direct and indirect costs to the agency providing the activity.

    Fee Assessment Methodology

    Applying the guidance for assessing fees provided in OMB Circular A-25, the Commission has revised its methodology for computing fees to determine the full costs of providing services.2 A detailed description of the methodology, as established by the Commission's Office of Budget and Finance, is available in the docket to this rulemaking.

    2 The revised methodology also satisfies the recommendations set forth in the Commission's Office of Inspector General's report, Review of FMC's User Fee Calculations (May 27, 2010).

    The Commission has developed data on the time and cost involved in providing particular services to arrive at the updated direct and indirect labor costs for those services. As part of its assessment, the Commission utilized salaries of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) assigned to fee-generating activities to identify the various direct and indirect costs associated with providing services. Direct labor costs include clerical and professional time expended on an activity. Indirect labor costs include labor provided by bureaus and offices that provide direct support to the fee-generating offices in their efforts to provide services, and include managerial and supervisory costs associated with providing a particular service. Other indirect costs include Government overhead costs, such as fringe benefits and other wage-related Government contributions contained in OMB Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities (revised May 29, 2003) and office general and administrative expenses.3 The sum of these indirect cost components gives an indirect cost factor that is added to the direct labor costs of an activity to arrive at the fully distributed cost.

    3 OMB Circular A-76 lists the following indirect labor costs: Leave and holidays, retirement, worker's compensation, awards, health and life insurance, and Medicare. General and administrative costs are expressed as a percentage of basic pay. These include all salaries and overhead such as rent, utilities, supplies, and equipment allocated to Commission offices that provide direct support to fee-generating offices such as the Office of the Managing Director, Office of Information Technology, Office of Human Resources, Office of Budget and Finance, and the Office of Management Services.

    Proposed Fee Adjustments

    The adjustments the Commission proposes will allow some user fees to remain unchanged; increase, reduce, or delete other fees; and add one new fee. The Commission proposes making upward adjustments of fees to reflect increases in salary and indirect (overhead) costs. For some services, an increase in processing or review time may account for all or part of increase in the amount of the proposed fees. For other services, fees may be lower than current fees due to an overall reduced cost to provide those services.

    The Commission assesses nominal processing fees for services related to the filing of complaints and certain petitions; various public information services, such as records searches, document copying, and admissions to practice; and filing applications for special permission. Due to an increase in the processing cost of these services, the Commission is proposing adjusting upward these administrative fees based on an assessment of fiscal year 2015 costs. Similarly, the Commission proposes adjusting upward the user fees associated with agreements filed under 46 CFR part 535 because of the increase in reviewing and analyzing the agreement filings.

    With respect to OTI license applications, the Commission offers lower fees for electronic filing of license applications through its FMC-18 automated filing system. The Commission first adopted lower fees in 2007 to promote the use of the electronic filing option by the public and to facilitate the transfer of OTI records from a paper-based format to a more convenient and accessible digital format.4 As intended, the majority of OTI applicants are using the automated system and paying the reduced fees. In fiscal year 2015, the total number of OTI applicants using the automated filing system at the reduced fees was 619, and the total number of OTI applicants filing their applications in paper format at the higher fees was 44. This program has been successful and the Commission proposes continuing to offer the lower fees for electronic filing at the current fee amounts.5

    4 FMC Docket No. 07-08, Optional Method of Filing Form FMC-18, Application for a License as an Ocean Transportation Intermediary, 72 FR 44976, 44977 (Aug. 10, 2007).

    5 While the automated filing system allows users to file their applications electronically, the automated system for processing the applications is still under development. The fees for the electronic filing of OTI applications will be addressed by the Commission when the entire FMC-18 automated system is complete and operational, and the costs of the system and its impact on the review of OTI applications can be quantified.

    The Commission proposes decreasing fees for the Commission's services to passenger vessel operators (PVOs) under 46 CFR part 540. These services include reviewing and processing the application for certification on performance; the supplemental application on performance for the addition or substitution of a vessel; the application for certification on casualty, and the supplemental application on casualty for the addition or substitution of a vessel.

    For reviews of requests filed under FOIA, the Commission proposes lowering the fees due to the change in grade level of the professional staff that review FOIA requests. For revisions of clerical errors on service contracts, the Commission proposes lowing the fee due to the reduction in processing time.

    The Commission proposes repealing the user fee for obtaining a copy of the Regulated Persons Index given that it is currently available on the Commission's Web site. The Commission also proposes repealing the current fee assessed for adding an interested party to a specific docket mailing list under § 503.50(d), and the fee assessed under § 535.401(h) for obtaining a Commission agreement database report.

    In addition, the Commission proposes repealing the user fee for filing petitions for rulemaking found in § 503.51(a). This would align the Commission with the practice of other agencies, the vast majority of which do not impose a fee to file petitions for rulemaking. Repealing this user fee would also enhance access to the rulemaking process, thereby making it fairer and more open.

    The Commission also proposes adding a new fee for processing requests for expedited review of an agreement under § 535.605, which allows filing parties to request that the 45-day waiting period be shortened to meet an operational urgency. The Commission believes that a fee for processing such requests is necessary to recoup the cost of publishing a separate Federal Register notice for expedited review. This new fee would be assessed in addition to the underlying agreement filing fee required by § 535.401(g).

    The Commission welcomes comments on its new fee calculation methodology and possible fee adjustments.

    Regulatory Analysis and Notices Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities and prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), unless the agency head determines that the regulatory action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed adjusted user fees reflect the costs of specific Commission services for identifiable recipients. The economic impact of user fees on a small entity results from the entity requesting a particular service that requires payment of a fee for that service. The dollar amount of each user fee proposed in this rule is not substantial enough to have a significant economic impact on any entity subject to the user fee. The proposed increases in user fees is below the rise in inflation and employment cost from the last assessment in fiscal year 2004. Furthermore, the Commission's regulations provide for a waiver or reduction of any fee in extraordinary situations. 46 CFR 503.42. The Chairman of the Commission, therefore, certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.6

    6 In extraordinary situations, the Commission will accept requests for waivers or fee reductions. Such request must demonstrate that the waiver or reduction of a fee is in the best interest of the public, or that payment of a fee would impose an undue hardship.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before making most requests for information if the agency is requesting information from more than ten persons. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in proposed rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of the proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11. The Commission is not proposing any collections of information, as defined by 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), as part of this proposed rule.

    Regulation Identifier Number

    The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.

    List of Subjects 46 CFR Part 502

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal access to justice, Investigations, Lawyers, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 503

    Classified information, Freedom of Information, Privacy, Sunshine Act.

    46 CFR Part 515

    Exports, Freight forwarders, Non-vessel-operating common carriers, Ocean transportation intermediaries, Licensing requirements, Financial responsibility requirements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 520

    Common carrier, Freight, Intermodal transportation, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 530

    Freight, Maritime carriers, Report and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 531

    Freight, Maritime carriers, Report and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 535

    Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 540

    Insurance, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

    46 CFR Part 550

    Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers.

    46 CFR Part 551

    Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers.

    46 CFR Part 555

    Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations, Maritime carriers.

    46 CFR Part 560

    Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers.

    For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Maritime Commission proposes to amend 46 CFR parts 502, 503, 515, 520, 530, 535, 540, 550, 555, and 560 as follows:

    PART 502—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 502 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 504, 551, 552, 553, 556(c), 559, 561-569, 571-584; 591-596; 18 U.S.C. 207; 28 U.S.C. 2112(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40103-40104, 40304, 40306, 40501-40503, 40701-40706, 41101-41109, 41301-41309, 44101-44106; 5 CFR part 2635.

    Subpart D—Rulemaking
    § 502.51 [Amended]
    2. In § 502.51, amend paragraph (a) by removing “§ 502.74” and adding in its place “§ 502.69” and removing the fourth sentence. Subpart E—Proceedings; Pleadings; Motions; Replies 3. In § 502.62, paragraph (a)(6) is revised to read as follows:
    § 502.62 Private party complaints for formal adjudication.

    (a) * * *

    (6) Filing fee: The complaint must be accompanied by remittance of a $289 filing fee.

    4. In § 502.75, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 502.75 Declaratory orders and fee.

    (a) * * *

    (3) Petitions must be accompanied by remittance of a $289 filing fee.

    5. In § 502.76, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 502.76 Petitions-general and fee.

    (b) Petitions must be accompanied by remittance of a $289 filing fee. [Rule 76.]

    Subpart K—Shortened Procedure 6. The last sentence of § 502.182 is revised to read as follows:
    § 502.182 Complaint and memorandum of facts and arguments and filing fee.

    * * * The complaint must be accompanied by remittance of a $289 filing fee. [Rule 182.]

    Subpart Q—Refund or Waiver of Freight Charges 7. In § 502.271, revise paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:
    § 502.271 Special docket application for permission to refund or waive freight charges.

    (d) * * *

    (5) Applications must be accompanied by remittance of a $117 filing fee.

    Subpart S—Informal Procedure for Adjudication of Small Claims 8. The last sentence of § 502.304(b) is revised to read as follows:
    § 502.304 Procedure and filing fee.

    (b) * * * Such claims must be accompanied by remittance of an $85 filing fee.

    PART 503—PUBLIC INFORMATION 9. The authority citation for Part 503 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 331, 552, 552a, 552b, 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 13526 of January 5, 2010 (75 FR 707), sections 5.1(a) and (b).

    10. In § 503.50, Paragraph (c)(1) introductory text, paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii); the first sentence of paragraph (c)(2); paragraph (c)(3)(i), (ii) and (iii), paragraph (c)(4); and paragraph (e) are revised to read as follows:
    § 503.50 Fees for services.

    (c) * * *

    (1) Records search (including electronic search) will be performed by Commission personnel at the following rates:

    (i) Search will be performed by clerical/administrative personnel at a rate of $27 per hour and by professional/executive personnel at a rate of $57 per hour.

    (ii) Minimum charge for record search is $27.

    (2) Charges for review of records to determine whether they are exempt from disclosure under § 503.33 must be assessed to recover full costs at the rate of $57 per hour. * * *

    (3) * * *

    (i) If performed by requesting party at the rate of ten cents per page (one side).

    (ii) By Commission personnel, at the rate of ten cents per page (one side) plus $27 per hour.

    (iii) Minimum charge for copying is $5.

    (4) The certification and validation (with Federal Maritime Commission seal) of documents filed with or issued by the Commission will be available at $84 for each certification.

    (e) Applications for admission to practice before the Commission for persons not attorneys at law must be accompanied by a fee of $153 pursuant to § 502.27 of this chapter.

    Subpart H—Access to Any Record of Identifiable Personal Information 11. In § 503.69, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) are revised to read as follows:
    § 503.69 Fees.

    (b) * * *

    (1) The copying of records and documents will be available at the rate of ten cents per page (one side), limited to size 81/4″ x 14″ or smaller.

    (2) The certification and validation (with Federal Maritime Commission seal) of documents filed with or issued by the Commission will be available at $84 for each certification.

    PART 515—LICENSING, FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND GENERAL DUTIES FOR OCEAN TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES 12. The authority citation for part 515 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40102, 40104, 40501-40503, 40901-40904, 41101-41109, 41301-41302, 41305-41307; Pub. L. 105-383,112 Stat. 3411; 21 U.S.C. 862.

    Subpart A—General 13. In § 515.5, paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) are revised to read as follows:
    § 515.5 Forms and Fees.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Application for new OTI license as required by § 515.12(a): Automated filing $250; paper filing pursuant to waiver $1,055.

    (ii) Application for change to OTI license or license transfer as required by § 515.20(a) and (b): Automated filing $125; paper filing pursuant to waiver $735.

    Subpart D—Duties and Responsibilities of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries; Reports to Commission 14. The last sentence of § 515.34 is removed and the second sentence is revised to read as follows:
    § 515.34 Regulated Persons Index.

    * * * The database is available at no charge on the Commission's Web site at www.fmc.gov.

    PART 520—CARRIER AUTOMATED TARIFFS 15. The authority citation for part 520 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40101-40102, 40501-40503, 40701-40706, 41101-41109.

    Subpart B—Filing Requirements 16. The last sentence of § 520.14 paragraph (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:
    § 520.14 Special permission.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * * Every such application must be submitted to the Bureau of Trade Analysis and be accompanied by a filing fee of $299.

    PART 530—SERVICE CONTRACTS 17. The authority citation for part 530 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40301-40306, 40501-40503, 41307.

    Subpart B—Filing Requirements 18. In § 530.10 paragraph (c) introuductory text is revised to read as follows:
    § 530.10 Amendment, correction, cancellation, and electronic transmission errors.

    (c) Corrections. Requests must be filed, in duplicate, with the Commission's Office of the Secretary within forty-five (45) days of the contract's filing with the Commission, accompanied by remittance of an $95 service fee, and must include:

    PART 531—NVOCC SERVICE ARRANGEMENTS 19. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 40103.

    20. In § 531.8 paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:
    § 531.8 Amendment, correction, cancellation, and electronic transmission errors.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Requests must be filed, in duplicate, with the Commission's Office of the Secretary within forty-five (45) days of the contract's filing with the Commission, accompanied by remittance of an $95 service fee.

    PART 535—AGREEMENTS BY OCEAN COMMON CARRIERS AND OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1984 21. The authority citation for part 535 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40101-40104, 40301-40307, 40501-40503, 40901-40904, 41101-41109, 41301-41302, and 41305-41307.

    Subpart D—Filing of Agreements 22. In § 535.401 paragraphs (g) and (h) are revised to read as follows:
    § 535.401 General requirements.

    (g) Fees. The filing fee is $3,218 for new agreements and any agreement modifications requiring Commission review and action; $526 for agreements processed under delegated authority (for types of agreements that can be processed under delegated authority, see § 501.27(e) of this chapter); $303 for carrier exempt agreements; and $90 for terminal exempt agreements.

    (h) The fee for a request for expedited review of an agreement pursuant to § 535.605 is $159. This fee must be paid in addition to the carrier agreement filing fee required by paragraph (g) of this section.

    PART 540—PASSENGER VESSEL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 23. The authority citation for part 540 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552, 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 44101-44106.

    Subpart A—Proof of Financial Responsibility, Bonding and Certification of Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation 24. The last two sentences in § 540.4 paragraph (e) are revised to read as follows:
    § 540.4 Procedure for establishing financial responsibility.

    (e) * * * An application for a Certificate (Performance), excluding an application for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet, must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $2,284 An application for a Certificate (Performance) for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $1,224.

    Subpart B—Proof of Financial Responsibility, Bonding and Certification of Financial Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages 25. The last two sentences in § 540.23 paragraph (b) are revised to read as follows:
    § 540.23 Procedure for establishing financial responsibility.

    (b) * * * An application for a Certificate (Casualty), excluding an application for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet, must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $1,085. An application for a Certificate (Casualty) for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $593.

    Subpart D—Petitions for Section 19 Relief 26. Revise § 550.402 to read as follows:
    § 550.402 Filing of petitions.

    Except for petitions for rulemaking, all requests for relief from conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade must be by written petition. An original and fifteen copies of a petition for relief under the provisions of this part must be filed with the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. The petition must be accompanied by remittance of a $289 filing fee.

    PART 555—ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ADVERSE CONDITIONS AFFECTING U.S.-FLAG CARRIERS THAT DO NOT EXIST FOR FOREIGN CARRIERS IN THE UNITED STATES 27. The authority citation for part 555 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. 42301-42307).

    28. The last sentence in § 555.4 paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 555.4 Petitions.

    (a) * * * The petition must be accompanied by remittance of a $289 filing fee.

    PART 560—ACTIONS TO ADDRESS CONDITIONS UNDULY IMPAIRING ACCESS OF U.S.-FLAG VESSELS TO OCEAN TRADE BETWEEN FOREIGN PORTS 29. The authority citation for part 560 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; secs. 13(b)(6), 15 and 17 of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 305, 40104, and 41108(d); sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. 42301-42307).

    30. The last sentence in § 560.3 paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
    § 560.3 Petitions for relief.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * * The petition must be accompanied by remittance of a $289 filing fee.

    By the Commission.

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12326 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 79 [MB Docket No. 11-43; FCC 16-37] Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission seeks comment on proposals to expand the amount of and access to video described programming, for the benefit of consumers who are blind or visually impaired.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before June 27, 2016; reply comments are due on or before July 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 11-43, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority Mail must be addressed to the FCC Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    Hand or Messenger Delivery: All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the FCC Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530; or TTY: 202-418-0432.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “PROCEDURAL MATTERS” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lyle Elder, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918 or send an email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 16-37, adopted on March 31, 2016, and released on April 1, 2016. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for persons with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    I. Introduction

    1. Since the video description rules were reinstated, they have provided substantial benefits to persons who are blind or visually impaired by making television programming more accessible. Through video description, individuals who are blind or visually impaired can independently enjoy and follow popular television programs and be more fully included in the shared cultural experience that television offers. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “the Commission”) is now proposing revisions to our rules that would expand the availability of, and support consumer access to, video described programming. In 2011, the Commission took the initial step in expanding access to video description, by reinstating the 2000 rules as directed by Section 202 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (“CVAA”).1 The CVAA gives the Commission authority, subject to certain limitations, to issue additional regulations, if the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs.2 As discussed in greater detail below, we tentatively conclude that the substantial benefits for individuals who are blind or visually impaired outweigh the likely minimal costs of the proposals we make in this NPRM.

    1Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 11847, 11849, para. 3 (2011) (“2011 Order”).

    2 Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, sec. 202 (2010). See 47 U.S.C. 613(f)(4).

    2. Specifically, we propose the following revisions to our video description rules:

    • An increase in the amount of described programming on each included network (a network carried on a programming stream or channel on which a broadcaster or MVPD is required to provide video description) carried by a covered broadcast station or multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”), from 50 hours per calendar quarter to 87.5;

    • An increase in the number of included networks carried by covered distributors, from four broadcast and five nonbroadcast networks to five broadcast and ten nonbroadcast networks;

    • Adoption of a no-backsliding rule, which would ensure that once a network is designated an “included network” required to provide description, it would remain an “included network” even if it falls out of the top five or top ten ranking;

    • Removal of the threshold requirement that nonbroadcast networks reach 50 percent of pay-TV (or MVPD) households in order to be subject to inclusion;

    • A requirement that covered distributors provide dedicated customer service contacts who can answer questions about video description; and

    • A requirement that petitions for exemptions from the video description requirements, together with comments on or objections to such petitions, be filed with the Commission electronically.

    We seek comment on our tentative conclusion regarding the costs and benefits of these proposed rules, on the proposed rules themselves, on appropriate timelines for the proposed rules, and on other possible changes to the rules to ensure that blind and visually impaired consumers have access to television programming.

    II. Background

    3. The CVAA was enacted on October 8, 2010 for the purpose of ensuring that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize modern communications services and equipment and to better access video programming.3 As part of this legislation, Congress mandated that the Commission reinstate its previously adopted video description rules for television programming, required periodic reports on issues related to video description, and granted the Commission continuing authority to adopt additional regulations so long as the benefits of those new regulations outweigh their costs. Video description makes video programming accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired through “[t]he insertion of audio narrated descriptions of a television program's key visual elements into natural pauses between the program's dialogue,” and is typically provided through the use of a secondary audio stream, which allows the consumer to choose whether to hear the narration by switching from the main program audio.

    3 Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010). See H.R. Rep. No. 111-563, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. at 19 (2010); S. Rep. No. 111-386, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. at 1 (2010).

    4. In August 2011, the Commission reinstated the video description regulations that previously had been adopted in 2000, requiring certain television broadcast stations and MVPDs to provide video description for a portion of the video programming that they offer to consumers on television.4 These covered broadcasters and MVPDs are required to provide video described programming only on certain networks, as defined by our rules. The Commission's rules play a key role in affording better access to television programs for individuals who are blind or visually impaired, “enabling millions more Americans to enjoy the benefits of television service and participate more fully in the cultural and civic life of the nation.” 5

    4 47 CFR 79.3. See generally 2011 Order. See also Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 2975 (2011) (“Reinstatement NPRM”).

    52011 Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 11848, para. 1.

    5. The Commission's video description rules require commercial television broadcast stations that are affiliated with ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC and are located in the top 60 television markets to provide 50 hours per calendar quarter of video described prime time or children's programming.6 In addition, MVPD systems that serve 50,000 or more subscribers must provide 50 hours of video description per calendar quarter during prime time or children's programming on each of the top five national nonbroadcast networks that they carry on those systems.7 The nonbroadcast networks currently subject to these video description requirements are USA, TNT, TBS, History, and Disney Channel.8 Any programming initially aired with video description must include video description if it is re-aired on the same station or MVPD channel, unless the station or MVPD is using the technology for another program-related purpose.

    6 Although the reinstated rules originally applied to the top 25 television markets, as of July 1, 2015, the rules were extended to the top four broadcasters in the top 60 television markets. 47 CFR 79.3(b)(2).

    7 For purposes of the rules, the top five national nonbroadcast networks are defined by an average of the national audience share during prime time of nonbroadcast networks that reach 50 percent or more of MVPD households and have at least 50 hours per quarter of prime time programming that is not live or near-live or otherwise exempt under the video description rules. 47 CFR 79.3(b)(4).

    8Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Order and Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 2071, 2071, para. 1 (2015) (“Update Order”). The list of the top five networks is updated every three years in response to any changes in ratings. 47 CFR 79.3(b)(4). The Update Order was the first of these periodic updates. Absent any revision to our rules, the next update will be in effect on July 1, 2018 based on the ratings for the time period from October 2016 to September 2017, and will be announced earlier in 2018.

    6. The rules also impose video description “pass through” obligations on all network-affiliated broadcast stations regardless of market size, and on all MVPDs regardless of the number of subscribers. Specifically, any broadcast station affiliated or otherwise associated with a television network must pass through video description when it is provided by the network, if the station has the technical capability necessary to do so 9 and if that technology is not being used for another purpose related to the programming. Similarly, MVPD systems of any size must pass through video description provided by a broadcast station or nonbroadcast network, if the channel on which the MVPD distributes the station or programming has the technical capability necessary to do so and if that technology is not being used for another purpose related to the programming. Broadcasters and MVPDs were required to be in compliance with the video description requirements beginning on July 1, 2012. The rules permit covered entities to seek a full or partial exemption based on economic burden; we have received no such exemption requests to date.

    9 A station or MVPD system is technically capable of passing through video description if it has virtually all necessary equipment and infrastructure to do so, except for items that would be of minimal cost. 2011 Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 11861, para. 27. See also 2000 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 15243, para. 30. We expect that all stations and MVPDs now have this capability, because of the requirement to provide audible emergency information to persons who are blind or visually impaired, which is also accomplished by means of a secondary audio stream.

    7. Pursuant to the direction of the CVAA, not more than two years after the completion of the phase-in of the reinstated video description rules, the Commission submitted a report to Congress with findings relating to the costs and benefits of video description “in television programming” and “in video programming distributed on the Internet.” 10 With regard to the video description rules that are currently in place, the report concluded that “[t]he availability of video description on television programming has provided substantial benefits for individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” Notably, the report found that video description greatly enhances the experience of viewing video programming because viewers who are blind or visually impaired no longer miss critical visual elements of television programming and, therefore, can fully understand and enjoy the program without having to rely on their sighted family members and friends to narrate these visual elements. Commenters expressed that this ability to watch video programming independently is an incredibly important benefit of video description. In addition, the report found that “industry appears to have largely complied with their responsibilities under the Commission's 2011 rules,” and that the rules have been implemented without exceptional or unexpected costs. It also found, however, that “consumers report the need for increased availability of and easier access to video-described programming.” With respect to video programming distributed on the Internet, the report found that there would be substantial benefits to wider availability, but that there were potential technical challenges and insufficient information to analyze costs. In February of 2016, the Video Description Working Group of the Video Programming Subcommittee of the FCC's Disability Advisory Committee released a list of recommended issues for our consideration; those issues are addressed throughout the item.11

    10Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Report to Congress, 29 FCC Rcd 8011 (2014) (“2014 Report”). See 47 U.S.C. 613(f)(3).

    11Recommendation of the FCC Disability Advisory Committee, Video Description Working Group of the Video Programming Subcommittee, MB Docket 11-43 (Feb. 23, 2016) (“DAC Letter”).

    III. Authority

    8. Additional Regulations and Cost/Benefit Analysis. As discussed in more detail below, we tentatively conclude that the statutory requirement for the Commission to issue additional video description regulations is satisfied because “the need for and benefits of” providing video described programming as proposed here would be “greater than the technical and economic costs” if the rules are adopted. The statute grants the Commission “continuing authority” to regulate the provision of video described programming. Our continuing authority, however, is contingent on a finding that the benefits of additional video described programming outweigh the costs. Specifically, we may issue “additional regulations” if we determine that “the need for and benefits of” any video described programming required by the new rules “are greater than the technical and economic costs.” Furthermore, Congress directed us not to make such a determination until at least two years after release of the 2014 Report; as a result, the earliest the Commission can issue additional regulations is June 30, 2016. We therefore will take full consideration of the Report's findings, as well as the comments in this proceeding, when determining the relative costs and benefits of adopting additional requirements.

    9. The 2014 Report found that “[v]ideo description provides significant benefits to individuals who are blind or visually impaired” by allowing “them greater independence and the ability to follow and understand television programs.” One commenter to the proceeding expressed that she enjoys video description immensely when it is available because “[m]ost television shows are pointless to me unless I have description.” Commenters who provided input for the Report described how video description allows them to directly follow the visual elements of television programming, including “expressions, scene changes, visual jokes, and even things like visual clues in a murder mystery.” For example, one commenter noted that without video description “I'd just hear exciting music and have to guess what was happening, but now I can hear how the good guys caught the bad guys, or about the significant looks exchanged by two characters, or how the good guy escaped from some impossible situation. It's great!” Commenters explained that this information is essential for providing access to the storytelling in what is a fundamentally visual medium, including for viewers who are not blind but who still can have difficulty with small visual details. Of arguably even more significance is the way this direct access to video programming provides greater independence to persons who are blind or visually impaired. Commenters made clear the immense value of not having to rely on spouses, family members, or friends to keep them “up to speed” on television programming. They talked about the value of being able to enjoy a program without waiting for someone else to want to watch the same thing, and “interrupt their own viewing pleasure to try to tell [them] what was going on.” As Mr. Rodgers' comment makes clear, the benefits of this independence accrue not just to viewers who are blind or visually impaired, but to the members of their households as well. We seek comment on whether there are any other studies or data points about the use and benefits of video description that should inform our deliberations.

    10. While the benefits of video description are extensive, video description itself remains in relatively limited supply, and can be difficult to access even where it exists. The 2014 Report noted that consumers “[o]verwhelmingly . . . desire an increased amount of video description in television programming”; have “concerns regarding the availability of information about which television programs are video-described”; and “express frustration with the quality of customer support service for video description.”

    11. The 2014 Report also found that there were “no significant issues with regard to the technical or creative aspects” of providing video description, and that

    [t]he costs of video description are consistent with the expectations of industry at the time of rule adoption, and covered entities do not indicate that the costs of video description have impeded their ability to comply with the video description rules. At the time of the 2014 Report, these costs included the “start-up” costs of developing the technical capability to provide video description, but, as explained in the Report, every distributor should now have that technical capacity.12 The costs also include the actual description of video programming. According to the National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”), the one-time cost to have an hour of programming video described can range from $2,500 to $4,100. The 2014 Report also observed that there had been no petitions for exemption based on economic burden, and that has continued to be the case even after the requirements were extended to broadcasters in smaller television markets. Since the initial rules were adopted, some distributors have provided video description in live and other marquee events.13 In the 2014 Report, industry commenters noted that some included networks provide more hours than are required, and anticipate that the amount of described programming by some networks would grow even in the absence of additional regulation.

    12 As of May 26, 2015, covered broadcasters and MVPDs are required to have the necessary equipment and infrastructure to deliver a secondary audio stream in order to provide timely, audible emergency information to consumers who are blind or visually impaired, which is required by our rules without exception for technical capability. Since video description is also provided via the secondary audio stream, compliance with the emergency information requirement will give covered broadcasters and MVPDs the technical capability to comply with the video description requirements. 47 CFR 79.2(b)(2)(ii) (implementing 47 U.S.C. 613(g)). See also 2014 Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 8028-29, para. 37.

    13 For example, people who are blind or visually impaired were able to join “millions of Americans enjoying [the December 3, 2015] live broadcast of The Wiz on NBC, thanks to video description of the production.” Alix Hackett, Perkins Students Enjoy Accessible Broadcast of ‘The Wiz Live!', Dec. 4, 2015, http://www.perkins.org/stories/news/perkins-students-enjoy-accessible-broadcast-of-the-wiz-live. Carl Augusto, CEO of the American Foundation for the Blind, called the live description of The Wiz a “godsend to people with vision loss.” Comcast, NBC Add Video Descriptions to ‘The Wiz Live!', Multichannel News, Dec. 2, 2015, http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/comcast-nbc-add-video-descriptions-wiz-live/395671 (“This nationally described television broadcast will not only be a godsend to people with vision loss, but also to those who describe action to people with vision loss, and the general public, who will learn about the importance of audio description.”). CBS broadcast a two-hour special called “Stevie Wonder: Songs in the Key of Life—An All-Star Grammy Salute” with video description. See CBS' Stevie Wonder Special to Air with Video Description for Visually Impaired, Feb. 11, 2015, http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/CBS-Stevie-Wonder-Special-to-Air-with-Video-Description-for-Visually-Impaired-20150211.

    12. When the Commission reinstated the video description rules in 2011, it anticipated that the reinstated rules would “enabl[e] millions more Americans to enjoy the benefits of television service and participate more fully in the cultural and civic life of the nation,” and considered it “unlikely that the modest requirement of 50 hours per quarter will be economically burdensome.” Our experience to date has confirmed the soundness of those predictions. As discussed below, we are proposing to increase the amount of described programming and make it more accessible. Given the extensive benefits to consumers of the existing requirements, we believe that they will benefit further from the proposed new requirements. We also have no evidence that the total cost of the additional description requirements or our other proposals will impose substantial economic burdens. Given the information currently in the record in this proceeding, we tentatively conclude that “the need for and benefits of” the increased availability and accessibility of video described programming would be “greater than the technical and economic costs” if the rules we propose are adopted. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and the analysis set forth above. To the extent possible, commenters should provide specific data and information, such as actual or estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit addressed, including a description of how the data or information was calculated or obtained, and any supporting documentation or other evidentiary support.

    13. Limitation. If the Commission decides to issue additional regulations, the CVAA places a restriction on any increase in the number of hours required to be video described. Paragraph (4)(B) of the CVAA, entitled “Limitation,” reads:

    If the Commission makes the determination under subparagraph (A) and issues additional regulations, the Commission may not increase, in total, the hour requirement for additional described programming by more than 75 percent of the requirement in the regulations reinstated under paragraph (1).

    The requirement in the reinstated regulations is the same for all included networks—50 hours of video description, per calendar quarter.14 75 percent of those 50 hours is 37.5 hours. We therefore read this provision to grant the Commission continuing authority to increase the per-network requirement by 37.5 hours (i.e., up to 87.5 hours per quarter), but no more than this amount.

    14 The rules as reinstated require distributors—broadcast stations and covered MVPDs—to provide video description. As a practical matter, however, the included networks themselves, rather than the broadcast stations and MVPDs, generally bear the efforts of preparing and providing video description, which the distributors pass through. 2011 Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 11851-52, para. 8.

    14. We find unpersuasive an alternative reading that suggests this provision caps the number of hours of video description a distributor must provide across all covered networks it carries. First, the CVAA's “Limitation” provision says nothing about any increase in the hour requirement being constrained by the number of included networks. The CVAA and reinstated rules imposed the “hour requirement” on MVPDs on a per-channel basis, and on broadcasters on a per-programming stream basis. Thus, we believe that the continuing authority limitation is best interpreted as applying on a per-channel and per-programming stream basis; the alternative reading would import an aggregate calculation that is simply foreign to the statute and regulations. Second, the Commission cannot control the aggregate number of hours of described programming carried by a given distributor, because that depends on the networks they choose to carry. For example, one MVPD might choose to carry a large number of covered networks, while another might carry few of them, making an aggregate limitation apply differently to different MVPDs. For this reason, we believe an approach that focuses on the hours required for individual included networks, rather than on a theoretical aggregate number of hours that a distributor may or may not carry, better effectuates Congress's goals. We read the phrase “in total” in the statute to mean that if the Commission increases the required hours per-network of video-described programming in increments, the total increase cannot exceed 75 percent. Finally, we think that if Congress intended to restrict the Commission from increasing the number of included entities, it would have done so explicitly, just as it did by specifying the maximum number of covered DMAs that the rule could be revised to reach over time. We seek comment on our analysis of the statute's hourly limitation.

    15. Additional Designated Market Areas. In addition, the CVAA lays out a clear timeline for phasing in the video description regulations in designated market areas (“DMAs”) beyond the 25 included in the initial reinstated rules. A DMA is a Nielsen-defined television market consisting of a unique group of counties. The United States is divided into 210 DMA markets. Nielsen identifies television markets by placing each U.S. county (except for certain counties in Alaska) in a market based on measured viewing patterns and by MVPD distribution. The expansion to the top 60 DMAs occurred in 2015, pursuant to the existing rules. We may not expand beyond these 60 television markets, however, until 2020 at the earliest, and then only after completion of an additional study and report to Congress. The explicit timeline established by the CVAA does not contemplate any alternative approach to expanding the number of covered DMAs. As a result, it limits the Commission's authority to issue video description rules, at this time, to the top 60 television markets currently covered. We seek comment on this understanding of the scope of our authority.

    16. Television Programming. Finally, we limit our proposals to programming “transmitted for display on television.” The 2014 Report did consider the issues, costs, and benefits of “[v]ideo description in video programming distributed on the Internet,” per the directive of the CVAA. The report discussed a range of comments supportive and skeptical of our authority to impose video description requirements on programming distributed on the Internet. We do not propose taking any action at this time with regard to video description on Internet programming.

    IV. Increased Availability of Video Described Programming

    17. We propose to increase the quarterly requirement for video described programming to 87.5 hours and to require six additional networks to provide such programing. The existing requirements have proven to be highly beneficial to persons who are blind or visually impaired, and we believe that these proposals will yield similar benefits. At the same time, we do not anticipate that the marginal cost of additional described programming would be higher than it is under the current rules or that the total cost of the requirements would be economically burdensome. As discussed above, in the 2014 Report we noted that the one-time cost to have an hour of programming video described can range from $2,500 to $4,100. This would constitute roughly 0.08-0.20 percent of the budget of an episode of an hour-long television drama, which regularly costs between $2.0 and $3.0 million.15 We seek comment on whether there will be any other costs associated with the proposed increase. Accordingly, as noted above, we tentatively conclude that the benefits of our proposal will outweigh the costs, and we seek input on this tentative conclusion.

    15See Bill Carter, Cable TV, the Home of High Drama, N.Y. Times, Apr. 5, 2010, at B1.

    A. Hours per Included Network

    18. As discussed above, the CVAA gives us authority to increase the number of hours of described programming required to be aired on each included broadcast and nonbroadcast network carried by an entity subject to the rules, from 50 per quarter to no more than 87.5. Given the extensive benefits and reasonable costs of video described programming, we propose to revise our rules to require the full 87.5 hours per quarter, per included network. Consumers have supported an increase in available video described programming. Although we propose to increase the total number of hours to the maximum extent permissible under the CVAA, the total amount of hours required per covered network will remain relatively small (i.e., 87.5 hours per quarter amounts to approximately 6 hours and 45 minutes per week in a 13 week calendar quarter). As discussed above in paragraph 11, we have no evidence of compliance difficulties for covered distributors or the currently-included networks, and we do not believe any would arise if a limited amount of additional programming were required. Comments filed in the 2014 Report proceeding indicate that at least some networks are already offering as much described programming as would be required under the proposed revision to the rules. As discussed above, we anticipate that “the need for and benefits of” the increased availability of video described programming would be “greater than the technical and economic costs” of providing this additional video described programming. We seek comment on this proposal.

    19. Commenters in this docket previously have expressed concern about having sufficient eligible prime time and children's programming to meet the requirement. In the 2011 Order, the Commission “note[d] and acknowledge[d] NCTA's point that due to special circumstances, a covered network could theoretically have fewer than 50 hours of scheduled prime-time or children's programming that can count toward the requirement in a given quarter.” However, the Commission “anticipate[d] that these instances [would] be exceedingly rare” because included networks “air many, many hours of prime-time and children's programming each quarter.” The Commission suggested that, if such a situation arose, a programming distributor or provider could seek a waiver for the relevant quarter under the Commission's general waiver authority. No such waivers have been requested under the existing rules. However, given the proposed increase in described hours, we seek comment on whether we should make any other changes to the rules to provide more flexibility. For instance, should we allow some amount of non-prime time, non-children's described programming to count toward the increased requirement? If we do, should we continue to require that at least 50 hours per quarter be provided in either prime time or children's programming? Should we require that any described programming that is counted toward the requirement run between 6 a.m. and Midnight local time? We seek comment on these questions.

    B. Covered Networks

    20. We propose to extend the requirement to provide video description to additional networks. It currently applies when a covered broadcast station carries one of four named commercial broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) or when a covered MVPD carries one of five popular nonbroadcast networks. We propose to increase these to five broadcast, and ten nonbroadcast, networks. The benefits of video described programming are abundant, and experience to date has borne out predictions regarding the reasonable costs of adding description to programming.

    21. Given the obvious parallels to closed captioning, which is required on virtually all television programming, it is not surprising that commenters have called for expanding the requirement for video description, with some going so far as to suggest that we echo the closed captioning requirement to extend the rules to virtually all programming. In the CVAA, however, Congress directed us to expand the video description rules in a measured fashion. Any proposed expansion must satisfy the statutory test that asks whether “the need for and benefits of” the additional video described programming would be “greater than the technical and economic costs” of providing it. In recognition of this directive for a measured approach, we propose a limited increase in the number of included broadcast and nonbroadcast networks on which covered broadcasters and MVPDs must provide video description. We believe that this approach will have a significant benefit to viewers who are blind or visually impaired, given the popularity of the additional programming networks. We seek comment below on whether we should add more or fewer networks at this time, and what the grounds would be for choosing any specific number of networks.

    22. First, we propose to revise our rules to require any commercial television broadcast station that (i) is affiliated with ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC or with any other of the top five commercial television broadcast networks, and (ii) is located in the top 60 television markets, to provide 87.5 hours per calendar quarter of video described prime time or children's programming on each programming stream on which they carry these networks. The original video description rules that Congress directed the Commission to reinstate specifically identified ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC as subject to the description requirement. We propose to revise our rules to include those four networks, as well as any others in the top five nationally, determined triennially.16 Barring any significant changes to the marketplace, we anticipate this rule change would result in one additional broadcast network being aired with 87.5 hours per quarter (or approximately 6 hours and 45 minutes per week in a 13 week calendar quarter) of video described programming.

    16 The “top five” commercial broadcast networks will be determined in the same fashion as the nonbroadcast networks under the existing and proposed rules. Thus, every three years they will be the top five as determined by an average of the national audience share during prime time of broadcast networks, as calculated by Nielsen for the preceding ratings year, and that has at least 50 hours per quarter of prime time programming that is not live or near-live or otherwise exempt under the video description rules. As discussed above, the “top five” will include ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC, regardless of their relative rankings. In the event that one or more of those named networks suffers a sustained drop below fifth place in relative broadcast network rankings, the “top five” broadcast networks for the purposes of these rules could consist of more than five networks.

    23. In addition, we propose to revise our rules to require any MVPD system that serves 50,000 or more subscribers to provide 87.5 hours of video description per calendar quarter during prime time or children's programming on each channel on which they carry one of the top ten national nonbroadcast networks.17 In adopting the current video description rules, the Commission recognized that the popularity of programming networks shifts over time, and therefore adopted a requirement that we review network ratings every three years to determine the top five. We propose to continue the existing review process, but to expand the number of included networks from five to ten. Because the number of nonbroadcast networks is much larger than the number of broadcast networks,18 we believe it is appropriate to include a larger increase in covered nonbroadcast networks. If adopted, once the new rules are in effect, a covered MVPD would be required to provide 87.5 hours per quarter of video described programming on each of the top ten nonbroadcast networks that it carries. Below, we discuss the timing for implementation of these proposed revisions.

    17 As under the current rules, these “top ten” would be determined by an average of the national audience share during prime time of nonbroadcast networks, as calculated by Nielsen for the preceding ratings year, and that has at least 50 hours per quarter of prime time programming that is not live or near-live or otherwise exempt under the video description rules.

    18 MVPD subscribers to the most popular tiers of service have access to more than six times as many nonbroadcast networks as broadcast networks. Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and Equipment, MM Docket No. 92-266, Report on Cable Industry Prices, 29 FCC Rcd 14895, 14905-06, Tbls. 4, 5 (MB 2014) (showing an average of 250.8 total available channels on the most subscribed tiers of service, of which an average of 31.6 are local broadcast channels; these include standard definition and high definition streams as well as secondary programming streams). But see infra note 21 (noting the “average” subscriber as determined by Nielsen actually receives around 180 channels; assuming the same number of broadcast channels in those average lineups, this would reflect roughly five times as many nonbroadcast as broadcast networks).

    24. With this proposal, we seek to ensure that consumers are able to realize the benefits of video description, keeping in mind our Congressional directive to proceed judiciously with any expansion of the requirements. Should we include more, or fewer, additional networks at this time? Commenters should provide justifications for any specific change in the number of included networks. Would an alternative approach to determining included networks, such as a rule that included networks based on a minimum average viewership level, or gross network revenues, be preferable to one based on relative prime time broadcast rankings? We seek comment on the proposed approach and any alternatives.

    C. Other Changes

    25. No Backsliding. We propose to adopt a “no-backsliding” requirement. Such a rule would state that once a network is designated an “included network” required to provide description, it would remain an “included network” even if it falls out of the top five or top ten ranking. Under the current rules, the covered nonbroadcast networks are those in the top five, recalculated triennially, and when a network drops from the top five during the applicable ratings period, as Nickelodeon did between 2012 and 2015,19 MVPDs are no longer required to provide video description on that network once the triennial period has ended.20 In 2011, the Commission declined to adopt a “no backsliding” rule, noting that it did not have authority at that time to go beyond the scope of the reinstated rules except to the extent provided by the CVAA. The Commission also noted, however, that it would have authority to adopt such a rule “after the passage of time and a review of [the rules'] impact.”

    19 Although Nickelodeon is no longer in the top five nonbroadcast networks currently subject to the video description rules, it appears that Nickelodeon has continued to provide video description voluntarily on some of its children's programming. See American Council of the Blind, The Audio Description Project, Video Described Shows by Network (updated 3/6/16), available at http://www.acb.org/adp/tv.html#shows.

    20 However, MVPDs must always pass through description on any channel if the network or broadcaster provides description, if they are not using that capacity for another program-related purpose. 47 CFR 79.3(b)(5).

    26. Given the passage of time and the continuing authority granted to the Commission in the CVAA to adopt additional video description regulations, we believe that we now have authority to adopt a “no-backsliding” rule. In addition, we believe that there are substantial policy benefits to ensuring that video described programming continues to be offered on networks currently subject to the rules. Once a broadcaster or MVPD begins to carry video described programming on a given network, it creates an expectation in consumers that they will be able to rely on that channel for described programming in the future. A “no-backsliding” rule would ensure that such consumer expectations are fulfilled, and would also result in an increased amount of video described programming for individuals who are blind or visually impaired, as the popularity of networks shifts over time and new networks become subject to the rule. Further, we believe that the burden of continued compliance by formerly covered networks would be limited to the actual costs of describing specific programs, which as discussed above are low relative to the overall costs of television production. Since any included network would be broadcast or carried with video description for at least three years, the processes for including video description in that networks' programming will have been well established by the next time the Commission reviews rankings.

    27. For these reasons, along with the extensive benefits and reasonable costs of video describing programming discussed above, we propose to adopt a “no-backsliding” requirement. We note that networks are not directly covered by the rules. As a practical matter, however, the included networks themselves, rather than the broadcast stations and MVPDs, generally prepare and provide video description, which the distributors pass through. Thus, under the current rules, a network that finds inclusion economically burdensome may petition, as a video programming provider, for exemption from the effect of the rules. We seek comment on whether there should also be an express exemption from the proposed no-backsliding rule for networks that drop significantly in relative rankings or overall viewership. We seek comment on this proposal.

    28. 50 Percent Threshold Elimination. The rules, as reinstated, exempt nonbroadcast networks from being included networks if they are not available in 50 percent or more of MVPD homes. Thus, for example, even if a network were one of the most popular in prime time, MVPDs would not be required to provide video description of any of that network's programming if it reaches only 40 percent of MVPD households. This exemption was initially adopted in 2001 at the request of HBO, and effectively exempts premium networks from the video description requirements.

    29. We propose to eliminate the exemption for nonbroadcast networks that do not reach 50 percent or more of MVPD households. Given the increasing number of networks and fragmentation of the viewing public,21 it is no longer clear that carriage into a given number of homes, even 50 percent, is sufficiently more important than prime time ratings for the purpose of establishing a threshold for determining which nonbroadcast networks should be covered by the video description requirements. Some premium networks offer very popular programming, including some of the “must-watch” shows that are very highly rated and have made an impact on popular culture. The proposed rule change would ensure that if any premium networks are among the ten most popular they will be covered. We seek comment on this proposal.

    21 The number of cable channels received by the average subscriber has tripled since the original video description rules were adopted, from around 60 to more than 180. Sam Ro, Americans Are Paying For a Lot of Channels They Don't Watch, Business Insider, Oct. 25, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-cable-channels-received-vs-viewed-2015-10. See also supra note 18 (noting that as many as 251 channels are widely available, even if not all are received by Nielsen's “average” 180 channel subscriber).

    D. Timing and Coverage

    30. We seek comment on the appropriate effective date of the 87.5 hours/quarter requirement and the other proposed rules changes. When we reinstated the rules in 2011, the time from their release to the full compliance date was approximately ten months. If we adopt these proposals, should we allow a similar amount of time for distributors to come into compliance? Under the current rules, July 1, 2018 is the date on which the new list of included nonbroadcast networks will go into effect, after having been determined by the ratings for the time period October 2016 to September 2017. If the proposed rules go into effect earlier than July 1, 2018, what ratings period should be used to determine the included networks? Should the effective date of these rules establish the beginning of a new three-year network-list update cycle, or should the existing cycle be retained even if the implementation of these rules requires a mid-cycle addition of some networks? In the alternative, what are the benefits and costs of delaying the effective date of the proposed revisions to the rules until July 1, 2018, and expanding the number of broadcast and nonbroadcast networks that will be determined in reference to the 2016-2017 ratings year? We propose that, as in 2015, in each cycle the Media Bureau will issue a Public Notice and undertake a process to formally establish the updated list of included networks. We seek comment on these questions and this proposal.

    V. Improving Consumer Access to Video Description

    31. The 2014 Report found significant consumer dissatisfaction with the availability of information about which programming is video described. This was contrary to the Commission's expectation that even without any requirements, such information would be made available “in an accessible manner, including on [distributor] Web sites and to companies that publish television listings information.” The 2014 Report also found that consumers are frustrated with MVPD customer service when they seek information about accessing video description. In both cases, we urged industry to take voluntary action to resolve these concerns. Therefore, we seek comment on the state of industry efforts, and propose requiring covered distributors to provide dedicated customer service contacts to assist viewers in accessing their video described programming. We tentatively conclude that the benefits of this proposal would exceed its costs, but seek comment on that tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on a requirement that covered distributors notify publishers of programming guides when a program will be video described.

    32. Programming Guide Information. Although fragmented lists of some video described programming are available online,22 some consumers report difficulty in finding information in programming guides, which for many remain the primary source of information about their viewing options.23 Industry commenters state that at least some information is provided to guide services by some included networks, but even they acknowledge that the information does not always actually appear in the guides.24 We seek comment on whether this situation has improved. Do networks provide information about video description to program guide services, and if not, why not? If they do provide such information, do program guide services choose to include that information in the guides, and if not, why not? Would a requirement that distributors consistently provide notice when a program is going to be described make guide services more likely to include that information in guides? In the children's programming context, our rules require commercial television broadcast licensees to provide to publishers of program guides information identifying programming specifically designed to educate and inform children. Has this requirement been effective in informing consumers about the availability of educational and informational children's programming, and if not, why not? Instead of, or in addition to the programming guide information, should distributors create an easily accessible list of described video programming? What are the benefits and drawbacks of requiring a centralized listing of all described video programming? Would the creation of such a listing assist in ensuring the accuracy and comprehensiveness of information available to the public? Would it be useful toward promoting best practices for identifying video described programming? We seek comment on the costs and benefits of a requirement that distributors provide information identifying video described programming to program guides, and whether we should adopt such a rule, or any other rule to improve consumer access to information about the availability of video described programming.

    22 Some covered networks provide information on their Web sites that identifies programming with video description, see 2014 Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 26, and where possible, the Commission has provided links to these network Web sites at https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/video-description. However, consumers assert that information about video described programming available online is not always comprehensive or kept up to date. See 2014 Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 8023-24, para. 27.

    23 Concerns about not being able to easily locate information on video described programs also were raised by participants at the Commission's Video Description Roundtable Event held on June 22, 2015.

    242014 Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 26 (Although NAB claims that broadcast networks provide video description information to program guides, they acknowledge that “this information appears not to be published regularly.”) (citing NAB Report Comments at 3-4).

    33. Dedicated Customer Service Contacts. A number of consumers have expressed significant frustration with inadequate MVPD customer support for video description services. The 2014 Report details instances where consumers would call their provider for help with video description and, after spending “many hours on the phone with ill-informed customer services representatives” ultimately discover that “not one person knew what [the consumer] was talking about.” They would be promised return or follow-up calls that never came, or directed to email addresses that proved unhelpful. In some cases it appears that customer support has been so poor that it has essentially denied some consumers the opportunity to access described programming at all. Recognizing this, the 2014 Report encouraged covered distributors to provide proper customer service training and a dedicated point of contact so that consumers could get video-description-specific customer service from knowledgeable representatives. We seek comment on whether customer service has improved since adoption of the 2014 Report. In light of previous shortcomings in customer support, we also propose to require that covered entities provide contact information for a person or office with primary responsibility for accessibility compliance issues to consumers who have questions about the availability of and access to video description services, or who request technical support. The point of contact must be able to address consumers' concerns about video description issues, and would be required to respond to consumer inquiries within one business day. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should adopt rules that parallel 47 CFR 79.1(i)(1-3). The rules at Section 79.1(i)(1-3) are similar to our proposal in that they require distributors of programming with closed captioning to provide contact information to consumers and to the Commission, and to assist in resolving consumers' technical problems. They also, however, establish detailed parameters for compliance with those requirements. What would be the costs and benefits of either approach? We seek comment on how, specifically, contact information should be provided to consumers under either approach.

    34. Timing. We also seek comment on the timing for implementing the rule changes discussed in this Section. We believe that implementation of these consumer access and customer service rules could be accomplished quickly, but we seek input on a reasonable timeframe.

    35. Are there other changes to the rules that we should adopt to improve consumer access without imposing excessive burdens on regulated parties? We seek comment on any such changes.

    VI. Other Matters

    36. Electronic Filing. We propose that petitions for exemption from the video description rules, and filings related to those requests, be filed exclusively electronically. In the 2011 Electronic Filing Report and Order,25 the Commission amended certain of its procedural rules to increase the efficiency of Commission decision-making and modernize Commission procedures in the digital age, including adoption of a requirement to use electronic filing whenever technically feasible. In the closed captioning context, for example, requests for exemption are filed and available to the public electronically. Should we amend our rules to require the electronic filing of individual video description exemption requests in machine readable format, and further revise our rules to require that comments on and oppositions to such petitions also be filed electronically in machine readable format? We seek comment on the benefits of this approach, whether there would be associated costs, and the appropriate timing for implementing this rule change.

    25Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, GC Docket No. 10-44, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1594, 1599-602, paras. 14-21 (2011).

    37. Described Video-on-Demand. We seek comment on a potential requirement that Video-On-Demand (“VOD”) programming include video description if it has been previously carried by that MVPD with video description. If a program is carried on a linear programming stream with description and also made available on the MVPD's VOD service, it is not clear whether MVPDs are making the video description available to the VOD viewer. We seek comment on whether this comports with our existing rules.26 In 2014, we confirmed that closed captioning must be preserved in VOD programming.27 Should we have a similarly explicit requirement in the video description context? What are the technical and financial costs of such a requirement for MVPDs and other distributors?

    26 DVR recordings of described programming, for example, must preserve the secondary audio stream that contains video description and make it available when the recording is later replayed.

    27Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 05-231, Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 2221, 2290-91, paras. 118-19 (2014) (“[W]e confirm that all `on demand' programming not subject to an exemption must comply with the relevant captioning requirements for new and pre-rule programming.”).

    38. Secondary Audio. We seek comment on the state of the marketplace with regard to the use of multiple audio streams. The Commission previously has noted that “digital transmission enables broadcasters and MVPDs to provide numerous audio channels for any given video stream,” but that in practice many MVPDs were only capable of providing two audio streams, and many consumers were only capable of receiving two audio streams.28 The Commission found video description was thus likely to be provided on the same secondary audio stream as other alternate audio uses, like foreign language audio tracks, but expected “that at some point in the near future, due to voluntary upgrades and equipment obsolescence, broadcasters, MVPDs, and the installed base of consumer equipment will be sufficiently advanced to handle a video description audio track that does not conflict with any other program-related service.” Has the marketplace moved toward a realization of this expectation? Should we revise our rules at this time to reflect any such changes, and if so, how?

    282011 Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 11862-63, paras. 28-31. See also Emergency Information/Video Description Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 4882-83, para. 14 (“At this time, we do not require covered entities to provide an audio stream that is dedicated solely to aurally accessible emergency information. MVPD commenters argue that mandating more than two audio streams—one for main audio, one for video description, and one for emergency information—would be costly and, in some cases, would pose technical difficulties.”) (footnote omitted).

    39. Terminology. During the Commission's Video Description Roundtable, consumers observed that many other federal agencies use the term “audio described” to reference video programming containing audio description, rather than the term “video described.” We note that the CVAA uses the term “video description,” but we recognize that it may be preferable to use “audio description” if this is the term most common to a majority of federal agencies and more widely used by consumers. We seek comment on whether we should revise our rules and/or change our usage to reflect this different terminology.

    40. Statutory Authority. As discussed above, we believe the CVAA grants the Commission “continuing authority” to regulate the provision of video described programming. We seek comment on our statutory authority to adopt the changes discussed above, both the proposed rules and the others on which we seek comment. Are our proposals above consistent with the CVAA?

    41. Other Comments Requested. Finally, we invite comment on any other changes the Commission should consider making to the video description rules. For any other changes proposed, comments should include potential costs and benefits of such changes.

    VII. Procedural Matters A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

    42. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”),29 the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) concerning the possible economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments as specified in the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.30 In addition, the Notice and this IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

    29See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

    30See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes

    1. In the Notice, the Commission seeks comment on a series of proposals to increase the amount of video described programming available to consumers, and to make it easier to access. The NPRM tentatively concludes that the statutory requirement for the Commission to issue additional video description regulations is satisfied because “the need for and benefits of” providing video described programming as proposed here would be “greater than the technical and economic costs” if the rules are adopted. The proposed rules would require that each included network provide 75% more described programming, or 87.5 hours per quarter, and would include six additional networks within the rules, while revising the way included networks are determined. It proposes to require covered parties to provide dedicated consumer service contacts to deal with video description issues, and to file any exemption petitions electronically. It also seeks comment on a range of related issues.

    2. Legal Basis

    2. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and Sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, and 613.

    3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    3. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” small organization,” and “small government jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

    4. Television Broadcasting. This economic census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.” The SBA has created the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms: Those having $14 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,390. In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $14 million or less. We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.

    5. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.

    6. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (“NCE”) television stations to be 395. These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.

    7. There are also 2,344 LPTV stations, including Class A stations, and 3689 TV translator stations. Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

    8. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) defines “Wired Telecommunications Carriers” as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireline firms for the broad economic census category of “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” Under this category, a wireline business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.

    9. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which category is defined above. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees, and 44 firms had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.

    10. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry data shows that there are currently 660 cable operators. Of this total, all but ten cable operators nationwide are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,629 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 4,057 cable systems have less than 20,000 subscribers, and 572 systems have 20,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.

    11. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” There are approximately 54 million cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 540,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but ten incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

    12. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for that entire year. Of this total, 2,940 firms had fewer than 100 employees, and 248 firms had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small entities. However, the data we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled “Cable and Other Program Distribution.” As of 2002, the SBA defined a small Cable and Other Program Distribution provider as one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined under the superseded SBA size standard would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.

    4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    13. The Notice proposes the following new or revised reporting or recordkeeping requirements that would be applicable to small entities. First, it proposes that all covered broadcasters and MVPDs provide dedicated customer service contacts to answer video description questions. In particular, it would require covered entities to provide contact information for a person or office with primary responsibility for accessibility compliance issues to consumers who have questions about the availability of or access to video description services, or who request technical support. The Notice also proposes to require all covered broadcasters and MVPDs to file petitions for exemption electronically.

    14. With regard to other compliance requirements, the Notice proposes to revise the video description rules by requiring an increase in the amount of described programming on each included network carried by a covered broadcast station or MVPD, from 50 hours per calendar quarter to 87.5, as well as an increase in the number of included networks carried by covered distributors to five broadcast and ten nonbroadcast networks.

    15. Finally, the Notice seeks comment on requiring distributors to notify program guides about the presence of video description, and to include video description with Video-on-Demand programming when that programming has been previously provided with descriptions.

    16. While the economic impact of these proposed rules on small entities is not quantifiable at this time, they are not likely to be burdensome for small entities or to affect small entities disproportionately.

    5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

    18. The Notice proposes rules intended to expand consumer access to video described programming. The existing requirement to provide video description applies to commercial television broadcast stations that are affiliated with ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC and are located in the top 60 television markets, as well as MVPD systems that serve 50,000 or more subscribers. Thus, the proposed increase in the amount of video description required and expansion of the video description requirements to additional included networks will impose no direct burden on small broadcasters or small MVPDs. Although the rules currently impose “pass through” obligations on all network-affiliated broadcast stations regardless of market size and on all MVPDs regardless of the number of subscribers, most all stations and MVPDs, including small entities, now have this capability. As such, we anticipate that these proposals will have little to no impact on small entities.

    19. The proposed requirement to file exemption petitions electronically will not impose an additional burden on small entities, and may reduce the burden. The proposed requirement that covered broadcasters and MVPDs provide dedicated customer service contacts to answer video description questions may not require significant additional resources for small entities. Even if it requires additional resources, however, we believe it would provide benefits to consumers that outweigh any costs, and that those benefits would be undermined if the requirement were not universal. The item seeks comment on the timing for implementing the requirements. Finally, we invite comment on any other changes the Commission should consider making to the video description rules. For any other changes proposed, comments should include potential costs and benefits of such changes.

    6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    20. None.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    21. This document contains proposed new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

    C. Ex Parte Rules

    22. This proceeding will be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding subject to the “permit-but-disclose” requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b).

    D. Filing Requirements

    23. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All comments are to reference MB Docket No. 11-43 and may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or (2) by filing paper copies.

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    24. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    25. Availability of Documents. Comments and reply comments will be publically available online via ECFS. These documents will also be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    VIII. Ordering Clauses

    26. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and the authority found in and Sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303, and 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, and 613, comment is hereby sought on the proposals described and rules set forth in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    27. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 11-43, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR 79

    Cable television operators, Communications equipment, Multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), Satellite television service providers.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 79 as follows:

    PART 79—ACCESSIBILITY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING 1. The authority for part 79 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, 330, 544a, 613, 617.

    2. Amend § 79.3 by: a. Adding paragraphs (a)(9) and (10), (b)(6) and (7) and, b. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (2) and (5), (c)(2), (3) and (4) introductory text.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 79.3 Video description of video programming.

    (a) * * *

    (9) Top commercial television broadcast networks. ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, and any other commercial television broadcast network in the top five as determined by an average of the national audience share during prime time of broadcast networks and that has at least 50 hours per quarter of prime time programming that is not live or near-live or otherwise exempt under these rules. Initially, the top five networks are those determined by The Nielsen Company, based on the ratings for the time period October 2016-September 2017, and will update at three year intervals. The first update will be July 1, 2021, based on the ratings for the time period October 2019-September 2020; the second will be July 1, 2024, based on the ratings for the time period October 2022-September 2023; and so on. Also, any commercial television broadcast network that the Commission identified as having met this definition as of 2018 or later, even if it is no longer in the top five based on subsequent ratings.

    (10) Top national nonbroadcast television networks. Any nonbroadcast television network in the top ten, as determined by an average of the national audience share during prime time of nonbroadcast networks that have at least 50 hours per quarter of prime time programming that is not live or near-live or otherwise exempt under these rules. Initially, the top ten networks are those determined by The Nielsen Company, based on the ratings for the time period October 2016-September 2017, and will update at three year intervals. The first update will be July 1, 2021, based on the ratings for the time period October 2019-September 2020; the second will be July 1, 2024, based on the ratings for the time period October 2022-September 2023; and so on. Also, any nonbroadcast television network that the Commission identified as having met this definition as of 2018 or later, even if it is no longer in the top ten based on subsequent ratings.

    (b) The following video programming distributors must provide programming with video description and customer support as follows:

    (1) Beginning July 1, 2015, commercial television broadcast stations that are affiliated with one of the top four commercial television broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC), and that are licensed to a community located in the top 60 DMAs, as determined by The Nielsen Company as of January 1, 2015, must provide 50 hours of video description per calendar quarter, either during prime time or on children's programming, on each programming stream on which they carry one of the top four commercial television broadcast networks. If a station in one of these markets becomes affiliated with one of these networks after July 1, 2015, it must begin compliance with these requirements no later than three months after the affiliation agreement is finalized;

    (2) Beginning July 1, 2018, commercial television broadcast stations that are affiliated with one of the top commercial television broadcast networks and licensed to a community located in the top 60 DMAs, as determined by The Nielsen Company as of January 1, 2015, must provide 87.5 hours of video description per calendar quarter, either during prime time or on children's programming, on each programming stream on which they carry one of the top commercial television broadcast networks. If a station in one of these markets becomes affiliated with one of one of the top commercial television broadcast networks after July 1, 2018, it must begin compliance with these requirements no later than three months after the affiliation agreement is finalized;

    (5) Beginning July 1, 2018, multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) systems that serve 50,000 or more subscribers must provide 87.5 hours of video description per calendar quarter during prime time or children's programming, on each channel on which they carry one of the top national nonbroadcast television networks; and

    (6) Multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) systems of any size:

    (i) Must pass through video description on each broadcast station they carry, when the broadcast station provides video description, and the channel on which the MVPD distributes the programming of the broadcast station has the technical capability necessary to pass through the video description, unless it is using the technology used to provide video description for another purpose related to the programming that would conflict with providing the video description; and

    (ii) Must pass through video description on each nonbroadcast network they carry, when the network provides video description, and the channel on which the MVPD distributes the programming of the network has the technical capability necessary to pass through the video description, unless it is using the technology used to provide video description for another purpose related to the programming that would conflict with providing the video description.

    (7) Each video programming distributor subject to paragraphs (b)(1), (2), (4), and/or (5) of this section shall make readily available contact information for a person or office with primary responsibility for accessibility compliance issues to consumers who have questions about the availability of or access to video description services, or who request technical support. The point of contact must be able to address consumers' concerns about video description issues, and must respond to consumer inquiries within one business day.

    (c) * * *

    (2) In order to meet its quarterly requirement, a broadcaster or MVPD may count each program it airs with video description no more than a total of two times on each channel on which it airs the program. A broadcaster or MVPD may count the second airing in the same or any one subsequent quarter. A broadcaster may only count programs aired on its primary broadcasting stream towards its quarterly requirement. A broadcaster carrying one of the top commercial television broadcast networks on a secondary stream may count programs aired on that stream toward its quarterly requirement for that network only.

    (3) Once a commercial television broadcast station as defined under paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section has aired a particular program with video description, it is required to include video description with all subsequent airings of that program on that same broadcast station, unless it is using the technology used to provide video description for another purpose related to the programming that would conflict with providing the video description.

    (4) Once an MVPD as defined under paragraph (b)(4) or (b)(5) of this section:

    [FR Doc. 2016-10816 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    81 103 Friday, May 27, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 23, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by June 27, 2016. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of All Covered Commodities.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0250.

    Summary of Collection: The 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171) and 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234) Farm Bills amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) to require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of muscle cuts and ground beef (including veal), lamb, pork, chicken, and goat; wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish; perishable agricultural commodities; peanuts, pecans, and macadamia nuts; and ginseng. Individuals who supply covered commodities, whether directly to retailers or indirectly through other participants in the marketing chain, are required to establish and maintain country of origin and, if applicable, method of production information for the covered commodities and supply this information to retailers. On February 29, 2016, a final rule was published to remove beef and pork. Covered commodities include muscle cuts of lamb, chicken, goat, ground lamb, ground chicken, and ground goat; wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish; perishable agricultural commodities; macadamia nuts; pecans; ginseng; and peanuts.

    Need and Use of the Information: Producers, handlers, manufacturers, wholesalers, importers, and retailers of covered commodities are affected. This public reporting burden is necessary to ensure accuracy of country of origin and method of production declarations relied upon at the point of sale at retail. The public reporting burden also assures that all parties involved in supplying covered commodities to retail stores maintain and convey accurate information as required.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 652,842.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping.

    Total Burden Hours: 21,949,487.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12525 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Missoula Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Missoula Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Frenchtown, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (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 the title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to distribute submitted proposals to RAC members, allow the opportunity for project proponents to present their proposals, and receive public comment on the meeting subjects and proceedings. We will also hold a voting meeting at a later date, to be determined, at the same location. The voting meeting information will be released to the public in a published news release and posted on the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/lolo/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The presentation meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 15, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 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 Frenchtown Rural Fire District Station 1, 16875 Marion Street, Frenchtown, Montana.

    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 Ninemile Ranger District.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sari Lehl, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-626-5201, 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. 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 procedings by contacting the person listed above. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/lolo/workingtogether/advisorycommittees. 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 must be sent to Sari Lehl; Lolo National Forest, Ninemile Ranger District, 20325 Remount Road, Huson, Montana 59846; or by email: [email protected]

    Dated: May 19, 2016. Erin M. Phelps, Ninemile District Ranger.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12572 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Shoshone National Forest Travel Management; Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service intends to prepare an environmental impact statement to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of implementing travel management activities that include designating the class of vehicles, seasons of use, additions, and subtractions to the roads, trails, and areas open for recreational motorized use during summer and winter. The Forest is proposing changes to its Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) and publication of the initial Over Snow Vehicle Use Map (OSVUM) per the requirements of 36 CFR parts 212 Travel Management, Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use, Final Rule (Federal Register 2005: 70 FR 68264).

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by June 27, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected March 2017 and the final environmental impact statement is expected March 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Rob Robertson, 333 East Main Street, Lander, Wyoming, 82520. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 307-332-0264.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rob Robertson at 307-335-2156 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 overall objective of the proposed action is to provide a manageable system of designated public motor vehicle access routes and areas within the Shoshone National Forest, consistent with the Forest Plan, Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, and the travel management regulations at 36 CFR 212 subparts B and C. The decisions associated with the designations of roads, trails, and areas open to the public will be published in maps for both summer and winter travel.

    There were needs identified through the Forest Planning effort to examine the existing system and identify current routes with resource concerns or enforcement issues which could be removed or changed in the system.

    • There is a need to provide some level of motorized routes to a growing user group on the Shoshone National Forest. The Forest Plan directs us to look for opportunities to provide “loop” opportunities for motorized use.

    • An additional need of equal importance is to ensure or improve compliance and accountability on the existing road and trail system.

    • Another need is to consider if there are current routes with resource concerns or enforcement issues which could be removed or changed in the system.

    • Finally, there is a need to designate roads, trails, and areas for winter motorized travel and produce an over snow vehicle use map. This direction stems from a recent court decision and a subsequent revision of the 2005 Travel Management Rule.

    Additionally, the Regional Forester, in The Record of Decision for the SNF Land Management Plan Revision acknowledged the Forest's recognition of these needs and directed the Shoshone National Forest to analyze additional motorized opportunities during the Travel Management planning process.

    Proposed Action

    The Shoshone National Forest is proposing to modify its current summer Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) and publish an Over Snow Motor Vehicle Use Map (OSVUM) to address the need to increase motorized recreation and loop opportunities while addressing concerns over resource conditions, unauthorized routes, and enforcement issues within the current system. The proposal is intended to provide a manageable system of designated public motor vehicle access routes and areas within the Shoshone National Forest, consistent with the Forest Plan, Executive Order 11644, and the travel management regulations at 36 CFR 212, subparts B and C. Specific Changes to the summer system are as follows:

    • Addition of 36 miles of motorized routes (roads and motorized trails) to the system.

    • Addition of 5.9 miles of motorized routes to access dispersed camping sites.

    • Closing 12 miles of roads to address resource and/or enforcement concerns.

    • Designate 16 miles of existing motorized trails to 65″ width.

    • Designate 13.4 miles of new proposed motorized trails for 65″ width.

    • Conversion of 2.1 miles of road to motorized trail, 65″ width.

    • Addition of 61 miles of seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to wildlife disturbance, increase wintertime safety, and protect road surfaces during the wet season.

    • Consolidate the number of existing seasonal closure dates to help reduce confusion.

    • Addition of 11 miles of ungroomed snowmobile trails.

    • Close 1,354 acres of cross country skiing areas to motorized users.

    • Prohibit tracked vehicles larger than a UTV from using groomed trails for public safety.

    • Create two winter motorized seasons. The “high elevation” zone will have a season of 11/15 to 4/30. The “low elevation” zone will have a season of 12/1-4/1.

    Responsible Official

    The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal. The Shoshone National Forest Supervisor is the responsible official.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether to implement the proposed action as described above, or to meet the purpose and need for action through some other combination of activities, or to take no action at this time.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Written comments should be submitted to Shoshone National Forest, Attn: Rob Robertson, 333 E. Main St., Lander, WY 82520, or fax: 307-332-0264; or email at [email protected] . Hand-delivered comments must be provided at the Supervisors' office or any of the Ranger District offices during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays).

    Electronic comments must be submitted to [email protected] in an email message, or attached in portable document format (.pdf) or Word (.docx) format.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such 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 17, 2016. Joseph Alexander, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12069 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Proposed New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) AGENCY:

    Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, USDA Forest Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed new fee site.

    SUMMARY:

    The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake Ranger District, is proposing the following sites as standard-amenity fee sites under the authority of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. The sites are all located in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons and include Mill B South trailhead, Cardiff/Mill D South trailhead, Donut Falls trailhead, Silver Laker recreation complex, Spruces winter trailhead, Guardsman Pass trailhead, Temple Quarry trailhead and interpretive site, White Pine trailhead, Catherine's Pass trailhead, and Cecret Lake trailhead. The use site fee would be $6 for a 3-day pass and $45 for a Cottonwood Canyons annual pass. The “America the Beautiful” Interagency Passes would be honored at each site. Passes sold would be valid for all sites listed above. Cottonwood Canyon passes would be also be valid at the American Fork Canyon and Mirror Lake Scenic Byway standard-amenity fee sites. The American Fork Canyon and Mirror Lake Scenic Byway day and annual passes would be honored at the proposed sites in the Cottonwood Canyons. Fees collected at the proposed sites would be used to improved recreation site facilities, maintenance, and operations in the Cottonwood Canyons. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operations and maintenance, and market assessment. The fee is proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted from May 27, 2016 through September 9, 2016. New fees would begin in June 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    David Whittekiend, Forest Supervisor, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 857 West South Jordan Parkway, South Jordan, UT 84095.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Lane, Salt Lake Ranger District, 801-733-2662, [email protected]. Information about proposed fee changes can also be found on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/uwcnf.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established.

    Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.

    Dated: May 20, 2016. David Whittekiend, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12573 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 10:00 a.m. (MDT) on Wednesday, June 8, 2016, via teleconference. The purpose of the planning meeting is for the Advisory Committee to continue their discussion and plans to conduct a community forum on Border Town Discrimination Against Native Americans in Billings, Montana.

    Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-468-2440; Conference ID: 8574571. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-468-2440, Conference ID: 8574571. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Friday, July 8, 2016. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=259 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

    Agenda
    Welcome Norma Bixby, Chair Roll Call and Introductions Malee V. Craft, Regional Director and Designated Federal Official (DFO) Discussion to Reset Date and Timeline for Community Forum in Billings Next Steps DATES:

    Wednesday, June 8, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (MDT)

    ADDRESSES:

    To be held via teleconference:

    Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-468-2440, Conference ID: 8574571.

    TDD: Dial Federal Relay Service 1-800-977-8339 and give the operator the above conference call number and conference ID.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Malee V. Craft, Regional Director, [email protected], 303-866-1040.

    Dated: May 23, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12548 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No.: 160511417-6417-01] RIN 0690-XC004 21st Century U.S. Port Competitiveness Initiative: Request for Public Comment AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Commerce (Department) is seeking public input on U.S. seaport efficiency and competitiveness issues for its 21st Century U.S. Port Competitiveness Initiative. In this effort, the Department is working with seaports, stakeholders, and port users to identify and share best practices in port-stakeholder-user coordination, collaboration, and information-sharing that are being used to resolve operational and infrastructure issues that affect freight flows and increase port and supply chain congestion. The Department's goal is to ensure that U.S. seaports and their supply chains have the tools they need to strengthen U.S. port and supply chain competitiveness, facilitate international trade, and catalyze local, regional, national economic growth and job creation. We welcome input from all interested parties.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on July 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this notice by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit your comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOC-2016-0003, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Russell Adise, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 11018, Washington, DC 20230. Include on the envelope the following identifier “Attn: 21st Century U.S. Port Competitiveness Initiative.”

    Comments submitted by email should be machine-readable and should not be copy-protected. Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number on each page of their submissions. Paper submissions should also include a CD or DVD with an electronic version of the document, which should be labeled with the name and organization of the filer. Please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Information obtained as a result of this notice may be used by the Federal Government for program planning on a non-attribution basis.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Russell Adise, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 11018, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5086; email: [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to the Department's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-4883.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The U.S. marine transportation system is an essential driver of the U.S. economy. Every day, U.S. ports and waterways handle millions of tons of domestic and international cargo, ranging from retail and agricultural products to finished goods and components, coal, petrochemicals, heating oil and automobiles. Those ports support more than 23 million American jobs throughout the supply chain, including the local economy in and around port communities.

    America's seaports are crucial generators of economic development and well-paying jobs, both regionally and nationally, and throughout the supply chains that use the ports. They are also crucial to our nation's ability to take advantage of the leveled playing field and increased market access being enabled by Administration trade initiatives, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Approximately 75 percent of U.S. international merchandise exports and imports flow through our seaports including Made in America exports and the intermediate goods and components used in them.

    Long-term port congestion and efficiency problems remain a major systemic threat that creates a drag on local, regional, and national economic growth and employment.1 According to a recent Journal of Commerce seaport berth productivity report, U.S. West Coast container ports may be as much as 25 to 48 percent less productive than the world's most efficient container ports. As the nationwide port congestion and slowdown in 2014 and 2015 demonstrated, what happens at any one port, or group of ports, can have far-reaching and nationwide impacts on all U.S. ports and the companies and stakeholders that use and rely on them.

    1 Please see Federal Maritime Commission, “U.S. Container Port Congestion & Related International Supply Chain Issues: Causes, Consequences & Challenges,” June 2015 http://www.fmc.gov/NR15-11/.

    Port congestion and efficiency problems stem from a variety of factors, only some of which are directly under a seaport's control. Larger vessels, growing trade volumes, insufficient infrastructure, operating inefficiencies, poor labor-management relations, and lack of communication and collaboration among ports, stakeholders, and users can result in inefficient cargo movement and congestion that can dramatically slow the movement of trade to and through America's seaports, ultimately resulting in lost sales, markets, and jobs across the nation, and the loss of U.S. port and supply chain competitiveness in the global marketplace. U.S. seaports' inability to respond quickly enough to rapidly-changing industry and cargo flow demands further compromises U.S. trade, competitiveness, and resiliency.

    In the U.S., most of the elements of these port-related challenges are owned by local government entities and domestic and foreign companies, with limited communication across the full range of ports, users, and stakeholders affected by these challenges. To address these issues comprehensively and nationally, the U.S. Department of Commerce is playing a convening role for seaports, stakeholders, and users to help them work together to identify how they can cooperate, collaborate, and share information more effectively and efficiently in order to achieve mutually beneficial improvements, and how the Federal Government can help spur increasing public-private partnerships and investment that can improve port-related operations, data-sharing technology, and infrastructure.

    Under this initiative, the Department of Commerce has launched a series of regional port and supply chain competitiveness roundtables at key ports across the U.S., similar to the Administration's 21st Century Ports Roundtable in Baltimore in March 2016. Through these roundtables, the Department is learning what leading U.S. seaports are doing, together with their stakeholders, to improve their ability to coordinate, collaborate, and share information towards identifying and resolving operational port and infrastructure inefficiencies that negatively impact trade flows and cause congestion. The Department is also learning what additional steps could be taken to improve port/stakeholder collaboration and partnerships, as well as to improve investment in port infrastructure, equipment, and technology.

    This Notice is intended to supplement the Department's roundtables by soliciting public comment on the issues described below. The information gained through these roundtables and this Notice will be used to develop a report on best practices that U.S. seaports, stakeholders, and users can use as appropriate as a tool to help develop and implement mutually beneficial congestion relief and efficiency improvement measures through coordination, collaboration, and information sharing. The report is intended to be released in December 2016.

    II. Objectives of This Notice

    This Notice offers an opportunity for all interested parties to share their perspectives and recommend actions that the Federal Government, state and local governments, and port users and stakeholders—individually and together—can take to help address U.S. port congestion and efficiency challenges, improve U.S. port and supply chain competitiveness, and enhance the role of ports as engines and catalysts of local, regional, and national economic development and job growth.

    III. Questions

    Commenters are encouraged to address any or all of the following questions. Please note in the response the number corresponding to the question(s). For any response, commenters may wish to consider describing specific goals; actions and roles that the United States Government, ports, stakeholders, and users might take to achieve these goals; evidence that demonstrates the benefits and costs associated with the action; and whether the proposal is inter-agency or agency-specific. Specific, actionable proposals for action and for policy mechanisms directed to the relevant government agencies are most useful.

    The Department seeks public comment on the following questions:

    1. What are the most important challenges and opportunities facing U.S. port-related operations and efficiency?

    2. What are best practices for improving port-related operations? How can the Federal Government help to share these best practices nationwide?

    3. How can the Federal Government best promote the coordinated use of public funds for the development of port-related infrastructure? What can the Federal Government do, that it is not doing now, to stimulate and/or leverage private funding for port-related infrastructure?

    4. What Federal policies should be modernized to promote U.S. port-related investment and operational performance?

    5. How can the Federal Government best collaborate with stakeholders (state, local, labor, industry, port authorities, academia, financial institutions, etc.) to enhance U.S. port-related competitiveness?

    6. What can the Federal Government do—on its own or in coordination and collaboration with state and local governments and the private sector—to enhance the value of ports as engines of economic growth and job creation?

    7. How can technology and data be used to improve U.S. port and supply chain performance? What mechanisms, if any, should the Federal Government deploy to promote information sharing and develop a common technology platform?

    8. Are there actions that have been taken by specific U.S. or foreign ports or other nations that should be highlighted as best practices for ports? If so, please describe.

    Dated: May 20, 2016. Bruce H. Andrews, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12551 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-17-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Direct Investment Surveys: BE-577, Quarterly Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad—Transactions of U.S. Reporter With Foreign Affiliate, and Changes to Private Fund Reporting on Direct Investment Surveys ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before July 26, 2016

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, or via email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patricia Abaroa, Chief, Direct Investment Division (BE-49), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Washington, DC 20233; phone: (301) 278-9591; or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Quarterly Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad—Transactions of U.S. Reporter with Foreign Affiliate (Form BE-577) obtains quarterly data on transactions and positions between U.S.-owned foreign business enterprises and their U.S. parents. The survey is a sample survey that covers all foreign affiliates above a size-exemption level. The sample data are used to derive universe estimates in non-benchmark years from similar data reported in the BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, which is conducted every five years. The data are essential for the preparation of the U.S. international transactions accounts, the input-output accounts, the national income and product accounts, and the international investment position of the United States. The data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of direct investment abroad, measure changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. and foreign economies.

    BEA proposes to change the reporting requirements for certain private funds that file BEA's surveys of U.S. direct investment abroad: The BE-577, Quarterly Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad; and the BE-11, Annual Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad. The BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, will also be affected by this change but will be addressed in a proposed rule in 2019.

    BEA, in cooperation with the Treasury Department, proposes to instruct reporters of investments in private funds that meet the definition of direct investment (that is, ownership by one person of 10 percent or more of the voting interest of a business enterprise) but display characteristics of portfolio investment (specifically, investors do not intend to control or influence the management of an operating company) to report through the Treasury International Capital (TIC) reporting system, where other related portfolio investments are already being reported, and not to report on BEA's direct investment surveys. Direct investment in operating companies, including investment by and through private funds, will continue to be reported to BEA. This change will align the U.S. direct investment and portfolio investment data more closely with the intent of the investment. In addition, it will reduce burden for reporters, many of whom now report both to the TIC reporting system and to BEA's direct investment reporting system. Under the planned change, U.S. reporters will no longer be required to report on BEA surveys of U.S. direct investment abroad data for foreign affiliates that are private funds and do not own, directly or indirectly, 10 percent or more of the voting interest of another foreign business enterprise that is not also a private fund or holding company.

    Other changes that are specific to the BE-577 survey include improvements to question wording, instructions, and formatting to elicit more complete and accurate responses. BEA also plans to add an additional question on certain gains/losses to the annual section of this form to help verify the quarterly data. BEA expects the additional burden to be negligible because this information is only collected once each year.

    II. Method of Collection

    Notice of specific reporting requirements, including who is to report, the information to be reported, the manner of reporting, and the time and place of filing reports, will be mailed to potential respondents each quarter. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter—45 days if the report is for the final quarter of the respondent's financial reporting year. Reports are required from each U.S. person that has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock in an incorporated foreign business enterprise, or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise, and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE-577. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.

    Potential respondents are those U.S. business enterprises that reported owning foreign business enterprises in the 2014 benchmark survey of U.S. direct investment abroad, along with entities that subsequently entered the direct investment universe. The data collected are sample data. Universe estimates are developed from the reported sample data.

    As an alternative to filing paper forms, BEA offers an electronic filing option, the eFile system, for use in reporting on Form BE-577. For more information about eFile, go to www.bea.gov/efile.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0608-0004.

    Form Number: BE-577.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,090 U.S. parents filing for 16,720 foreign affiliates per quarter, 66,880 annually.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour is the average, but may vary considerably among respondents because of differences in company structure and complexity.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 66,880.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (Pub. L. 94-472, 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108, as amended by Pub. L. 98-573 and Pub. L. 101-533).

    IV. Request for Comments

    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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 23, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12539 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-861] Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Notice of Correction to Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2924 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 6, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Antidumping Duty Order on certain polyethylene terephthalate resin from India.1 The Antidumping Duty Order contained an error. Specifically, the cash deposit rate given for Ester Industries, Ltd. (Ester), contained a transposition of two numbers. The cash deposit rate in the Antidumping Duty Order for Ester is incorrectly listed as 9.31. The correct cash deposit rate for Ester is 9.13. As a result, we now correct the Antidumping Duty Order as noted above.

    1See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Canada, the People's Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of Oman: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determination (Sultanate of Oman) and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 27979 (May 6, 2016) (Antidumping Duty Order).

    This correction to the Antidumping Duty Order is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: May 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12614 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of partially closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Judges Panel) will meet in on Wednesday, June 8, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and review the role and responsibilities of the Judges Panel and information received from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in order to ensure the integrity of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award) selection process. The agenda will include: Judges Panel roles and processes; Baldrige Program updates; new business/public comment; lessons learned from the 2015 judging process; and the 2016 Award process. A portion of this meeting is closed to the public in order to protect both proprietary data to be examined and discussed and information that could significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action.

    DATES:

    The Judges Panel meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. The portion of the meeting, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., will include discussions on the Judges Panel roles and processes and Baldrige program updates. This session is open to the public. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. The portion of the meeting, from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., will include discussions on lessons learned from the 2015 judging process and on the 2016 Award process. This session is closed to the public in order to protect both proprietary data to be examined and discussed and information that could significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building 101, Lecture Room A, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1020, at telephone number (301) 975-2360, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will meet on Wednesday, June 8, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. The Judges Panel is composed of twelve members, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, chosen for their familiarity with quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, services companies, small businesses, health care providers, and educational institutions. The Judges Panel will assemble to discuss and review the role and responsibilities of the Judges Panel and information received from NIST in order to ensure the integrity of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award selection process. The agenda will include: Judges Panel roles and processes; Baldrige Program updates; new business/public comment; lessons learned from the 2015 judging process; and the 2016 Award process. A portion of this meeting is closed to the public in order to protect both proprietary data to be examined and discussed and information that could significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action.

    The portion of the meeting, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Eastern time, will include discussions on the Judges Panel roles and processes and Baldrige program updates and is open to the public. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments related to the Judges Panel's general process are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately one-half hour will be reserved for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about 3 minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program Web site at http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/community/overseers.cfm. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. 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 to the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, Attention Nancy Young, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1020, via fax at 301-975-4967 or electronically by email to [email protected]

    All visitors to the National Institute of Standards and Technology site will have to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Nancy Young no later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern time, Thursday, June 2, 2016, and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Nancy Young by email at [email protected] or by phone at (301) 975-2361. Also, please note that under the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if issued by states that are REAL ID compliant or have an extension. NIST also currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please contact Ms. Young or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

    The portion of the meeting from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern time, will include discussions on lessons learned from the 2015 judging process and on the 2016 Award process, and is closed to the public in order to protect both proprietary data to be examined and discussed and information that could significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. The Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the Assistant General Counsel for Administration and Transactions, formally determined on May 19, 2016, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that a portion of the meeting of the Judges Panel may be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) because the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is privileged or confidential and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) because for a government agency the meeting is likely to disclose information that could significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. Portions of the meeting involve examination of prior year Award applicant data. Award applicant data are directly related to the commercial activities and confidential information of the applicants.

    Kevin Kimball, NIST Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12483 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE645 Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of open public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). The members will discuss and provide advice on the NOAA Fisheries Draft National Bycatch Reduction Strategy.

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled for June 1, 2016, 4-5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public access is available at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public wishing to attend may contact Heidi Lovett, (301) 427-8034; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The charter and other information are located online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/.

    Matters To Be Considered

    The Committee is convening to discuss and finalize comments and recommendations on the NOAA Fisheries Draft National Bycatch Reduction Strategy for submission to the NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator. Other administrative matters may be considered. This date, time, and agenda are subject to change.

    Time and Date

    The meeting is scheduled for June 1, 2016, 4-5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time by conference call. Conference call information for the public will be posted at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/ by May 27, 2016.

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), this Federal Register notice for this meeting is being published fewer than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting as exceptional circumstances exist. It is imperative that the meeting be held to accommodate the scheduling priorities of MAFAC members who must meet a strict schedule to finalize and submit comments before the June 3, 2016, public comment period deadline on the draft National Bycatch Reduction Strategy. Notice of the meeting is also posted on MAFAC's Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Heidi Lovett, 301-427-8034 by May 31, 2016.

    Dated: May 23, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12491 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE655 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its VMS/Enforcement Committee and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 15, 2016 beginning at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923; phone: (978) 777-2500.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The Committee and Advisory Panel will review feedback from other species committees concerning Office of Law Enforcement Priorities. They will make recommendations on cod-end (date certain) certification and the Omega gauge for mesh measurement (based on the USCG demonstration). They will discuss other business as needed.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12615 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE650 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council and its Committees.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held Monday, June 13, 2016 through Thursday, June 16, 2016. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at: University of Delaware Clayton Hall, 100 David Hollowell Drive, Newark, DE 19716, telephone: (302) 831-2998.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org also has details on the meeting location, proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's Web site when possible.)

    Monday, June 13, 2016 Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee

    Review input from the Advisory Panel on fishing activities that impact habitat—draft policy document and provide comments/revisions to the draft document and any other committee updates.

    Tuesday, June 14, 2016 Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Specifications, Meeting as a Committee of the Whole

    Review fishery performance and 2017 specifications, butterfish cap operation, and butterfish/longfin squid mesh information.

    River Herring/Shad, Meeting as a Committee of the Whole

    Review cap operation and management progress and “Stock in the Fishery” white paper outline.

    Squid Capacity Amendment

    Review action plan.

    Climate Change and Mid-Atlantic Fishery

    Presentation by John Hare of NOAA Fisheries and Malin Pinsky of Rutgers University.

    BOEM's Renewable Energy Activities

    Presentation by Brian Hooker of BOEM.

    Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal Presentation

    Presentation by Jay Odell of the Nature Conservancy.

    eVTR Framework—Meeting 1

    Presentation by Andy Loftus of Loftus Consulting.

    Wednesday, June 15, 2016 Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment

    Review draft EA and select preferred mackerel alternatives for public hearings.

    Law Enforcement Report

    Reports will be received from NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Specification

    Develop recommendations for 2017-18 specifications.

    Blueline Tilefish 2017 Recreational Specifications/Possible Reconsideration

    Consider alternatives to proposed blueline tilefish recreational specifications.

    Thursday, June 16, 2016 Business Session

    Organization Reports; Liaison Reports; Executive Director's Report; Science Report; and Committee Reports.

    • Continuing and New Business.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12619 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE651 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the: Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Selection Committee (Closed Session); Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) Committee (Partially Closed Session); Advisory Panel Selection Committee; Joint Dolphin Wahoo and Snapper Grouper Committees; Snapper Grouper Committee; Law Enforcement Committee (Partially Closed Session); Spiny Lobster Committee; Protected Resources Committee; Data Collection Committee; Executive Finance Committee; King and Spanish Mackerel Committee; and a meeting of the Full Council.

    The Council will also hold a formal public comment session. The Council will take action as necessary.

    DATES:

    The Council meeting will be held from 1:30 p.m. on Monday, June 13, 2016 until 1 p.m. on Friday, June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Cocoa Beach Oceanfront, 1550 N. Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931; phone: (800) 445-8667 or (321) 799-0003; fax: (321) 799-0344.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public comment: Written comments may be directed to Gregg Waugh, Executive Director, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (see ADDRESSES) or electronically via the Council's Web site at: http://safmc.net/CommentForm_June2016Council. All comments must be received by June 6, 2016 in order to be considered by the Council prior to the meeting. For written comments received after the Monday before the meeting (after 6/6), individuals sending the comment must use the Council's online form “http://safmc.net/CommentForm_June2016Council”. Comments will automatically be posted to the Web site and available for Council consideration. Comments received prior to noon on Thursday, June 16, 2016 will be a part of the meeting administrative record.

    The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:

    Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee Meeting, Monday, June 13, 2016, 1:30 p.m. Until 5:30 p.m.

    The Committee will receive a status report on the development of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan II. An Ocean Technology Session will be held as part of the Committee meeting with sessions addressing the use of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), Autonomous and 3D Mapping, Remotely Operated Vehicles Advances and Acoustics, and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drones) as Tools in the Ocean. The Committee will also receive presentations on Ocean Investment and Collaborative Sustainability, Applying Emerging Technologies and 21st Century Data Collection, and an overview of recent Council actions specific to Habitat.

    SSC Selection Committee, Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 8:30 a.m. Until 9 a.m. (Closed Session)

    The Committee will review applications for the SSC and provide recommendations for Council consideration.

    SEDAR Committee (Partially Closed Session), Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 9 a.m. Until 10 a.m.

    1. The Committee will recommend participants for the upcoming Blueline Tilefish Benchmark and Red Grouper SEDAR Stock Assessment (Closed Session). The Committee will discuss the timing and Terms of Reference for the assessment.

    2. The Committee will receive updates on SEDAR projects, discuss future stock assessments for cobia, receive a SEDAR Steering Committee update, and receive the results of the SSC review of the NOAA Fisheries Assessment Priority Process.

    Advisory Panel Selection Committee, Tuesday, June 14, 2016: 10 a.m. Until 10:30 a.m.

    1. The Committee will review options to allow fishing representation on the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (AP) and the Information and Education AP, and provide recommendations as appropriate.

    2. The Committee will discuss modifications to the current AP application for SEDAR applicants and requirements for AP applicants relative to email accounts and Internet access.

    Joint Dolphin Wahoo and Snapper Grouper Committees, Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 10:30 a.m. Until 12 Noon

    1. The Committee will receive status updates from NOAA Fisheries on commercial and recreational catches versus annual catch limits (ACLs) for dolphin and wahoo and amendments currently under Secretarial review.

    2. The Committee will receive an overview of Amendment 10 to the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery Management Plan (FMP)/Amendment 44 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addressing allocations for dolphin and yellowtail snapper, and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

    Snapper Grouper Committee, Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 1:30 p.m. Until 5:30 p.m. and Wednesday, June 15, 2016; 8:30 a.m. Until 5:30 p.m.

    1. The Committee will receive updates from NOAA Fisheries on the status of commercial and recreational catches versus quotas for species under ACLs, and the status of amendments currently under Secretarial review.

    2. The Committee will receive updates on fishery-independent sampling programs and projects funded through Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program.

    3. The Committee will receive reports from the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel, the Scientific and Statistical Committee, and NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Fisheries Science Center regarding red snapper mortality for the 2015 and 2016 fishing season.

    4. The Committee will receive an overview of Snapper Grouper Amendment 37 addressing measures for hogfish, modify the document as appropriate, and approve/disapprove all actions.

    5. The Committee will review Snapper Grouper Amendment 41 addressing management measures for mutton snapper, modify the document as appropriate, and approve for public hearings.

    6. The Committee will receive an overview of management options for red snapper to be addressed in Amendment 43, modify the document as necessary, discuss and consider emergency action, and provide guidance to staff.

    7. The Committee will review management options to include in Vision Blueprint Amendments, discuss and provide direction to staff.

    8. The Committee will receive an overview of options for establishing a Control Date and Limited Entry program for federal For-Hire Permits in the Snapper Grouper, Coastal Migratory Pelagic, and Dolphin Wahoo fisheries in the South Atlantic/Atlantic. The Committee will discuss options and provide direction to staff.

    Formal Public Comment, Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 5:30 p.m.—Public comment will be accepted on items on the Council agenda. Comment will be accepted first on items before the Council for approval for public hearings: (1) Snapper Grouper Amendment 41 (mutton snapper) and (2) Coastal Migratory Pelagics Framework Amendment 4 (Atlantic cobia). The Council Chair, based on the number of individuals wishing to comment, will determine the amount of time provided to each commenter.

    Law Enforcement Committee, Thursday, June 16, 2016, 8:30 a.m. Until 9:30 a.m. (Partially Closed Session)

    1. The Committee will review nominees for Law Enforcement Officer of the Year (Closed Session) and provide recommendations for Council consideration.

    2. The Committee will discuss items for the Joint Advisory Panel/Committee meeting.

    Spiny Lobster Committee, Thursday, June 16, 2016, 9:30 a.m. Until 10:30 a.m.

    1. The Committee will receive a report on spiny lobster landings, receive a report from the joint meeting of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Spiny Lobster Advisory Panels, review recommendations from advisory panels and the Spiny Lobster Review Panel, and provide guidance to staff.

    2. The Committee will receive a report on the compliance of trap prohibitions in Closed Areas in the Florida Keys, review specifications from NOAA Fisheries for gear marking requirements for recreational harvest of spiny lobster with traps outside of Florida, and provide recommendations as appropriate.

    Protected Resources Committee, Thursday, June 16, 2016, 10:30 a.m. Until 11:30 a.m.

    1. The Committee will receive an update from NOAA Fisheries on Protected Resources issues including the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) for skimmer trawls and a 12-month determination for Nassau grouper. The Committee will also receive an update from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Data Collection Committee, Thursday, June 16, 2016, 1 p.m. Until 2:30 p.m.

    1. The Committee will receive an update from NOAA Fisheries on the status of work relative to Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3 (CE-BA 3) addressing bycatch, discuss the amendment and provide direction to staff.

    2. The Committee will receive an update on the status of the Implementation Plan for commercial logbook electronic reporting and the NMFS pilot project, discuss and provide guidance to staff.

    3. The Committee will also receive an overview of the Atlantic For-Hire Reporting Amendment, discuss core variables, and modify the document as appropriate.

    4. The Committee will receive an update on the Council's Citizen Science Program, discuss, and take action as appropriate.

    Executive Finance Committee, Thursday, June 16, 2016, 2:30 p.m. Until 3:30 p.m.

    1. The Committee will review and approve the Calendar Year (CY) 2016 budget; review, modify, and approve the Council Follow-up and work priorities; and provide recommendations as appropriate.

    2. The Committee will receive a report from the Council Coordinating Committee meeting, discuss standards and procedures for participating in Council webinar meetings and for accepting public comment, discuss the development of a Visioning Project for other species managed by the Council, and take action as appropriate.

    3. The Committee will discuss the use of Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistical Program (ACCSP) data for developing FMP amendments and ACCSP housing commercial logbook data and headboat data and take action as appropriate.

    King and Spanish Mackerel Committee, Thursday, June 16, 2016: 3:30 p.m. Until 5:30 p.m.

    1. The Committee will receive a report from NOAA Fisheries on the recreational and commercial catches versus ACLs and the status of amendments under review, and a report from the April 2016 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council meeting.

    2. The Committee will receive updates on decisions relative to Atlantic cobia by the states and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), review public input, and take action as necessary.

    3. The Committee will receive an overview of Framework Amendment 4 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP addressing management measures for Atlantic cobia, review and approve actions and alternatives, modify the document as needed, select preferred alternatives, and approve the document for public hearings.

    4. The Committee will review Framework Amendment 5 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP that would remove current restrictions on commercial king mackerel and Spanish mackerel permits that prohibit the retention of bag limit king mackerel and Spanish mackerel on recreational (non-commercial and non-charter/headboat) trips on federally permitted vessels when commercial harvest is closed for the Gulf of Mexico region. The Committee will consider a joint framework amendment with the Gulf Council in order to apply the regulations to the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Mid-Atlantic regions, and provide recommendations as appropriate.

    5. The Committee will receive an overview of options being considered in Amendment 29 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP to address allocations of Gulf migratory group king mackerel, discuss, and take action as needed.

    Council Session: Friday, June 17, 2016, 8:30 a.m. Until 1 p.m.

    8:30-8:45 a.m.: Call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, and approve the March 2016 meeting minutes.

    8:45-9:30 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee and approve/disapprove Snapper Grouper Amendment 41 (mutton snapper) for public hearings. The Council will consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.

    9:30-10 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Mackerel Committee, approve/disapprove Coastal Migratory Pelagics Framework Amendment 4 (Atlantic cobia) for public hearings, consider other Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    10 a.m.-10:10 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Spiny Lobster Committee, consider other Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    10:10-10:30 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Joint Dolphin Wahoo and Snapper Grouper Committees, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    10:30-10:40 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Protected Resources Committee, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    10:40-10:50 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the AP Selection Committee, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    10:50-11 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the SSC Selection Committee, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    11:10-11:10 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the SEDAR Committee, consider committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    11:10-11:20 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Data Collection Committee, consider committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    11:20-11:25 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Habitat Committee, consider committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    11:25-11:30 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Law Enforcement Committee, approve the recipient of the Law Enforcement Officer of the Year award, consider other committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    11:30-11:40 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Executive Finance Committee, approve the Council CY 2016 budget, approve the Council Follow-Up and Priorities, consider other Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

    11:40-1 p.m.: The Council will receive status reports from NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center; review and develop recommendations on Experimental Fishing Permits as necessary; receive an update on the Marine Resources Education Program—Southeast; receive agency and liaison reports; and discuss other business and upcoming meetings.

    Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES).

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12618 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 16 June 2016, at 9 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials.

    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing [email protected]; or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

    Dated: May 20, 2016 in Washington, DC. Thomas Luebke, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12404 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and a service previously furnished by such agencies.

    Comments Must Be Received On Or Before: June 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following product and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 10738—Holder, Pot Lid and Utensil, Includes Shipper 20738 Mandatory for: The requirements of military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 51, 51-6.4. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Distribution: C-List Services Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: Department of Homeland Securit, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, 1131 Chapel Crossing Road, Glynco, GA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries of the Coastal Empire, Inc., Savannah, GA Contracting Activity: Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, GA Service Type: Mailroom and Courier Service Mandatory for: Office of Personnel Management, Federal Investigative Service, Boyers, PA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Keystone Vocational Services, Inc., Hermitage, PA Contracting Activity: Office of Personnel Management, Boyers, PA Service Type: Contractor Operated Parts Store (COPARS) Mandatory for: U.S. Marine Corps, Motor Transport Department, Contractor Operated Parts Store (COPARS), Marine Corps Air Station, Building 160, Cherry Point, NC Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Eastern Carolina Vocational Center, Inc., Greenville, NC Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Navy, Commanding General, Camp Lejeune, NC Service Type: Base Supply Center Mandatory for: Defense Health Agency, Defense Health Headquarters, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Falls Church, VA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: Dept. of Defense, Defense Health Agency (DHA), Falls Church, VA Deletions

    The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6515-00-NSH-0004—Applicator, Disposable, 6515-00-NSH-0005—Applicator, Disposable Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Suburban Adult Services, Inc., Elma, NY Contracting Activities: Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL, Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Service Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army Reserve, Chapman USARC, 2408 East Main Street, Danville, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Child-Adult Resource Services, Inc., Rockville, IN Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Army, W6QM MICC Ft. McCoy (RC), Ft. McCoy, WI Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12587 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete products and services from the Procurement List that were previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Deletions

    On 4/22/2016 (81 FR 23682) and 4/29/2016 (81 FR 25652), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and services are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 3206—Goody Hair Care Products—Stay Put Headbands sports 4ct MR 3210—Goody Hair Care Products—Ouchless Elastic Long Thin MR 3237—Goody Hair Care Products—Bobby Pin Box w/magnetic Top black MR 3238—Goody Hair Care Products—Bobby Pin Box w/magnetic Top brown MR 3244—Goody Hair Care Products—Comb, 7in Utility Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Association for Vision Rehabilitation and Employment, Inc., Binghamton, NY Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7195-01-567-9518—Bulletin Board, Fabric, 48″ x 36″, Plastic Frame 7195-01-484-0015—Bulletin Board, Granite Finish, 48″ x 36″, Aluminum Frame Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA Contracting Activities: Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8455-01-591-5248—Lapel Pin, Navy Retired, Dual Flag Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7105-00-935-1845—Cover, Folding Cot Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cambria County Association for the Blind and Handicapped, Johnstown, PA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 1055-01-141-5205—Webbing Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Huntsville Rehabilitation Foundation, Huntsville, AL Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: GSA PBS Region 3, Metro West, 300 and 400 North Greene Street, Baltimore, MD Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chimes, Inc., Baltimore, MD Contracting Activity: GSA/PBS/R03, Regional Contracts Support Services Section, Philadelphia, PA Service Type: Recycling Service Mandatory for: Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Francis E. Warren AFB, WY Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Magic City Enterprises, Inc., Cheyenne, WY Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4613 90 CONS LGC, Francis E. Warren AFB, WY Service Type: Laundry Service Mandatory for: McChord Air Force Base: Lodging Colored Linen, McChord AFB, WA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Northwest Center, Seattle, WA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4479 62 CONS LGC, McChord AFB, WA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12588 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP); Correction AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy published a document in the Federal Register (81 FR 28054) on May 9, 2016, concerning the open meeting of Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP). Due to the meeting location, pre-registration of public attendees is requested.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 31, 2016 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, June 1, 2016 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Members of the public should submit their comments in advance of the meeting to the meeting point of contact. Members of the public who expect to attend are asked to provide name and citizenship in advance to the meeting point of contact in order to facilitate entry in the office suite.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at 4100 Fairfax Drive, Suite 800, Arlington, VA, 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CDR Joel W. Feldmeier, Office of Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street Suite 1425, Arlington, VA 22203-1995, telephone (703) 696-5121, or see http://www.nopp.org/orap-meeting-rsvp/.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12716 Filed 5-25-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0063] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for Federal Student Aid Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Focus Groups Master Plan AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0063. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-105, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Generic Clearance for Federal Student Aid Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Focus Groups Master Plan.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0045.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 200,000.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 45,000.

    Abstract: The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 established Federal Student Aid (FSA) as the first Performance-Based Organization (PBO). One purpose of the PBO is to improve service to student and other participants in the student financial assistance programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, including making those programs more understandable to students and their parents. To do that, FSA has committed to ensuring that all people receive service that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. The legislation's requires establish an on-going need for FSA to be engaged in an interactive process of collecting information and using it to improve program services and processes. The use of customer surveys and focus groups allows FSA to gather that information from the affected parties in a timely manner so as to improve communications with our product users.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12558 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0064] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Experimental Sites Data Collection Instrument AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0064. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-103, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Warren Farr, 202-377-4380.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Experimental Sites Data Collection Instrument.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0118.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 28.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 84.

    Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education Secretary selects institutions for voluntary participation in the Experimental Sites Initiative. Institutions volunteer to become an experimental site to provide recommendations on the impact and effectiveness of proposed regulations or new management initiatives. Participants are exempt from specific statutory and regulatory requirements while conducting the experiments.

    The experiment for which data is being reported relates to the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program and limiting unsubsidized loan amounts.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12559 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0017] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students With Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) Evaluation Protocol AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0017. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-103, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Shedita Alston, 202-502-7808.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) Evaluation Protocol.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0825.

    Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 48.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,096.

    Abstract: In October 2015, the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI), UMass Boston received a five-year cooperative agreement from the Office of Postsecondary Education to serve as the National Coordinating Center (NCC) for colleges and universities implementing inclusive higher education programs for students with intellectual disabilities, including 25 newly-funded model demonstration projects aimed at creating inclusive comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities known as Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSIDs).

    To reduce respondent burden, the NCC has streamlined and simplified the previously approved evaluation system for the TPSID programs. The NCC will enhance the collection and analyses of longitudinal follow up data from the new 25 TPSID model programs via an already developed and previously OMB approved evaluation system for the TPSID programs. The revised data collection system is part of an evaluation effort. The system will collect program data at the institutions from TPSID program staff via an online, secure data management system.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12567 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year reinstatement of its Historic Preservation for Energy Efficiency Programs, OMB Control Number 1910-5155. The proposed collection will allow DOE to continue data collection on the status of Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), State Energy Program (SEP) and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program activities to ensure that recipients are compliant with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before June 27, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to the:

    DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 and to Sallie Glaize, EE-5W, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, Email: [email protected]
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Carlisle, EE-5W, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, Email: [email protected]

    Additional information and reporting guidance concerning the Historic Preservation reporting requirement for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), State Energy Program (SEP) and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program are available for review at the following Web site: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/historic_preservation.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5155; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Historic Preservation for Energy Efficiency Programs; (3) Type of Request: Reinstatement; (4) Purpose: To collect data on the status of Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), State Energy Program (SEP), and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program activities to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 275; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 275; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 662; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

    Statutory Authority: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665 106) establishes that WAP, SEP and EECBG recipients must retain sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the recipient (or subrecipient) has received required approval(s) prior to the expenditure of project funds to alter any historic structure or site.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2016. James Carlisle, Supervisory Policy Advisor, Weatherization and Intergovernmental, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12589 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9947-10-OARM] National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology; Notice of Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; charter renewal.

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C.

    App. 2, the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is a necessary committee which is in the public interest. Accordingly, NACEPT will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of NACEPT is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on a broad range of environmental policy, technology and management issues. Inquiries may be directed to Eugene Green, U.S. EPA, (Mail Code 1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 564-2432, or [email protected]

    Dated: May 5, 2016. Donna J. Vizian, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12630 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9947-11-Region 6] Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions; Petition for Exemption Reissuance—Class I Hazardous Waste Injection; INEOS Nitriles USA LLC (INEOS)—Green Lake Complex, Port Lavaca, Texas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a final decision on a no migration petition reissuance.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a reissuance of an exemption to the land disposal Restrictions, under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, has been granted to INEOS for three Class I hazardous waste injection wells located at their Green Lake Complex located in Port Lavaca, Texas. The company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency by the petition reissuance application and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This final decision allows the underground injection by INEOS, of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this exemption reissuance, into Class I hazardous waste injection Wells WDW-163, WDW-164, and WDW-165 until December 31, 2017, unless EPA moves to terminate this exemption. Additional conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed by contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. A public notice was issued March 16, 2016, and the public comment period closed on May 2, 2016. No comments were received. This decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

    DATES:

    This action is effective as of May 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the petition reissuance and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Division, Safe Drinking Water Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Philip Dellinger, Chief, Ground Water/UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone (214) 665-8324.

    Dated: May 16, 2016. David F. Garcia, Deputy Director, Water Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12632 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9027-2] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 05/16/2016 through 05/20/2016 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20160110, Draft, USFS, CA, Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans, Comment Period Ends: 08/25/2016, Contact: Debra Whitall 707-562-9121. EIS No. 20160111, Draft, TVA, TN, Bull Run Fossil Plant Landfill, Comment Period Ends: 07/12/2016, Contact: Anita Masters 423-751-8697. Dated: May 24, 2016. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12590 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commission announces that it intends to request an extension without change of the existing information collection described below from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission is seeking public comments on the proposed extension.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before July 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this notice may be submitted to the EEOC in three ways; please use only one. Comments and attachments may be submitted online at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting comments. Comments received there will be posted publicly on the same portal without change, including any personal information you provide. However, the EEOC reserves the right to refrain from posting libelous or otherwise inappropriate comments including those that contain obscene, indecent, or profane language; that contain threats or defamatory statements; that contain hate speech directed at race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, or genetic information; or that promote or endorse services or products. Hard copy comments may be submitted to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. The Executive Secretariat also will accept documents totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“fax”) machine at (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Receipt of fax transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTY). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Subject to the conditions noted above, the EEOC will post online at http://www.regulations.gov all comments submitted in hard copy or by fax with the Executive Secretariat.

    All comments received, including any personal information provided, also will be available for public inspection during normal business hours by appointment only at the EEOC Headquarters' Library, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Upon request, individuals who require assistance viewing comments are provided appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule an appointment to inspect the comments at the EEOC's library, contact the library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, (202) 663-4668, or Savannah E. Marion, General Attorney, (202) 663-4909, Office of Legal Counsel, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Copies of this notice are available in the following alternate formats: Large print, braille, electronic computer disk, and audio-tape. Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Publications Center at 1-800-699-3362 (voice), 1-800-800-3302 (TTY), or 703-821-2098 (FAX—this is not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the EEOC to assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public to understand the EEOC's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The EEOC is soliciting comments on the information collection that is described below. The EEOC is especially interested in public comment that will assist the EEOC in the following: (1) Evaluating whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluating the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who are 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 submission of responses. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Collection Title: Informational requirements under Title II of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA), 29 CFR 1625.22.

    OMB Number: 3046-0042.

    Type of Respondent: Business, State or local governments, not for profit institutions.

    Description of Affected Public: Any employer with 20 or more employees that seeks waiver agreements in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program.

    Number of Responses: 17,350.

    Reporting Hours: 26,025.

    Number of Forms: None.

    Burden Statement: The only paperwork burden involved is the inclusion of the relevant data in requests for waiver agreements under the OWBPA.

    Abstract: The EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) which prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment who are age 40 or older. The OWBPA, enacted in 1990, amended the ADEA to require employers to disclose certain information to employees (but not to EEOC) in writing when they ask employees to waive their rights under the ADEA in connection with an exit incentive program or other employment termination program. The regulation at 29 CFR 1625.22 reiterates those disclosure requirements. The EEOC seeks an extension without change for the third-party disclosure requirements contained in this regulation.

    For the Commission.

    Dated: May 23, 2016. Jenny R. Yang, Chair.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12568 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-XXXX] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 26, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

    Title: Connect America Fund-Alternative Connect America Cost Model Support.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,010 unique respondents; 2,090 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours-2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements, one-time reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, 410, and 1302.

    Total Annual Burden: 1,780 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is requesting approval for this new collection. In March 2016, the Commission adopted an order reforming its universal service support program in areas served by rate-of-return carriers. Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109; CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45, Report and Order, Order and Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-33 (Rate-of-Return Order).

    The Commission adopted a voluntary path for rate-of-return carriers to receive model-based universal service support in exchange for making a commitment to deploy broadband-capable networks meeting certain service obligation to a pre-determined number of eligible locations by state. The Commission addressed the requirement that carriers electing model-based support must notify the Commission of that election and their commitment to satisfy the specific service obligations associated with the amount of model support. In addition, the Commission adopted reforms to the universal service mechanisms used to determine support for rate-of-return carriers not electing model-based support. Among other such reforms, the Commission adopted an operating expense limitation to improve carriers' incentives to be prudent and efficient in their expenditures, a capital investment allowance to better target support to those areas with less broadband deployment, and broadband deployment obligations to promote “accountability from companies receiving support to ensure that public investment are used wisely to deliver intended results.” This information collection addresses the new burdens associated with those reforms.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12611 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 24, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President), 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Progressive Financial Group, Inc., Jamestown, Tennessee; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Progressive Savings Bank, Jamestown, Tennessee.

    2. Progressive Financial Group, Inc., Jamestown, Tennessee, to acquire up to 23.3 percent of the voting shares of Upper Cumberland Bancshares, Inc., Byrdstown, Tennessee, and thereby indirectly acquire People's Bank and Trust Company of Pickett County, Byrdstown, Tennessee, and Peoples Bank & Trust Company of Clinton, Albany, Kentucky.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 24, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12580 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the final approval of a proposed information collection by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    Final Approval Under OMB Delegated Authority of The Extension For Three Years, Without Revision, of the Following Reports

    1. Report title: Written Security Program for State Member Banks.

    Agency form number: FR 4198.

    OMB control number: 7100-0326.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Reporters: Bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, state member banks, state-licensed branches and agencies of foreign banks (other than insured branches), and corporations organized or operating under sections 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (agreement corporations and Edge corporations).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: Section 14 strategic planning and budgeting process: Large institutions: 20,160 hours; mid-sized institutions: 17,520 hours; small institutions: 428,080 hours. Section 20 liquidity risk reporters: 261,696 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Section 14 strategic planning and budgeting process: Large institutions: 720 hours; mid-sized institutions: 240 hours; small institutions: 80 hours. Section 20 liquidity risk reporters: 4 hours.

    Number of respondents: Section 14 strategic planning and budgeting process: Large institutions: 28; mid-sized institutions: 73; small institutions: 5,351. Section 20 liquidity risk reporters: 5,452.

    General description of report: The Board's Legal Division has determined that this information collection is mandatory based on the following relevant statutory provisions.

    • Section 9(6) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 324) requires state member banks to make reports of condition to their supervising Reserve Bank in such form and containing such information as the Board may require.

    • Section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)) authorizes the Board to require a BHC and any subsidiary to submit reports to keep the Board informed as to its financial condition, [and] systems for monitoring and controlling financial and operating risk.

    • Section 7(c)(2) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3105(c)(2) requires branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations to file reports of condition with the Federal Reserve to the same extent and in the same manner as if the branch or agency were a state member bank.

    • Section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 625) requires Edge and agreement corporations to make reports to the Board at such time and in such form as it may require.

    • Section 10(b) of the Home Owners' Loan Act requires an SLHC to file reports on the operation of the SLHC and any subsidiary as the Board may require and in such form and for such periods as the Board may require.

    Because the records required by the Guidance are maintained at the institution, issues of confidentiality are not expected to arise. Should the documents be obtained by the Federal Reserve System during the course of an examination, they would be exempt from disclosure under exemption 8 of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8). In addition, some or all of the information may be “commercial or financial” information protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of FOIA, under the standards set forth in National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

    Abstract: On March 22, 2010, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) (the agencies) published a joint final notice in the Federal Register implementing guidance titled “Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management” (the “Guidance”), effective May 21, 2010.1

    1 75 FR 13656 (March 22, 2010).

    The Guidance summarizes the principles of sound liquidity risk management that the agencies have issued in the past and, where appropriate, brings them into conformance with the “Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision” issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) in September 2008. While the BCBS liquidity principles primarily focuses on large internationally active financial institutions, the Guidance emphasizes supervisory expectations for all domestic financial institutions including banks, thrifts and credit unions.

    The agencies 2 have identified two sections of the Guidance that fall under the definition of an information collection. Section 14 states that institutions should consider liquidity costs, benefits, and risks in strategic planning and budgeting processes. Section 20 requires that liquidity risk reports provide aggregate information with sufficient supporting detail to enable management to assess the sensitivity of the institution to changes in market conditions, its own financial performance, and other important risk factors.

    2 As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the OTS was abolished and its functions and powers were transferred to the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve.

    Current Actions: On March 15, 2016, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 13791) requesting public comment for 60 days on the proposal to extend the FR 4198 for three years without revision. The comment period for the notice expired on May 16, 2016. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments, and the information collection will be extended as proposed.

    2. Report title: Recordkeeping Provisions Associated with Guidance on Leveraged Lending.

    Agency form number: FR 4203.

    OMB control number: 7100-0354.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Reporters: All institutions that originate or participate in leverage lending.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 29,422 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: 754.4 hours.

    Number of respondents: 39.

    General description of report: The Board's Legal Division has determined that all financial institutions supervised by the Board and substantively engaged in leveraged lending activities are subject to the FR 4203:

    • Regarding state member banks, the information collection is authorized by Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2), which authorizes the Board to require any depository institution to make such reports of its assets and liabilities as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable the Board to discharge its responsibilities to monitor and control monetary and credit aggregates.

    • With respect to bank holding companies, Section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. 1844(c), authorizes the Board to require a bank holding company and any subsidiary “to keep the Board informed as to—(i) its financial condition, [and] systems for monitoring and controlling financial and operating risks . . . .”

    • With respect to savings and loan holding companies, 12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)(3), authorizes the Board to “maintain such books and records as may be prescribed by the Board.”

    • Regarding branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, Section 7(c)(2) of the International Banking Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. 3105(c)(2), subjects such entities to the requirements of section 11(a) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)) “to the same extent and in the same manner as if the branch or agency were a state member bank.”

    • Under Section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 602, member banks are required to furnish to the Board “information concerning the condition of” Edge and Agreement Corporations in which they invest. More generally with respect to Edge and Agreement Corporations, under Section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 611a, the Federal Reserve may “issue rules and regulations” governing such entities “consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes” of that subchapter.

    Because the information collection is called for in guidance and not in a statute or regulation, it is considered voluntary.

    Because the information collected by the Proposed Guidance is maintained at the institutions, issues of confidentiality would not normally arise. Should the information be obtained by the Board in the course of an examination, it would be exempt from disclosure under exemption 8 of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8). In addition, some or all of the information may be confidential commercial or financial information protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of FOIA, under the standards set forth in National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

    Abstract: The interagency guidance outlines high-level principles related to safe and sound leveraged lending activities, including underwriting considerations, assessing and documenting enterprise value, risk management expectations for credits awaiting distribution, stress testing expectations and portfolio management, and risk management expectations. This guidance applies to all financial institutions substantively engaged in leveraged lending activities supervised by the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC (the Agencies).

    The Agencies identified certain aspects of the proposed guidance that may constitute a collection of information. In particular, these aspects are the provisions that state a banking organization should (a) have underwriting policies for leveraged lending, including stress testing procedures for leveraged credits; (b) have risk management policies, including stress testing procedures for pipeline exposures; and (c) have policies and procedures for incorporating the results of leveraged credit and pipeline stress tests into the firm's overall stress testing framework.

    Although the guidance is applicable to all institutions that originate or participate in leverage lending, due to the large exposures created by these types of loans, these credits are most likely originated primarily by larger institutions.

    Current Actions: On March 15, 2016, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 13791) requesting public comment for 60 days on the proposal to extend the FR 4203 for three years without revision. The comment period for the notice expired on May 16, 2016. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments, and the information collection will be extended as proposed.

    3. Report title: Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulation NN.

    Agency form number: Reg NN.

    OMB control number: 7100-0353.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Reporters: Banking organizations seeking to engage in off-exchange transactions in foreign currency with retail customers.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 1,972 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Reporting, 16 hours; Recordkeeping, 183 hours; Disclosure, 787 hours.

    Number of respondents: 2.

    General description of report: This information collection is required by the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. Section 2(c)(2)(E)), the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. Sections 248 and 321-338), the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. Section 1818), the International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. Section 3108), and Regulation NN (12 CFR part 240). The information collection is mandatory. The reported data are regarded as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(4)).

    Abstract: The reporting requirements associated with Regulation NN are found in section 240.4; the recordkeeping requirements are found in sections 240.7, 240.9, and 240.13(a); and the disclosure requirements are found in sections 240.5, 240.6, 240.10, 240.13b-d, 240.15, and 240.16. These requirements permit banking organizations under the Federal Reserve's supervision to engage in off-exchange transactions in foreign currency with retail customers and to describe various requirements with which banking organizations must comply to conduct such transactions.

    Current Actions: On March 17, 2016, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 14444) requesting public comment for 60 days on the proposal to extend the FR 4203 for three years without revision. The comment period for the notice expired on May 16, 2016. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments, and the information collection will be extended as proposed.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 24, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12604 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0173; Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 28] Information Collection; Limitations on Pass-Through Charges AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Limitations on Pass-Through Charges.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0173, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0173, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0173, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0173, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0173, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, at telephone 202-208-4949 or via email to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    To enable contracting officers to verify that pass-through charges are not excessive, the provision at 52.215-22 requires offerors submitting a proposal for a contract, task order, or delivery order to provide the following information with its proposal: (1) The percent of effort the offeror intends to perform and the percent expected to be performed by each subcontractor. (2) If the offeror intends to subcontract more than 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed—(i) The amount of the offeror's indirect costs and profit/fee applicable to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s); and (ii) A description of the value added by the offeror as related to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s). (3) If any subcontractor intends to subcontract to a lower-tier subcontractor more than 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed under its subcontract—(i) The amount of the subcontractor's indirect costs and profit/fee applicable to the work to be performed by the lower-tier subcontractor(s); and (ii) A description of the value added by the subcontractor as related to the work to be performed by the lower-tier subcontractor(s).

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 4,638.

    Responses per Respondent: 8.7.

    Total Responses: 40,347.

    Hours per Response: 2.

    Total Burden Hours: 80,694.

    Frequency of Collection: On Occasion.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0173, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 23, 2016. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12554 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Eisenberg Center Voluntary Customer Survey Generic Clearance.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by July 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at [email protected]

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Project Eisenberg Center Voluntary Customer Survey Generic Clearance

    The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) renew under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 AHRQ's Generic Clearance to collect information from users of work products and services produced by AHRQ's John M. Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communications Science (Eisenberg Center). The Eisenberg Center is an innovative effort aimed at improving communication of findings to a variety of audiences (“customers”), including consumers, clinicians, and health care policymakers. The Eisenberg Center compiles research results into a variety of useful formats for stakeholders.

    This effort has the following goals:

    (1) Conduct research into effective communication of research findings in order to improve the usability and rapid incorporation of findings into medical practice and decision making.

    (2) Conduct research into effective strategies for disseminating evidence-based products, tools, and resources to consumers, clinicians, and other health care professionals, and policymakers.

    (3) Evaluate outcomes reported by clinicians and other health care professionals resulting from participation in continuing medical education (CME) initiatives and activities.

    (4) Conduct research into factors associated with successful collaboration between AHRQ and partnering institutions and organizations in synthesizing, translating, and disseminating evidence-based research.

    Clearance is being requested to cover a three-year period in which differing numbers of products and research activities may be conducted during each year. The collections proposed include activities to assist in the development of materials to be disseminated through the Eisenberg Center and to provide feedback to AHRQ on the extent to which these products meet customer needs. These materials include summary documents that summarize and translate the findings of research reports for various decision-making audiences, such as consumers, clinicians, and policymakers. The summaries are designed to help these decision makers use research evidence to maximize the benefits of health care, minimize harm, and optimize the use of health care resources. In addition, each year, a unique research project will be undertaken to study successful approaches to disseminating AHRQ products in various health care settings and clinical environments. Also, each year, the Eisenberg Center will develop one interactive decision aid for clinical problems identified from selected research reports. The intent is for the decision aid to increase the decision maker's knowledge of the health condition, options, and risk/benefits; lead to greater assurance in making a decision; increase the congruence between values and choices; and enhance involvement in the decision making process. Information collections conducted under this generic clearance are not required by regulation and will not be used to regulate or sanction customers. Data collections will be entirely voluntary, and information provided by respondents will be combined and summarized so that no individually identifiable information will be released.

    This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Baylor College of Medicine, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).

    Method of Collection

    The data collections listed below will be implemented to achieve project goals. Note: Assessments such as interviews and surveys are here denoted formative if conducted prior to product development or determination of dissemination channels; usability testing or pretesting if conducted while reviewing a draft product, proposed dissemination approach, or other proposed content/strategy; and evaluation if conducted for summative evaluation or to assess satisfaction after the product has been in use or the dissemination campaign, learning activity, or other initiative undertaken.

    Data collections will include the following:

    (1) Interviews for Product and Decision Aid Development, Testing, and Use. Individual interviews will be conducted with clinical professionals, patients, or other health care consumers, or health policymakers. In some cases focus groups may be substituted for patient interviews. These formative and pretesting/cognitive interviews will allow for (1) collecting input from target audiences regarding the development of summary products and decision aids; (2) determining if intended information and messages are being delivered effectively through products that are developed and disseminated through the Eisenberg Center; (3) assessing whether changes in topical knowledge levels can be identified following exposure to Eisenberg Center informational or instructional products or aids; (4) identifying product strengths and weaknesses to facilitate improvements that are practical and feasible; and (5) assessing decision support from the perspective of each audience. In addition, the Eisenberg Center will conduct a new research project annually to inform the enhancement of existing health information products, beyond what is currently being provided. The accompanying assessments will likely consist of interviews conducted with target audience members and may be integrated into the existing product interviews discussed above.

    (2) Interviews for Dissemination Activities. Interviews will be conducted with leadership and staff of health systems, hospitals, and/or clinics in which dissemination activities are conducted to explore, prior to initiating the project, those pathways holding the greatest potential for successful uptake of the AHRQ materials. Interviews will be conducted again after project conclusion with administrators and product users (e.g., consumers, clinicians) to assess success of dissemination efforts, perceptions around product access, challenges that arose, and strategies to facilitate future successful dissemination initiatives.

    (3) Survey for Decision Aids. Following delivery of the decision aid, a user survey will be completed to explore subjects' impressions of the tool, including ease of use, clarity of presentation, length, balance of information, rating of interactive features, and overall satisfaction. Both clinicians and patients/consumers will be surveyed. For patients, the customer satisfaction survey may include decisional outcome measures (e.g., decisional conflict, desire for involvement in decision-making), measures of attitudes and self-efficacy, and indicators of choice intention or actual choice made. If the aid is evaluated within a clinical context, measures of physician-patient interaction will also be considered. Additionally, clinicians may be interviewed about the impact of the aid on decision making, clinical flow, and patient outcomes.

    (4) Survey for Summary Products (initial, follow up). Very brief surveys will be offered to health care professionals, consumers, and policymakers that use the online summaries. Immediately upon accessing the summaries, visitors will be asked to complete a brief survey assessing for whom they were seeking information, how the product might be used, and an email address for a follow-up survey. Respondents will subsequently be sent an email asking them to complete a follow-up online survey assessing how the information has been used, whether it influenced health care practices, and any barriers to use or suggestions for improvement.

    (5) Survey of Patient and Consumer Advocacy Organizations. Each project year, representatives from consumer and patient advocacy organizations will be invited to attend a meeting and participate in ongoing activities to facilitate engagement in AHRQ systematic review, translation, and dissemination activities. Surveys by phone or online questionnaire will be used to assess the quality of the in-person meeting and ongoing activities, the impact and value of engaging with AHRQ, the value of research and translation products for the target audiences, how partners and their constituents are using the products, and ways to make the products and partnerships with AHRQ more useful for partners and have a broader reach.

    (6) Survey of AHRQ Partners. AHRQ, through the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program and Eisenberg Center, works in partnership with organizations when developing, translating, and/or disseminating research reports and related products. AHRQ's partners include developers of clinical practice guidelines, payers, other Government agencies, private companies, consumer and patient advocacy groups, and health care systems. Surveys by phone or online questionnaire, followed by targeted interviews, will be used to assess the impact and value of AHRQ research products for the target audiences, determine how partners are using the products, and identify ways to make the products and partnerships more useful for partners and have a broader reach.

    (7) CME Outcomes Survey. AHRQ through the Eisenberg Center will offer AMA PRA Category 1 CME credit for certain products that it develops. Clinicians wishing to claim credit must complete an outcome assessment survey delivered online two months after completing the activity.

    (8) Interviews and Surveys for Dissemination Research Project. Each project year the Eisenberg Center will propose and conduct a unique research project aimed at disseminating products. As part of that project, formative interviews and potentially cognitive testing will be conducted with consumers, clinicians, and administrators from participating health systems, hospitals, and/or clinics for purposes of assessing current dissemination initiatives, similar products available to their consumers, ways to optimize dissemination, and other indicators as determined by the project aims. These three audiences may also be asked to complete follow-up surveys and/or participate in interviews to document project outcomes and lessons learned from the study.

    The information will be used to develop, improve and/or maintain high quality health care informational products and services for the lay public and health care professionals. Each product previously developed by the Eisenberg Center was proposed, drafted, tested, and revised with heavy reliance on data collected in a manner similar to those approaches described in this clearance. This includes data collected at the formative stage when ideas for the product and its information parameters are being developed, through draft testing and revisions, and finally product implementation and evaluation of its usefulness in practice. Work on implementing and evaluating dissemination strategies and approaches will complement the development activities in optimizing delivery to the targeted audiences.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated total burden for the respondents' time to participate in this research. These estimates assume a maximum of 141 Summary products over 3 years with separate products developed for clinicians, policymakers, and consumers.

    Formative interviews, and in some cases focus groups, will be used to conduct needs assessment and will be held with clinicians and consumers for development of the products and decision aids, and additionally with policymakers for those products in which policy recommendations are applicable. Interviews will be conducted with no more than 2,115 persons for product development, 180 persons for decision aid development, and 180 persons for development of dissemination initiatives over 3 years, and each will last about 60 minutes.

    Once the products are developed they will be subjected to in-person or telephone interviews for purposes of usability and product testing with clinicians, policymakers and consumers. In-person/telephone interviews will be conducted with about 2,115 persons for products and 180 persons for decision aids over 3 years and will take about 60 minutes on average. A second round of interviews will be conducted only occasionally with one or more of the targeted populations if necessary due to substantial product revisions. These interviews may also be used to inform product enhancements in relation to the annual enhancement study. Because these specifications cannot be determined in advance, clearance is being requested for two testing rounds with every product and every audience.

    Evaluation surveys will be conducted with approximately 6,000 representatives across the targeted audiences (i.e., consumer, clinician, policymaker) for the health information products and 2,400 persons who have used the decision aids over the 3-year period. The product surveys will take about 5 minutes to complete, and the decision aid surveys about 10 minutes. A follow-up survey will be completed for the product evaluations, which will also last about 5 minutes, while a subset of 180 of those having used the decision aids will be asked to participate in a follow-up evaluation interview lasting an hour.

    Those involved in or targeted by the dissemination initiatives will be asked to participate in evaluation interviews, which will include up to 480 persons completing interviews across the 3 project years. Note: Because the timing of interviews with persons at the 6 total partner organizations has not yet been finalized, AHRQ is requesting that all dissemination-related interviews be approved for the first project year. For simplicity, the interviews are presented as annualized in Exhibits 1 and 2.

    The unique dissemination research project to be proposed and completed annually will include 135 formative interviews with consumers, clinicians, and administrators, with each lasting 1 hour. Follow-up evaluation surveys and interviews will be conducted with 360 and 180 persons, respectively.

    AHRQ partners will be asked to complete surveys and interviews in relation to their prior or ongoing collaborative work with AHRQ. These will include 150 people completing surveys and 60 follow-up interviews. Similar types of surveys designed with the goal of improving products and expanding their research will be completed by 90 representatives of advocacy organizations across the 3 years, with each survey lasting about 10 minutes.

    Clinicians that have completed CME accrediting requirements and are requesting CME credit will be asked to complete a follow-up outcomes survey two months following completion of the online activity. These will be completed by no more than 27,000 clinicians over 3 years and will require 5 minutes to complete.

    The total burden hours are estimated to be 13,875 annually or 41,625 over 3 years. The total annual cost burden is $237,604.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Product Formative Interviews 705 1 1 705 Product Pretesting Interviews 705 2 1 1,410 Product Evaluation Surveys 2,000 2 5/60 333 Dissemination Formative Interviews 40 1 1 40 Dissemination Evaluation Interviews 120 1 1 120 Decision Aid Formative Interviews 60 1 1 60 Decision Aid Pretesting Interviews 60 1 1 60 Decision Aid Evaluation Interviews 60 1 1 60 Decision Aid Evaluation Surveys 800 1 10/60 133 Research Project Formative Interviews 45 1 1 45 Research Project Evaluation Surveys 120 1 10/60 20 Research Project Evaluation Interviews 60 1 1 60 Partnership Evaluation Surveys 50 1 10/60 8 Partnership Evaluation Interviews 20 1 1 20 Advocacy Meeting Evaluation Surveys 30 1 10/60 5 CME Outcomes Surveys 9,000 1 5/60 750 Total 13,875 na na 3,830 * For the 3-year contract period, product formative interviews and product testing interviews will each comprise 300 consumers, 300 clinicians, and 105 policymakers; product evaluation surveys will include 800 consumers, 800 clinicians, and 400 policymakers; dissemination-related formative interviews will include 40 health system/hospital/clinic administrators; dissemination-related evaluation interviews will include 40 consumers, 40 clinicians, and 40 administrators; formative interviews, pretesting interviews, and evaluation interviews for the decision aids will each include 30 consumers and 30 clinicians; evaluation surveys for the decision aids will include 400 consumers and 400 clinicians; formative interviews for the annual dissemination research project will include 15 consumers, 15 clinicians, and 15 administrators; evaluation surveys for the research project will include 50 consumers, 50 clinicians, and 20 administrators; evaluation interviews for the research project will include 20 consumers, 20 clinicians, and 20 administrators; the AHRQ partner surveys will include 50 partners; the AHRQ partner evaluation interviews will include 20 partners; the health advocates surveys will include 30 participants; and CME outcomes surveys will include 500 clinicians for each of 18 CME activities.
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Average
  • hourly wage rate *
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • Product Formative Interviews 705 705 a $54.81 $38,641 Product Pretesting Interviews 705 1,410 a 54.81 77,282 Product Evaluation Surveys 2,000 333 a 54.00 17,982 Dissemination Formative Interviews 40 40 a 49.84 1,994 Dissemination Evaluation Interviews 120 120 a 54.74 6,568 Decision Aid Formative Interviews 60 60 a 57.19 3,431 Decision Aid Pretesting Interviews 60 60 a 57.19 3,431 Decision Aid Evaluation Interviews 60 60 a 57.19 3,431 Decision Aid Evaluation Surveys 800 133 a 57.19 7,606 Research Project Formative Interviews 45 45 b 54.74 2,463 Research Project Evaluation Surveys 120 20 b 55.96 1,119 Research Project Evaluation Interviews 60 60 b 54.74 3,284 AHRQ Partner Evaluation Surveys 50 8 c 54.50 436 AHRQ Partner Evaluation Interviews 20 20 c 54.50 1,090 Advocacy Meeting Evaluation Surveys 30 5 d 21.21 106 CME Outcomes Surveys 9,000 750 e 91.66 68,745 Total 13,875 3,830 na 237,604 * National Compensation Survey: Occupational wages in the United States May 2014, “U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.” a Based on the mean and/or weighted mean wages for various combinations of consumers (00-0000 all occupations), clinicians (29-1060 physicians and surgeons, 29-1062 family and general practitioners), and health policymakers (11-0000 management occupations, 11-3111 compensation & benefits managers, 13-1141 compensation, benefits & job analysis specialists, 11-9111 medical and health service managers, 13-2053 insurance underwriters and 15-2011 actuaries). b Based on the mean and/or weighted mean wages for various combinations of consumers (00-0000 all occupations), clinicians (29-1060 physicians and surgeons, 29-1062 family and general practitioners), and health system/hospital/clinic administrators (11-9111 medical and health services managers). c Based on the mean wages for AHRQ partners (25-1071 health specialties teachers, postsecondary, 11-1021 general and operations managers, 21-0091 health educators, 21-1093 social and human service assistants, 11-9111 medical and health services managers). d Based on the mean wages for health advocacy organizations (21-1093 social and human service assistants [social advocacy organizations], 21-0091 health educators). e Based on the mean wages for clinicians (29-1060 physicians and surgeons, 29-1062 family and general practitioners).

    Exhibit 2 depicts the estimated total cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this research. The cost burden is estimated to be $237,604 annually.

    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12532 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council.

    The meeting will be open as indicated below, viewing virtually by Webex.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

    Individuals can register to view and access the meeting by the link below. https://nih.webex.com/nih/onstage/g.php?MTID=ea58bf69ded4e3ef172feeb063ee9e4e5.

    1. Go to “Event Status” on the left hand side of page, then click “Register”. On the registration form, enter your information and then click “Submit” to complete the required registration.

    2. You will receive a personalized email with the live event link.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council.

    Date: June 13, 2016.

    Open: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Report from the Institute Director and other staff.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, NCATS Board Room, 9800 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, (Virtual Meeting).

    Closed: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, NCATS Board Room, 9800 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Anna L. Ramsey-Ewing, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1072, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0809, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to finalizing the agenda and scheduling of meeting topics.

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the Cures Acceleration Network Review Board.

    Name of Committee: Cures Acceleration Network Review Board.

    Date: June 13, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Report from the Institute Director.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, NCATS Board Room, 9800 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Anna L. Ramsey-Ewing, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1072, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0809, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to finalizing the agenda and scheduling of meeting topics.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 23, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12500 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel; ENCODE Characterization.

    Date: July 7, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel, 2800, Studio D, South Potomac Ave., Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Keith McKenney, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, NHGRI, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-594-4280, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel; ENCODE DATA.

    Date: July 14, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Crystal City Marriott, Need Rom Room, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Lita Proctor, Ph.D., Extramural Research Programs Staff, Program Director, Human Microbiome Project, National Human Genome Research Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301 496-4550, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 20, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12501 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.

    Date: June 21-22, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: The NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) will review and discuss selected human gene transfer protocols and related data management activities. In addition, Dr. Carl June (Perelman School of Medicine, Univ. of Pennsylvania) will present the results of findings of his group regarding a rare Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cell manufacturing event. For more information, please check the meeting agenda at the OSP Web site, RAC Meeting Page (available at the following URL: http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-biotechnology-activities/event/2016-06-21-120000-2016-06-210000/rac-meeting).

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 35, Conference Room 620/630, 9000 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Shayla Beckham, Extramural Support Assistant, Office of Science Policy, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 750, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-496-9838, [email protected]

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://oba.od.nih.gov/rdna/rdna.html, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    OMB's “Mandatory Information Requirements for Federal Assistance Program Announcements” (45 FR 39592, June 11, 1980) requires a statement concerning the official government programs contained in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Normally NIH lists in its announcements the number and title of affected individual programs for the guidance of the public. Because the guidance in this notice covers virtually every NIH and Federal research program in which DNA recombinant molecule techniques could be used, it has been determined not to be cost effective or in the public interest to attempt to list these programs. Such a list would likely require several additional pages. In addition, NIH could not be certain that every Federal program would be included as many Federal agencies, as well as private organizations, both national and international, have elected to follow the NIH Guidelines. In lieu of the individual program listing, NIH invites readers to direct questions to the information address above about whether individual programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance are affected.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 23, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Specialist, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12503 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Request for Information on the Development of the FY 2018 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research SUMMARY:

    Through this Request for Information (RFI), the Office of AIDS Research (OAR) in the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, National Institutes of Health (NIH) invites feedback from investigators in academia, industry, health care professionals, patient advocates and health advocacy organizations, scientific or professional organizations, federal agencies, and other interested constituents and the community on the development of the fiscal year 2018 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research. This plan is designed to identify and articulate possible future directions to maximize benefits of investments in HIV/AIDS research.

    DATES:

    The Office of AIDS Research Request for Information is open for public comment for a period of 30 days. Comments must be received by June 27, 2016 to ensure consideration. After the public comment period has closed, the comments received will be considered in a timely manner by the Office of AIDS Research in the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submissions may be electronically to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions about this request for information should be directed to Shoshana Kahana, Ph.D., Office of AIDS Research, Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected], 301-496-0357.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OAR oversees and coordinates the conduct and support of all HIV/AIDS research activities at the NIH. The NIH-sponsored HIV/AIDS research program includes both extramural and intramural research, buildings and facilities, research training, and program evaluation and supports a comprehensive portfolio of research representing a broad range of basic, clinical, behavioral, social science, and translational research on HIV/AIDS and its associated coinfections. The NIH HIV/AIDS research program is conducted and supported by nearly all of the NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs).

    OAR plans and coordinates research through the development of an annual Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research (the “Plan”) that articulates the overarching HIV/AIDS research priorities and serves as the framework for developing the trans-NIH AIDS research budget. The Plan provides information about the NIH's HIV/AIDS research priorities to the scientific community, Congress, community stakeholders, HIV-affected communities, and the broad public at large. The fiscal year 2017 Plan was recently distributed on the OAR Web site: (http://www.oar.nih.gov/strategic_plan/fy2017/OARStrategicPlan2017.pdf).

    New overarching priorities for HIV/AIDS research for the next three to five years were defined in the NIH Director's Statement of August 12, 2015 (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-137.html).

    High Priority topics of research for support include:

    (1) Reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS (including the development of a safe and effective vaccine, microbicides, and pre-exposure prophylaxis candidates);

    (2) Developing the next generation of HIV therapies with less toxicity, better safety, and ease of use;

    (3) Identifying strategies to cure AIDS; and

    (4) Improving the prevention and treatment of HIV-associated comorbidities, coinfections, and complications.

    There also are three cross-cutting areas associated with these overarching priorities which include:

    (1) Basic research underlying the basic biology of HIV (e.g., transmission and pathogenesis; immune dysfunction and chronic inflammation; host microbiome and genetic determinants);

    (2) Research to reduce health disparities in the incidence of new HIV infections or in treatment outcomes of those living with HIV/AIDS; and

    (3) Research training of the workforce required to conduct high priority HIV/AIDS research.

    Information Requested

    OAR is seeking input on the inclusion of important new and/or emerging areas of scientific investigation to inform the development of the fiscal year 2018 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research. The overarching high-priority areas of research as delineated in NOT-15-137 will remain unchanged. OAR would like feedback on those scientific and research opportunities that refine the NIH HIV/AIDS research agenda and optimize the investment of HIV/AIDS research resources to search for critical strategies to prevent, treat, and cure AIDS.

    Please provide your perspective on any of the following topics as they relate to the development of the fiscal year 2018 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research. Comments can include but are not limited to the following areas:

    1. Emerging strategies and technologies related to the development, testing, and production of promising HIV vaccine candidates (active and passive), and novel adjuvants, including the coordinated role that mucosal and systemic immunity play in protection from viral acquisition and infection.

    2. Emerging topics related to the development, testing, and formulation of microbicides, pre-exposure prophylaxis candidates, long acting/and/or injectable formulations of antiretroviral treatment candidates (and related methods of delivery for HIV treatments) that are less toxic, longer acting, have fewer side effects and complications, and easier to take and adhere to than current regimens.

    3. Emerging topics that relate to the research toward a cure, including the development of novel approaches and strategies that could lead to sustained HIV remission or viral eradication without the continuing need for combination antiretroviral therapy, including studies of HIV persistence, latency, and reservoir formation.

    4. Emerging topics that relate to the HIV cascade of care, including the development, testing, and implementation of integrated biomedical, behavioral, and social science strategies to improve HIV testing and entry into prevention and treatment services, including linkage, engagement, and retention in these services for optimal treatment response.

    5. Emerging topics that relate to basic research underlying the basic biology of HIV, (e.g., acquisition, transmission and pathogenesis; viral persistence; immune dysfunction and chronic inflammation; host microbiome and genetic determinants; and pathogenesis of opportunistic infections, coinfections, comorbidities, and HIV-related mortalities.

    6. Emerging topics that relate to reducing health disparities in the incidence of new HIV infections or in treatment outcomes of those living with HIV/AIDS, with a specific focus on structural, environmental, and community-level determinants of health and the interplay of these determinants in developing strategies to mitigate the disparities in HIV incidence and access to HIV preventive and treatment services,

    7. Emerging topics that relate to the challenges and opportunities that should be considered for research training and career development programs targeting researchers conducting high priority HIV/AIDS research.

    Please limit responses to <1500 characters. Responses to this RFI Notice are voluntary. The submitted information will be reviewed by NIH staff and may be made available to the public. Submitted information will not be considered confidential. This request is for information and planning purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation of the federal government or the NIH. No awards will be made based on responses to this Request for Information. The information submitted will be analyzed and may be used in reports or presentations. Those who respond are advised that the NIH is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of your comments, or provide comments on your submission. No proprietary, classified, confidential and/or sensitive information should be included in your response. The NIH and the government reserve the right to use any non-proprietary technical information in any future solicitation(s).

    Dated: May 20, 2016. Lawrence A. Tabak, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12578 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; The Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP) Database (NCI) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institutes of Health, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2016 (Vol. 81, P. 12914) and allowed 60-days for public comment. No public comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Jose Galvez, MD, Office of the Director, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20852 or call non-toll-free number 240-276-5206 or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: The Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP) Database (NCI), 0925-0600, Expiration Date 05/31/2016—Revision, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP) is an electronic resource that serves as a single, definitive source of information about all NCI-supported clinical research. This resource allows the NCI to consolidate reporting, aggregate information and reduce redundant submissions. Information is submitted by clinical research administrators as designees of clinical investigators who conduct NCI-supported clinical research. The designees can electronically access the CTRP Web site to complete the initial trial registration. Subsequent to registration, four amendments and four study subject accrual updates occur per trial annually.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours are 18,000.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • time per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual burden
  • hours
  • Clinical Trials Initial Registration 3,000 1 1 3,000 Amendment 1,500 4 1 6,000 Update 1,500 4 1 6,000 Accrual Updates 3,000 4 15/60 3000 Total 9,000 27,000 18,000
    Dated: May 20, 2016. Karla Bailey, Project Clearance Liaison, National Cancer Institute, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12504 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Grant Review for NHLBI K Award Recipients.

    Date: June 21, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: Melissa E Nagelin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7202, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0297, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 23, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12502 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Neuroimaging, Neuroinformatics and Neurogenetics.

    Date: June 10, 2016.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Vilen A. Movsesyan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040M, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7278, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-14-166: Early Phase Clinical Trials in Imaging and Image-Guided Interventions.

    Date: June 17, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Chiayeng Wang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5213, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2397, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: HIV/AIDS Innovative Research Applications.

    Date: June 21-22, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Jingsheng Tuo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5207, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-8754, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical and Translational Imaging Applications.

    Date: June 22, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Eileen W. Bradley, DSC, Chief, SBIB IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5100, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1179, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group; Drug Discovery and Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance Study Section.

    Date: June 23-24, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: American Inn of Bethesda, 8130 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Guangyong Ji, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3188, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1146, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846- 93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 23, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12499 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Bioengineering Sciences.

    Date: June 21, 2016.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Joseph Thomas Peterson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9694, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Health Care Delivery and Methodologies Research Project Grants.

    Date: June 21, 2016.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3164, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806-0009, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Temporal Dynamics of Neurophysiological Patterns as Potential Targets for Treating Cognitive Deficits in Brain Disorders.

    Date: June 23, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Kirk Thompson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5184, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1242, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; AREA: Applications in Cell and Developmental Biology.

    Date: June 23, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Thomas Beres, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Rm. 5201, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1175, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; AREA: Immunology.

    Date: June 24, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Alok Mulky, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review (CSR), National Institutes of Health (NIH), 6701 Rockledge Dr., Room 4203, Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 435-3566, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 20, 2016. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12506 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request a Generic Submission for Formative Research, Pretesting and Customer Satisfaction of NCI's Communication and Education Resources (NCI) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2016 P. 12514 and allowed 60 days for public comment. No public comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Cancer Institute, NCI, National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments To OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Nina Goodman, Public Health Advisor, Office of Communication and Public Liaison, 9609 Medical Center Drive, RM 2E446 Rockville, MD 20850 or call non-toll-free number (240) 276-6600 or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: A Generic Submission for Formative Research, Pretesting and Customer Satisfaction of NCI's Communication and Education Resources (NCI), 0925-0046, Expiration Date 05/31/2016, REVISION, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: As part of NCI's mandate from Congress to disseminate information on cancer research, detection, prevention, and treatment, the Institute develops a wide variety of messages and materials. Testing these messages and materials assesses their potential effectiveness in reaching and communicating with their intended audience while they are still in the developmental stage and can be revised. The formative research and pretesting process thus contributes to maximizing NCI's limited dollar resources for information dissemination and education. NCI also must ensure the relevance, utility, and appropriateness of the many educational programs and products that the Institute produces. Customer satisfaction studies help NCI identify modifications necessary to meet the needs of NCI's various target audiences. Since the previous submission, there have been 10 approved sub-studies with an approved request of just under 1400 burden hours over 2.5 years. Approval is requested for the conduct of multiple studies annually using such methods as interviews, focus groups, and various types of surveys. The content, timing, and number of respondents to be included in each sub-study will vary, depending on the nature of the message/material/program being assessed, the methodology selected, and the target audiences.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 33,000.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Category of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response per respondent Time per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Burden hours
    Healthcare Providers and Professionals including those working in health field (e.g., cancer researchers) Focus Groups, Individual In-Depth Interviews, Brief Interviews, Surveys, Website Usability Testing 16,500 1 1 16,500 General Public, Cancer Patients, Friends and Families of Patients Focus Groups, Individual In-Depth Interviews, Brief Interviews, Surveys, Website Usability Testing 16,500 1 1 16,500 Totals 33,000 33,000 33,000
    Dated: May 20, 2016. Karla Bailey, Project Clearance Liaison, National Cancer Institute, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12505 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Proposed Project: SAMHSA SOAR Web-Based Data Form (OMB No. 0930-0329)—REVISION

    In 2009 the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services established a Technical Assistance Center to assist in the implementation of the SSI/SSDI Outreach Access and Recovery (SOAR) effort in all states. The primary objective of SOAR is to improve the allowance rate for Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits for people who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, and who have a serious mental illness.

    During the SOAR training, the importance of keeping track of SSI/SSDI applications through the process is stressed. In response to requests from states implementing SOAR, the Technical Assistance Center, under SAMHSA's direction, developed a web-based data form that case managers can use to track the progress of submitted applications, including decisions received from SSA either on initial application or on appeal. This password-protected web-based data form is hosted on the SOAR Web site (https://soartrack.prainc.com). Use of this form is completely voluntary.

    In addition, data from the web-based form can be compiled into reports on decision results and the use of SOAR core components, such as the SSA-1696 Appointment of Representative, which allows SSA to communicate directly with the case manager assisting with the application. These reports will be reviewed by agency directors, SOAR state-level leads, and the national SOAR Technical Assistance Center to quantify the success of the effort overall and to identify areas where additional technical assistance is needed.

    The changes to this form include questions on military discharge status, VA disability compensation, applicant earnings per month, number of consultative exams ordered, and whether access to benefits facilitated housing. Additionally, we added three questions to the user registration form that include county, funding source, and SOAR training completed.

    The estimated response burden has not changed and is as follows:

    Information source Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    SOAR Data Form 700 3 2100 .25 525

    Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 15E-57B, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857 or email her a copy at [email protected] Written comments should be received by July 26, 2016.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12555 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Project: 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (OMB No. 0930-0110)—Revision

    The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is a survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years old or older. The data are used to determine the prevalence of use of tobacco products, alcohol, illicit substances, and illicit use of prescription drugs. The results are used by SAMHSA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Federal government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, direct program activities, and better allocate resources.

    While NSDUH must be updated periodically to reflect changing substance use and mental health issues and to continue producing current data, for the 2017 NSDUH only the following minor changes are planned: (1) Updated questions so respondents who report no use of alcohol are not asked about misuse of prescription drugs with alcohol; and (2) included other minor wording changes to improve the flow of the interview, increase respondent comprehension or to be consistent with text in other questions.

    As with all NSDUH/NHSDA 1 surveys conducted since 1999, the sample size of the survey for 2017 will be sufficient to permit prevalence estimates for each of the fifty States and the District of Columbia. The total annual burden estimate is shown below in Table 1.

    1 Prior to 2002, the NSDUH was referred to as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA).

    Table 1—Annualized Estimated Burden for 2017 NSDUH Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Household Screening 131,983 1 131,983 0.083 10,955 Interview 67,507 1 67,507 1.000 67,507 Screening Verification 3,755 1 3,755 0.067 252 Interview Verification 10,126 1 10,126 0.067 678 Total 131,983 213,371 79,932

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by June 27, 2016 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12486 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2016-0437] Update to Alternative Planning Criteria (APC) National Guidelines AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, OHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces the availability of a draft update to the Alternative Planning Criteria (APC) National Guidelines. The APC Guidelines provide the maritime industry with updated information on the development and submission of an APC request made pursuant to existing regulations. In addition to providing guidance to vessel owners and operators on developing APC requests, the APC Guidelines will also facilitate consistency in the review of APC requests by Coast Guard personnel. This notice solicits public comment on the procedures contained in the draft update to the APC Guidelines.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the USCG by August 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view the APC Guidelines as well as documents mentioned in this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type “USCG-2016-0437” and click “Search.” Then click the “Open Docket Folder.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For USCG: CDR Scott Stoermer, Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy, 202-372-2234.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The USCG encourages participation in updating the APC Guidelines by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information provided.

    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the docket number (USCG-2016-0437), indicate the specific section of the APC Guidelines to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name, a mailing address, an email address and/or a phone number in the body of your document to facilitate follow-up contact if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type “USCG-2016-0437” in the search box, and click “Search.” Then click “Comment Now!” on the appropriate line. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the DHS Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type “USCG-2016-0437” and click “Search.” Then click the “Open Docket Folder.”

    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic material submitted into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act and system of records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    II. Abbreviations APC Alternative Planning Criteria CFR Code of Federal Regulations 017 District 17 FR Federal Register MSIB Marine Safety Information Bulletin NTV Nontank Vessel OPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990 USCG U.S. Coast Guard VOO Vessel of Opportunity VRP Vessel Response Plan III. Background

    Under 33 CFR 155.1015 and 155.5015, vessel response plans (VRPs) are required to cover all navigable waters of the U.S. in which a vessel operates. Several areas under U.S. jurisdiction do not have sufficient resources to meet the national planning criteria prescribed under 33 CFR part 155, Appendix B. In remote areas where typical response resources are not available, or the available commercial resources do not meet the national planning criteria, a vessel owner or operator may request that the Coast Guard accept an Alternative Planning Criteria (APC).

    In August 2009, the Coast Guard published CG-543 Policy Letter 09-02, “Industry Guidelines for Requesting Alternate Planning Criteria Approval, One Time Waivers and Interim Operating Authorization.” The purpose of Policy Letter 09-02, was to provide guidance to the maritime industry in applying for an APC pursuant to 33 CFR 155.1065(f).

    In September 2013, the Coast Guard published regulations (78 FR 60124) requiring NTVs over 400 gross tons to submit VRPs, which made the national planning criteria in 33 CFR part 155 applicable to thousands of additional vessels across the U.S., including geographic areas with limited commercially available response resources. Over time, it became apparent that additional guidance would be useful in addressing compliance issues that had developed from the promulgation of the nontank vessel (NTV) Final Rule.

    In 2015, Coast Guard Dl 7 published a draft Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) that provided guidance for APC submissions and expectations within Alaskan waters, with a focus on NTV traffic. Dl 7 received a multitude of comments from various sectors of the maritime industry on the draft MSIB. By this time, the Coast Guard determined it would be best to update the national APC guidance rather than singularly focusing on APC guidelines specific to Alaska. The comments received on Dl 7's MSIB were strongly considered by the Coast Guard during the development of the revised APC national guidance now being published for public comment.

    IV. Public Comment of APC Guidelines

    The draft APC Guidelines may be amended by the Coast Guard, as appropriate, based upon public comment on this Federal Register notice.

    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 (a).

    Dated: May 23, 2016. J.B. Loring, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12624 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP Dec. 16-08] Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative: Designation of an Approved Native American Tribal Card Issued by the Hydaburg Cooperative Association of Alaska as an Acceptable Document To Denote Identity and Citizenship for Entry in the United States at Land and Sea Ports of Entry AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection is designating an approved Native American Tribal Card issued by the Hydaburg Cooperative Association of Alaska (HCA Tribe) to U.S. and Canadian citizens as an acceptable travel document for purposes of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The approved card may be used to denote identity and citizenship of HCA Tribe members entering the United States from contiguous territory or adjacent islands at land and sea ports of entry.

    DATES:

    This designation will become effective on May 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arthur A. E. Pitts, Director, Traveler Policies Division, Admissibility and Passenger Programs, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative

    Section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), Public Law 108-458, as amended, required the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a plan to require U.S. citizens and individuals for whom documentation requirements have previously been waived under section 212(d)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4)(B)) to present a passport or other document or combination of documents as the Secretary deems sufficient to denote identity and citizenship for all travel into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. 1185 note. On April 3, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State promulgated a joint final rule, effective on June 1, 2009, that implemented the plan known as the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) at U.S. land and sea ports of entry. See 73 FR 18384 (the WHTI land and sea final rule). It amended various sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), including 8 CFR 212.0, 212.1, and 235.1. The WHTI land and sea final rule specifies the documents that U.S. citizens and nonimmigrant aliens from Canada, Bermuda, and Mexico are required to present when entering the United States at land and sea ports of entry.

    Under the WHTI land and sea final rule, one type of citizenship and identity document that may be presented upon entry to the United States at land and sea ports of entry from contiguous territory or adjacent islands 1 is a Native American Tribal Card that has been designated as an acceptable document to denote identity and citizenship by the Secretary, pursuant to section 7209 of IRTPA. Specifically, 8 CFR 235.1(e), as amended by the WHTI land and sea final rule, provides that upon designation by the Secretary of Homeland Security of a United States qualifying tribal entity document as an acceptable document to denote identity and citizenship for the purposes of entering the United States, Native Americans may be permitted to present tribal cards upon entering or seeking admission to the United States according to the terms of the voluntary agreement entered between the Secretary of Homeland Security and the tribe. It provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security will announce, by publication of a notice in the Federal Register, documents designated under this paragraph. It further provides that a list of the documents designated under this section will also be made available to the public.

    1 Adjacent islands is defined in 8 CFR 212.0 as Bermuda and the islands located in the Caribbean Sea, except Cuba. This definition applies to 8 CFR 212.1 and 235.1.

    A United States qualifying tribal entity is defined as a tribe, band, or other group of Native Americans formally recognized by the United States Government which agrees to meet WHTI document standards.2 Native American tribal cards are also referenced in 8 CFR 235.1(b) which lists the documents U.S. citizens may use to establish identity and citizenship when entering the United States. See 8 CFR 235.1(b)(7).

    2See 8 CFR 212.0. This definition applies to 8 CFR 212.1 and 235.1.

    The Secretary has delegated to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) the authority to designate certain documents as acceptable border crossing documents for persons arriving in the United States by land or sea from within the Western Hemisphere, including certain United States Native American tribal cards. See DHS Delegation Number 7105 (Revision 00), dated January 16, 2009.

    Tribal Card Program

    The WHTI land and sea final rule allowed U.S. federally recognized Native American tribes to work with CBP to enter into agreements to develop tribal ID cards that can be designated as acceptable to establish identity and citizenship when entering the United States at land and sea ports of entry from contiguous territory or adjacent islands. CBP has been working with various U.S. federally recognized Native American tribes to facilitate the development of such cards.3 As part of the process, CBP will enter into one or more agreements with a U.S. federally recognized tribe that specify the requirements for developing and issuing WHTI-compliant tribal cards, including a testing and auditing process to ensure that the cards are produced and issued in accordance with the terms of the agreements.

    3 The Native American tribal cards qualifying to be a WHTI-compliant document for border crossing purposes are commonly referred to as “Enhanced Tribal Cards” or “ETCs.”

    After production of the cards in accordance with the specified requirements, and successful testing and auditing by CBP of the cards and program, the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Commissioner of CBP may designate the tribal card as an acceptable WHTI-compliant document for the purpose of establishing identity and citizenship when entering the United States by land or sea from contiguous territory or adjacent islands. Such designation will be announced by publication of a notice in the Federal Register. More information about WHTI-compliant documents is available at www.cbp.gov/travel.

    The Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona became the first Native American tribe to have its tribal card designated as a Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative compliant document by the Commissioner of CBP. This designation was announced in a notice published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33776). Subsequently, the Commissioner of CBP announced the designation of the tribal cards of the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the Seneca Nation of Indians as Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative compliant documents. See 77 FR 4822 (January 31, 2012) and 80 FR 40076 (July 13, 2015).

    HCA Tribe WHTI-Compliant Tribal Card Program

    The HCA Tribe has voluntarily established a program to develop a WHTI-compliant tribal card that denotes identity and U.S. or Canadian citizenship. On May 11, 2011, CBP and the HCA Tribe signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to develop, issue, test, and evaluate tribal cards to be used for border crossing purposes. Pursuant to this MOA, the cards are issued to members of the HCA Tribe who can establish identity, tribal membership, and U.S. or Canadian citizenship. The cards incorporate physical security features acceptable to CBP as well as facilitative technology allowing for electronic validation of identity, citizenship, and tribal membership by CBP. On August 27, 2014, the HCA Tribe and CBP signed an addendum to the April 1, 2010 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Service Level Agreement that provides that the Pascua Yaqui Tribe would serve as the Information Technology Coordinator and the manufacturer of the tribal cards on behalf of the HCA Tribe.

    CBP has tested the cards developed by the HCA Tribe pursuant to the above agreements and has performed an audit of the tribe's card program. On the basis of these tests and audit, CBP has determined that the cards meet the requirements of section 7209 of the IRTPA and are acceptable documents to denote identity and U.S. and Canadian citizenship for purposes of entering the United States at land and sea ports of entry from contiguous territory or adjacent islands.4 CBP's continued acceptance of the tribal card as a WHTI-compliant document is conditional on compliance with the MOA and all related agreements.

    4 The Native American Tribal Card issued by the HCA Tribe may not, by itself, be used by Canadian citizen tribal members to establish that they meet the requirements of section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [8 U.S.C. 1359]. INA § 289 provides that nothing in this title shall be construed to affect the right of American Indians born in Canada to pass the borders of the United States, but such right shall extend only to persons who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the American Indian race. While the tribal card may be used to establish a card holder's identity for purposes of INA § 289, it cannot, by itself, serve as evidence of the card holder's Canadian birth or that he or she possesses at least 50% American Indian blood, as required by INA § 289.

    Acceptance and use of the WHTI-compliant tribal card is voluntary for tribe members. If an individual is denied a WHTI-compliant tribal card, he or she may still apply for a passport or other WHTI-compliant document.

    Designation

    This notice announces that the Commissioner of CBP designates the tribal card issued by the HCA Tribe in accordance with the MOA and all related agreements between the tribe and CBP as an acceptable WHTI-compliant document pursuant to section 7209 of the IRTPA and 8 CFR 235.1(e). In accordance with these provisions, the approved card, if valid and lawfully obtained, may be used to denote identity and U.S. or Canadian citizenship of HCA Tribe members for the purposes of entering the United States from contiguous territory or adjacent islands at land and sea ports of entry.

    Dated: May 19, 2016. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12552 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2015-0025; OMB No. 1660-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Individual & Community Preparedness Division (ICPD) Annual Youth Preparedness Council (YPC) Application Form AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, or email address [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection previously published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2015, at 80 FR 66031 with a 60 day public comment period. No comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

    Collection of Information

    Title: Individual & Community Preparedness Division (ICPD) Annual Youth Preparedness Council (YPC) Application Form.

    Type of information collection: New information collection.

    OMB Number: 1660-NEW.

    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 008-0-0-24, FEMA Youth Preparedness Council Application Form.

    Abstract: FEMA Headquarters and regional staff review completed applications to select council members based on dedication to public service, efforts in making a difference in their community, and potential for expanding their impact as a national advocate for youth preparedness. Applicants for the YPC apply by downloading a PDF application from FEMA's Web site. They can either complete the written form or they can answer the questions in the form of a short video. They must then download their application and submit the application and related documents, including reference letters and academic records, to FEMA via the [email protected] email address. Fifteen youths are selected to serve as a council member.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 142 hours.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $0. There are no annual costs to respondents' operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $65,662.00.

    Dated: May 18, 2016. Richard W. Mattison Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12616 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-46-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2016-0030] National Infrastructure Advisory Council AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee management; notice of an open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Infrastructure Advisory Council will meet Friday, June 24, 2016 at the Los Angeles Enviromental Learning Center, 12000 Vista Del Mar, Los Angeles, CA 90293. This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The National Infrastructure Advisory Council will meet on June 24, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. PDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    Los Angeles Enviromental Learning Center, 12000 Vista Del Mar, Los Angeles, CA 90293. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below as soon as possible.

    Public comment, to be considered by the Council is highly encouraged. This is Item VI of the meeting agenda listed below. Written comments must be submitted no later than 12:00PM EDT on June 20, 2016, in order to be considered by the Council in its meeting. Comments must be identified by “DHS-2016-0030,” and may be submitted by any one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow “submitting written comments” instructions.

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (703) 235-9707.

    Mail: Ginger Norris, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0612, Washington, DC 20598-0607.

    Instructions: All written submissions must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Written comments will be posted without alteration at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket and background documents, go to www.regulations.gov. Search “NIAC” for a list all relevant documents for your review.

    Members of the public may provide oral comments on agenda items and previous National Infrastructure Advisory Council studies. All previous studies can be located at www.dhs.gov/NIAC. Written Comments received after 8:30 a.m. PDT on June 24, 2016, will still be accepted and reviewed by the members, but not by the time of the meeting. In-person comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. Members of the public making comments must register with NIAC Secretariat at the meeting location.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ginger Norris, National Infrastructure Advisory Council, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, (703) 235-2888.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The National Infrastructure Advisory Council shall provide the President, through the Secretary of Homeland Security, with advice on the security and resilience of the Nation's critical infrastructure sectors. At this meeting, the council will receive a final presentation on Water Resilience from its working group members and deliberate and vote upon the Water Resilience Recommendations as appropriate. All presentations will be posted at least three working days prior to the meeting on the Council's public Web page—www.dhs.gov/NIAC.

    Public Meeting Agenda I. Opening of Meeting II. Roll Call of Members III. Opening Remarks and Introductions IV. Approval of March 2016 Meeting Minutes V. Final Working Group Presentation and Recommendations on Water Resilience Study VI. Public Comment VII. Discussion and Deliberation on Recommendations for the Water Resilience Report VIII. Discussion of New NIAC Business IX. Closing Remarks X. Adjournment Dated: May 23, 2016. Ginger Norris, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, for the National Infrastructure Advisory Council.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12524 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615—NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Employment Authorization for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse, Form I-765V; New Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-NEW in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2016-0004. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2016-0004;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2016-0004 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate 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;

    (2) 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;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: New Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Employment Authorization for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-765V; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary Individuals or households. Form I-765V, Application for Employment Authorization for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse, will be used to collect information that is necessary to determine if an applicant is eligible for an initial Employment Authorization Document (EAD), a new EAD, or an interim EAD as a qualifying abused nonimmigrant spouse.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-765V is 1,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours to complete the form, 1 hour for biometrics and .50 hours to obtain passport-style photographs.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 4,500 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $265,000.

    Dated: May 23, 2016. Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12480 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5921-N-03] Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; System of Records Notice Amendment, Home Equity Reverse Mortgage Information Technology AGENCY:

    Office of Housing, HUD.

    ACTION:

    System of records notice amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is giving notice that it intends to amend one of its systems of records published in the Federal Register at 77 FR 61620 on October 10, 2012, the Home Equity Reverse Mortgage Information Technology (HERMIT). This notice will be written to include updates to the former notice routine uses and records categories statements. This notice also incorporates administrative and format changes to convey already published information in a more synchronized format. A more detailed description of the revision created by this notice is defined under this notice supplementary information caption.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The notice shall be effective immediately upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register, except for the new routine use created, which will become effective June 27, 2016, unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.

    Comments Due Date: June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communication should refer to the above docket number and title. Faxed comments are not accepted. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Frieda B. Edwards, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-6828 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals who are hearing- and speech-impaired may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service telephone number at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The HERMIT notice amendment will identify: (1) New disclosure requirements, by adding routine use number eight to clarify that records may be provided from this system to housing counselors when needed to comply with new housing counseling policies and training and certification related requirements; (2) updates to the record categories to include a “Loan Production” category, which will distinguish when specific records are collected by this system during this phase; (3) new records on the certificate of qualification to verify that a housing counselor is certified by HUD as a component to provide counseling services. Publication of this notice allows the Department to keep an up-to-date accounting of its system of records publications. This publication meets the threshold requirements pursuant to the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A-130. A report was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Government Reform as instructed by Paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agencies Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37914).

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552a; 88 Stat. 1896; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Dated: April 28, 2016. Patricia A. Hoban-Moore, Senior Agency Official for Privacy. SYSTEM OF RECORDS NO.:

    HSNG/HWAT.01.

    SYSTEM NAME:

    Home Equity Reverse Mortgage Information Technology (HERMIT)—P271.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    The system is accessible at workstations located at the following locations: Department of Housing and Urban Development Headquarters, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; HUD's Field and Regional Office locations: The National Servicing Center, 2 West 2nd Street, Suite 400, Tulsa, OK 74103; Atlanta Homeownership Center, Five Points Plaza, 40 Marietta Street, Atlanta, GA 30303; Philadelphia Homeownership Center, Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107; Denver Homeownership Center, Processing and Underwriting, 20th floor, 1670 Broadway, Denver, CO 80202; and Santa Ana Homeownership Center, Santa Ana Federal Building, 34 Civic Center Plaza, Room 7015, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The system is externally hosted at the business service provider's site (contractor primary) and disaster recovery facilities.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    HECM mortgagees and HECM mortgagors for Home Equity Conversion Mortgages insured under HUD's HECM mortgage insurance program and FHA-Approved Housing Counselors who participate in the HECM program. Note: The Privacy Act applies to the extent that the information collected pertains to an individual; information pertaining to corporations and other business entities and organizations are not subject to the Privacy Act.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    HERMIT information is collected on individual program participants.

    Loan Production: HERMIT loan production records include personally identifiable information (PII) data pertaining to HECM Housing Counseling data: Full name of HECM housing counselor, HECM Certificate of Counseling, HECM counselor ID numbers, and borrowers' full names, property addresses, birthdates, Social Security numbers, and phone numbers.

    Insurance-in-Force (IIF)/Premiums: HERMIT insurance-in-force and premium records include PII data pertaining to borrowers' full names, property addresses, birthdates, Social Security numbers, phone numbers and dates of death; maximum claim amount (MCA), property appraised values, initial and monthly mortgage insurance premiums (IMIP and MMIP), set asides, note interest rates and expected interest rates and case statuses and sub-case statuses; payment plan types, and other financial account data such as principal limits, monthly interest accruals, late charge and interest charge fees, historical transaction records for HECM cases, property taxes and hazard insurance amounts, business partners' banking information (routing and account numbers); and accounting data including accounts receivable and payable due to and from HUD.

    HECM Claims: Borrowers' names, addresses, Social Security numbers; MCAs, due and payable approvals; death notifications, deed-in-lieu; foreclosure actions, extension approvals, interest rates and account statuses; payment and other financial account data such as unpaid loan balances, interest accrued, service fees, expenses incurred for foreclosure and acquisition, protection and preservation, attorney fees, special assessments; disbursements for taxes, insurance, utilities, eviction fees, and any other miscellaneous disbursements; initial and monthly mortgage insurance premiums (IMIP and MMIP), appraisals, closing costs; claims filed and paid; indemnifications and claim blocks; business partner banking information tax identification number (TIN), routing and account numbers), mortgagee reference number; accounting data, including established accounts receivables and payables; and information for reporting and assumption of servicing activities in cases of investor claim or default.

    HECM Loan Servicing: Borrowers' and authorized contacts' names and addresses, birthdates, ages, Social Security numbers, phone numbers; email addresses; marital statuses, genders, preferred languages, banking information (institutional information, routings account numbers and account types) maximum loan amounts, premium collections, interest rates and account statuses; payments and other financial account data such as loan balances, loan history, interest accrued, fees incurred, claims filed and paid, real estate property information, property taxes and insurance amounts, accounting data, including debits and credits to HUD accounts based on transaction events, vendor information; and information for reporting and assuming servicing activities in case of servicer or investor claim or default.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    Section 255 of the National Housing Act of 1934 authorizes the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reverse mortgage program for the elderly, the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program (12 U.S.C. 1715Z-20). The Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 3543) specifically provides authority to collect Social Security numbers.

    PURPOSE:

    HERMIT integrates the endorsement; insurance servicing; claims payment; notes servicing, accounting, and reporting requirements of FHA's HECM insurance program. The HECM program promotes continued homeownership for the elderly by allowing elderly borrowers to access the equity in their homes while continuing to live in the property. HERMIT allows the Secretary to maintain the “public trust” over the HECM program by seamlessly, accurately, and timely managing the HECM program in an automated environment. HERMIT allows HECM program personnel to collect and maintain the data necessary to support activities related to the endorsement of loans and collection of IMIP and MMIP. The claims process includes the filing of claims for insurance benefits and disbursement of funds to lenders of loans insured under the HECM program. Servicing activities include maintaining the data necessary to support performance requirements of servicing for FHA-insured and Secretary-held first and second mortgages. The major activities include acceptance of assignment and title review, servicing requests for HECM endorsed cases from mortgagees (due and payable, short sale, preservation and protection costs, subordination extension requests, and partial releases), accounting functions, collections according to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, disbursement of payment, annual recertification, foreclosure activities, bankruptcy activities, and compliance monitoring. HERMIT provides HECM mortgagees with the ability to interact with HUD's National Servicing Center (NSC) to improve HECM loan servicing and to provide an automated claims filing process.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside HUD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    (1) To servicing mortgagee to give notice of miscalculations or other errors in subsidy computation, to pay claims, or for other servicing-related functions.

    (2) To taxing authorities, insurance companies, homeowners associations, or condominium associations for maintaining the property while HUD is the servicer of record to ensure property taxes are current.

    (3) To the U.S. Department of the Treasury for collection and disbursement transactions (Pay.gov, Automated Clearing House (ACH)).

    (4) To title insurance companies or financial institutions to allow HUD to respond to inquiries for payoff figures on HECM assigned loans.

    (5) To recorders' offices for recording legal documents and responses to bankruptcy courts or other legal responses required during the servicing of the insured loan to allow HUD to release mortgage liens, respond to bankruptcies or deaths of mortgagors to protect the interest of the Secretary of HUD.

    (6) To the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate possible fraud revealed in the course of servicing efforts to allow HUD to protect the interest of the Secretary.

    (7) To an Administrative Law Judge and to the interested parties to the extent necessary for conducting administrative proceedings where HUD is a party.

    (8) To welfare agencies for fraud investigation to allow HUD to respond to state government inquiries when a HECM mortgagor is committed to a nursing home.

    (9) To housing counselors to comply with new HECM housing counseling policies to include training and certification.

    (10) To FHA-approved HECM mortgagees to comply with new HECM statutory requirements and FHA HECM policies issued via mortgagee letters and updates to Housing handbooks.

    (11) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purpose for which the records in this system were collected, as set forth by Appendix I 1 —HUD's Routine Use Inventory Notice published in the Federal Register.

    1http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=append1.pdf.

    (12) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:

    (a) HUD suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in a system of records has been compromised;

    (b) HUD 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 systems or programs (whether maintained by HUD or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and

    (c) The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm for purposes of facilitating responses and remediation efforts in the event of a data breach.

    (13) The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the General Services Administration (GSA) for records having sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for inspection under authority of Title 44, Chapter 29, of the United States Code.

    (14) 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.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Storage:

    Records in this system are stored electronically in secure facilities. Electronic files are stored in case files on secure servers and backup files are stored on tapes. Electronic files are replicated at a disaster recovery offsite location in case of loss of computing capability or other emergency at the primary facility. HERMIT does not have paper records.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Electronic records are retrieved by name, SSN, Loan Skey, home telephone number, personal email address, FHA case number and mortgagee TIN.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Access to electronic records is by: (1) User ID and password and (2) code identification card access, and limited to authorized users with an approved need-to-know. In addition to the safeguards provided by access controls, all electronic data is encrypted while stored on any systems media within HERMIT or in any transport mode. Servers are contained in a secured facility with twenty four hours and seven days a week security, including security guards, electronic access and surveillance capabilities (Close Caption Television (CCTV) and recorders, motion detectors, hand geometry readers, and/or fiber vault) at an offsite location. HERMIT does not have paper records.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    In accordance with General Records Schedule 1.1, Financial Management and Reporting Records, Items 010 and 011, the records are maintained for six years or when business use ceases. Paper records are not in use. Backup and Recovery digital media will be destroyed or otherwise rendered irrecoverable per NIST SP 800-88 “Guidelines for Media Sanitization” (September 2006).

    SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:

    Director, Office of Housing, Office of Finance and Budget, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410.

    NOTIFICATION AND RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    For Information, assistance, or inquiries about the existence of records contact Frieda B. Edwards, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-6828. When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other HUD system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 24 CFR part 16. You must first verify your identity by providing your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. In addition, your request should:

    (1) Explain why you believe HUD would have information on you.

    (2) Identify which HUD office you believe has the records about you.

    (3) Specify when you believe the records would have been created.

    (4) Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which HUD office may have responsive records.

    If you are is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must obtain a statement from that individual certifying their agreement for you to access their records. Without the above information, the HUD FOIA Office may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    The Department's rules for contesting contents of records and appealing initial denials appear in 24 CFR part 16, Procedures for Inquiries. Additional assistance may be obtained by contacting Frieda B. Edwards, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, or the HUD Departmental Privacy Appeals Officers, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10110, Washington, DC 20410.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Records in the system are obtained from FHA-approved HECM mortgagees and third party providers, mortgagors, taxing authorities, insurance companies, and Housing counselors. FHA-approved HECM mortgagees collect the personal information from program participants (mortgagors) and enter the information into the FHA Connection—HUD's forward facing Web page portal. The FHA Connection transfers HECM information to the Computerized Homes Underwriting Management System (CHUMS). CHUMS updates HERMIT via an authorized interface to provide HECM information.

    SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12597 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5907-N-22] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

    Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

    Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

    For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

    For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

    Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

    For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses AGRICULTURE: Ms. Debra Kerr, Department of Agriculture, Reporters Building, 300 7th Street SW., Room 300, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 720-8873; AIR FORCE: Mr. Robert E. Moriarty, P.E., AFCEC/CI, 2261 Hughes Avenue, Ste. 155, JBSA Lackland TX 78236-9853; COAST GUARD: Commandant, United States Coast Guard, Attn: Jennifer Stomber, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7741, Washington, DC 20593-7714; (202) 475-5609; COE: Mr. Scott Whiteford, Army Corps of Engineers, Real Estate, CEMP-CR, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314; (202) 761-5542; GSA: Mr. Flavio Peres, General Services Administration, Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7040 Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-0084; NASA: Mr. Frank T. Bellinger, Facilities Engineering Division, National Aeronautics & Space Administration, Code JX, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1124; NAVY: Mr. Steve Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset Management Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374; (202) 685-9426; (These are not toll-free numbers).

    Dated: May 19, 2016. Brian P. Fitzmaurice, Director, Division of Community Assistance, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. TITLE V, FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM FEDERAL REGISTER REPORT FOR 05/27/2016 Suitable/Available Properties Building Alabama Former National Guard Support Facility Intersection of 23rd & Industrial Dr. Cullman AL 33055 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201620013 Status: Excess GSA Number: 4-D-AL-0818-AA Directions: Disposal Agency: GSA; Landholding Agency: COE Comments: 19,850 sq. ft.; storage/warehouse; 80% occupied; several roof leaks resulting in floor damage; contact GSA for more information. California 29 Mile Administrative Site 13275 Highway 50 Kyburz CA 95720 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201620027 Status: Unutilized Directions: 0503 1124 29 Mile Guard Station Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; 101+ yrs. old; 1,091 sq. ft.; residential; vacant 132+ mos.; poor condition; no future agency need; contact Agriculture for more information. Goat Mtn. Radio Vault 65 Miles SW of Willows CA Colusa CA 95979 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201620028 Status: Unutilized Directions: Bldg. ID#: 3335 & CN#:2154.003931 Comments: off-site removal; no future agency need; 41+ yrs. old; 84 sq. ft.; storage; vacant 180+ mos.; remote location accessible only by 4 wheel drive; contact Agriculture for more information. 29 Mile Administrative Site 13275 Hwy. 50 Kyburz CA 95720 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201620029 Status: Unutilized Directions: 0503 1527 29 Mile Garage Comments: off-site removal only; 75+ yrs. old; 330 sq. ft.; storage; 132 mos. vacant; poor conditions; no future agency need; contact Agriculture for more information. Camp Richardson Resort 1900 Jameson Beach Rd. (Off of Hwy. 89) South Lake Tahoe CA 96150 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201620031 Status: Excess Directions: 0519 C1664 CRR Campground Bathroom Comments: off-site removal only; 62+ yrs. old; bathroom; vacant 24+ mos.; poor condition; contact Agriculture for more information. Hawthorne Federal Building 15000 Aviation Blvd., Hawthorne CA 90250 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201620009 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 9-G-CA-1695-AB Directions: Built in 1971; listed on the National Register of Historic Places due to architecture significance; 168,874 sq. ft.; office; serious deficiencies—urgent seismic upgrades, outdated building systems, and environmental concerns Comments: contact GSA for more information. Georgia Greenhouses, Qty 4 660605B009; B010; B011; B012 21 Dunbar Road Bryon GA 31008 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201620026 Status: Excess Directions: RPUID: 03.55222; 03.55228; 03.55229; 03.55230 Comments: off-site removal only; 49+ yrs. old; 3 @168 sq. ft. & 264 sq. ft.; greenhouse; contact Agriculture for more information. Illinois 4 Buildings 202-220 S. State Street Chicago IL 60604 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201620016 Status: Excess GSA Number: 1-G-IL-0812-AA Directions: Building 202 (68,200 sq. ft.); 208 (11,499 sq. ft.); 214 (7,200 sq. ft.); 220 (198,400 sq. ft.) Comments: 96+ -128+ yrs. old; poor to very poor conditions; major repairs needed; sq. ft. above; office & commercial; 18+-24+ mos. vacant; Contact GSA for more information. Iowa Creston Memorial U.S. Army Reserve Center 705 East Taylor Street Creston IA 50801 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201620015 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 7-D-IA-0520-AA Directions: RPUID: 629976; Disposal Agency: GSA; Landholding Agency: Corp of Engineers Comments: 57+ yrs. old; 6,500 sq. ft.; training facility; 29+ mos. vacant; sits on 2.22 acres of land; contact GSA for more information. Nevada Alan Bible Federal Bldg. 600 S. Las Vegas Blvd. Las Vegas NV 89101 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201210009 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 9-G-NV-565 Directions: building does not meet GSA's life/safety performance objective Comments: 81, 247 sq. ft. suited on 0.55 acres; extensive structural issues; major repairs needed; Federal Office Bldg.; 25-30% occupied until Dec. 2016; contact GSA for more info. Boulder City Airport Hangar TW 4-1 1201 Airport Rd., Boulder City NV 89005 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201620014 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 9-I-NV-0575-AA Directions: Disposal Agency GSA; Landholding Agency: Interior Comments: off-site removal only; 27+ yrs. old; 1,600 sq. ft.; storage; 16+ mos. vacant; fair condition; no future agency need; contact GSA for more information. Washington Former Eaker AFB Recreational 301 Yakima Street Wenatchee WA 98001 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201620012 Status: Excess GSA Number: 7-GR-AR-0582 Comments: 45+ yrs. old; 36,000 sq. ft.; recreational; bldg. is in disrepair; property accessed by appointment only; contact GSA for more information. Unsuitable Properties Building Alaska Hanger Nose Dock 5 2685 Flightline Ave. Eielson Air Force Base AK 99702 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201620023 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security; property located within an airport runway clear zone or military airfield. Reasons: Secured Area; Within airport runway clear zone Arkansas Restroom/Shower House 706 De Queen Lake Road Off US Hwy 71 North De Queen AR 71832 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31201620003 Status: Unutilized Directions: Property ID 24050 Comments: property located within floodway, which has not been correct or contained. Reasons: Floodway Toilet Vault Type III US 65 in Town of Grady AR N on Arkansas Hwy Grady AR 71644 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31201620004 Status: Unutilized Directions: Mkarns Project, Huff's Island Park Comments: Property located within floodway, which has not been correct or contained. Reasons: Floodway Florida 1191 Compressor Room K6-1996T Contractor Road Kennedy Space Center FL 32899 Landholding Agency: NASA Property Number: 71201620012 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 278 Drum Storage Building 66266 Scrub Jay Road Cape Canaveral Air Force Station FL Landholding Agency: NASA Property Number: 71201620014 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Starbase Atlantis Bldg. 1907 San Carlos Road Pensacola FL 32508 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201620017 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Mississippi Building 115 141 Military Drive Flowood MS 39232 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18201620024 Status: Underutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Ohio Green Lab Research Facility # 21000 Brookpark Road Brook Park OH 44135 Landholding Agency: NASA Property Number: 71201620013 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Washington S. Entrance Security Station (Guard Shack) 1519 Alaskan Way S. Seattle WA 98134 Landholding Agency: Coast Guard Property Number: 88201620001 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area
    [FR Doc. 2016-12245 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5921-N-06] The Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; System of Records Notice Amendment, Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and Administrative Appeals Request Files, System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of Administration, HUD.

    ACTION:

    System of records notice amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department's Office of the Executive Secretariat proposes to update and reissue a current system of records notice (SORN): Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Privacy Act, and Administrative Appeals Request Files, ADMIN/AHFDC.01. This SORN was previously titled “Privacy Act and Appeals Request Files,” CIO/QMPP.01, and published at 79 FR 44854-55 (August 1, 2014). This amendment consolidates under one notice FOIA, Privacy Act, and administrative appeals procedures for requests and disclosures and updates the SORN, categories of individuals covered, categories of records, authority for maintenance, routine uses, storage, safeguards, retention and disposal, system manager and address, notification procedures, records access, contesting records procedures, and records source categories to indicate that the SORN now includes FOIA-related records. This notice deletes and supersedes SORN CIO/QMPP.01, Privacy Act and Appeals Request Files. This updated publication will be included in the Department's inventory of SORNs. Detailed information pertaining to this amendment appears under the SORN's “Supplementary Information” caption.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This notice action shall be effective immediately, with the exception of the new routine uses added to the notice, which will become effective June 27, 2016.

    Comments Due Date: June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Faxed comments are not accepted. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Frieda B. Edwards, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-6828 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals who are hearing- and speech-impaired may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This SORN is being updated to encompass activities and procedures related to the Department's processing of FOIA, Privacy Act, and administrative appeals requests. The Department's Office of the Executive Secretariat consolidates under one notice processing activities related to FOIA, Privacy Act, and administrative appeals requests received or issued by the Department. The revised notice conveys subsequent updates to the system's title, categories of individuals covered, categories of records, authority for maintenance, routine uses, storage, safeguards, retention and disposal, system manager and address, notification procedures, records access and contesting procedures, and records source captions to identify that the updated notice now includes information related to FOIA requests. In addition, this notice identifies new disclosure requirements related to FOIA, by adding routine use (6) to clarify that records may be provided from this SORN to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) for purposes set forth under 5 U.S.C. 552(h)(2)(A-B) and (3). Publication of this notice allows the Department to provide up-to-date information about its systems of records in a clear and cohesive format. The revised system of records incorporates Federal Privacy Act, FOIA, and HUD policy requirements. The Privacy Act places on Federal agencies principal responsibility for compliance with its provisions, by requiring Federal agencies to safeguard an individual's records against an invasion of personal privacy; protect the records contained in an agency system of records from unauthorized disclosure; ensure that the records collected are relevant, necessary, current, and collected only for their intended use; and adequately safeguard the records to prevent misuse of such information. In addition, this notice demonstrates the Department's focus on industry best practices and laws that protect interest such as personal privacy and law enforcement records from inappropriate release. This notice states the name and location of the record system, the authority for and manner of its operations, the categories of individuals that it covers, the type of records that it contains, the sources of the information for the records, the routine uses made of the records, and the types of exemptions in place for the records. The notice also includes the business address of the HUD officials who will inform interested persons of how they may gain access to and/or request amendments to records pertaining to themselves.

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines, a report of the amended system of records was submitted to OMB, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as instructed by paragraph 4c of Appendix l to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agencies Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” November 28, 2000.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552a; 88 Stat. 1896; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Dated: April 28, 2016. Patricia A. Hoban-Moore, Senior Agency Official for Privacy. ADMIN/AHFDC.01 SYSTEM NAME:

    Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and Administrative Appeals Request Files.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    The system is physically located at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Executive Secretariat, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; at the service providers under contract with HUD, and at HUD regional and field offices 1 where, in some cases, FOIA and Privacy Act records may be maintained or accessed.

    1http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/localoffices.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    This system encompasses all individuals who submit FOIA and/or Privacy Act requests or administrative appeals to the Department. Other individuals covered by the system include HUD staff assigned to process a request and staff that may have responsive records or are mentioned in such records. Note: FOIA requests are subject to the Privacy Act only to the extent that the information pertains to personal information concerning an individual (i.e., only the information that is personal about the individual who is the subject of the record is subject to the Privacy Act). Information pertaining to corporations, businesses, and organizations are not subject to the Privacy Act.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Records in this system may include information about the handling of FOIA and Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals. The information maintained by the system may include: (1) Records received, copied, created, or compiled during the search and processing of initial requests and administrative appeals; (2) fee schedules, cost calculations, and costs assessed for processing FOIA requests (disclosed FOIA records—cost can be incurred even for records that are not provided to requesters); (3) appeals, intra-agency or interagency memorandums, and correspondence with the requesters or entities who submitted the requests and appeals; (4) the Department's responses and transferals to HUD regional/field offices or other agencies; (5) copies of records disclosed or withheld; (6) requesters' names, organizations, titles, addresses, emails, telephone numbers, fax numbers, Social Security numbers (which may be submitted with documentation or as proof of identification when requesting access to Privacy Act records); (7) information compiled on and about the parties who made written requests or appeals, including individuals on whose behalf such written requests or appeals were made; (8) FOIA tracking numbers; (9) descriptions of the types of requests or appeals, and dates the requests or appeals were received by the Department; (10) statuses of Department responses (i.e., the offices to which the requests were assigned, the dates by which responses to assigned request are due, the current dispositions of the requests); (11) and may include the requester's original Privacy Act/FOIA requests. The system also includes information on the Department personnel involved in the processing of FOIA and/or Privacy Act requests and appeals (e.g., FOIA staff and/or Privacy Act staff, appeals officials, and members of the Office of General Counsel staff) who respond to requests or appeals and process any final dispositions. The system also covers records related to requests for OGIS assistance.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTNENACE OF THE SYSTEM:

    Freedom of Information Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C 552; Privacy Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    PURPOSE(S):

    The purpose of the information maintained by the system is to allow the Department to effectively monitor and track FOIA and Privacy Act requests, and administrative appeals received or issued by the Department. The information gathered by the system is used by the Department to satisfy its annual reporting obligations under the FOIA, manage FOIA-related fees and calculations, and respond to FOIA and Privacy Act requests and appeals.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    Records from this system may be disclosed for routine uses to:

    1. A congressional office from the record of an individual, in response to a verified inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    2. The Department of Justice for the purpose of obtaining advice regarding whether or not the records should be disclosed, when applicable.

    3. Student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other individuals performing functions for the Department, but technically not having the status of agency employees, if they need access to the records in order to perform their assigned agency functions.

    4. Contractors, grantees, experts, consultants and their agents, or others performing or working under a contract, service, grant, or cooperative agreement with HUD, when necessary to accomplish the agency function related to a system of records. Disclosure requirements are limited to only those data elements considered relevant to accomplishing an agency function. Individuals provided information under this routine use conditions are subject to the Privacy Act requirements and disclosure limitations imposed on the Department.

    5. Appropriate agencies, entities, and persons to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purpose for which the records in this system were collected, as set forth by Appendix I, HUD's Routine Use Inventory notice 2 published in the Federal Register.

    2http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=routine_use_inventory.pdf.

    6. The National Archives and Records Administration, OGIS, to the extent necessary to allow OGIS to fulfill its responsibilities under 5 U.S.C. 552(h) to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance with the FOIA, and to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.

    7. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:

    (a) HUD suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in a system of records has been compromised;

    (b) HUD 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 systems or programs (whether maintained by HUD or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and

    (c) The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm for purposes of facilitating responses and remediation efforts in the event of a data breach.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM STORAGE:

    The originals, or a copy, of the incoming requests and the written responses are maintained in case file folders and stored in metal file cabinets. Cross-reference data is maintained electronically and on CD-ROM.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Electronic and paper records are almost always retrieved by the name of the individual who made the request, the FOIA control number, or the subject of the request.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    (1) Access Safeguards: Record access is restricted to FOIA and Privacy Act staff, involved program officials, appeals officials, and Office of General Counsel staff involved in the processing of such requests; (2) Physical Safeguards: Case file folders are stored in file cabinets located in secure areas that are either occupied by staff involved in processing FOIA and Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals or locked up during nonworking hours or whenever staff is not present in these areas, and entrance to the buildings where case files are maintained is controlled by security guards; (3) Logical Access: Records in the system are maintained in a secure area with access restricted to authorized personnel, security and hardware storage of backup material (e.g., disk, tape, CD-ROM) are secured in accordance with HUD-wide guidance for handling and securing information systems and cross-reference data is maintained electronically and access to the records is granted by User ID and password; and (4) Procedural Safeguards: Access to the systems records is limited to those staff members who are familiar with FOIA- and Privacy Act-related requests and who have a need to know. System managers are held responsible for safeguarding the records that are under their control.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    Computer and paper records will be maintained and disposed of in accordance with published NARA Transmittal No. 22, General Records Schedule 14, “Information Services Records”.3 Paper records will be destroyed by shredding or burning. Electronic records will be destroyed pursuant to NIST Special Publication 800-88, “Guidelines for Media Sanitization.”

    3http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/grs/grs14.html.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

    Frieda B. Edwards, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-6828 (this is not a toll-free number) (refer to the SORN's location caption for additional locations where Privacy Act records are accessed and maintained).

    NOTIFICATION AND ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    For Information, assistance, or inquiries about the existence of records, contact Frieda B. Edwards, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-6828 (this is not a toll-free number). When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other HUD system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 24 CFR part 16 “Procedures for Inquiries”. You must first verify your identity by providing your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. In addition, your request should:

    (1) Explain why you believe HUD would have information on you.

    (2) Identify which HUD office you believe has the records about you.

    (3) Specify when you believe the records would have been created.

    (4) Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which HUD office may have responsive records.

    If you are seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must obtain a statement from that individual certifying their agreement for you to access their records. Without the above information, the HUD Office may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.

    CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES:

    The Department's rules for contesting contents of records and appealing initial denials appear in 24 CFR part 16, “Procedures for Inquiries.” Additional assistance may be obtained by contacting Frieda B. Edwards, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, or the HUD Departmental Privacy Appeals Officer, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10110, Washington, DC 20410.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    The source of information is from the individuals making a FOIA request or a request for Privacy Act records, and components of the Department and other agencies that search for and provide records and related correspondence maintained in the case files.

    SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), records in this system, which reflect records that are contained in other systems of records that are designated as exempt, are exempt from the requirements of subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), (I), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a. These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in the system is subject to an exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(2) or a rule promulgated concerning the exemption of such records.

    [FR Doc. 2016-12600 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R6-ES-2015-N232; FXES11130600000-167-FF06E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of 21 Species in the Mountain-Prairie Region AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), of 8 animal and 13 plant species. A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any new information on these species that has become available since the last review of the species.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration in our reviews, we are requesting submission of new information no later than July 26, 2016. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on a particular species, contact the appropriate person or office listed in the table in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Why do we conduct 5-year reviews?

    Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species under active review. For additional information about 5-year reviews, go to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/recovery-overview.html, scroll down to “Learn More about 5-Year Reviews,” and click on our factsheet.

    What information do we consider in our review?

    A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:

    (A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;

    (B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;

    (C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;

    (D) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act); and

    (E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.

    Any new information will be considered during the 5-year review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for the species. Which species are under review?

    This notice announces our active review of the 21 species listed in the table below.

    Common name Scientific name Listing status Historical range Final listing rule (Federal Register citation and publication date) Contact person, phone, email Contact person's U.S. mail
  • address
  • ANIMALS Bonytail chub Gila elegans Endangered Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, U.S.A 45 FR 27710; 04/23/1980 Tom Chart, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Director, 303-236-9885; [email protected] Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, 44 Union Blvd., Ste. 120, Lakewood, CO 80228. Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, U.S.A 32 FR 4001; 03/11/1967 Tom Chart, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Director, 303-236-9885; [email protected] Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, 44 Union Blvd., Ste. 120, Lakewood, CO 80228. Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Threatened Colorado, Utah, U.S.A 32 FR 4001; 03/11/1967 Drue DeBerry, Acting Project Leader, 303-236-4264; [email protected] Ecological Services, Colorado Field Office, P.O. Box 25486-DFC, Denver, CO 80225. Humpback chub Gila cypha Endangered Arizona, Colorado, Utah, U.S.A 32 FR 4001; 03/11/1967 Tom Chart, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Director, 303-236-9885; [email protected] Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, 44 Union Blvd., Ste. 120, Lakewood, CO 80228. Kendall Warm Springs dace Rhinichthys osculus thermalis Endangered Wyoming, U.S.A 35 FR 16047; 10/13/1970 Tyler Abbott, Deputy Project Leader, 307-772-2374 Ecological Services, Wyoming Field Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, #308A, Cheyenne, WY 82009. Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, U.S.A 56 FR 54957; 10/23/1991 Tom Chart, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Director, 303-236-9885; [email protected] Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, 44 Union Blvd., Ste. 120, Lakewood, CO 80228. Topeka shiner Notropis Topeka (=tristis) Endangered Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, U.S.A 63 FR 69008; 12/15/1998 Jason Luginbill, Project Leader, 785-539-3474; [email protected] Ecological Services, Kansas Field Office, 2609 Anderson Ave., Manhattan, KS 66502. Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Boloria acrocnema Threatened Colorado, U.S.A 56 FR 28712; 6/24/1991 Ann Timberman, Western Colorado Field Supervisor, 970-628-7181; [email protected] Ecological Services, Western Colorado Field Office, 445 W. Gunnison Ave., #240, Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711.
    Scientific name Common name Listing status Historical range Final listing rule (Federal Register citation and publication date) Contact person, phone, email Contact person's U.S. mail address PLANTS Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren milk-vetch Endangered Arizona, Utah, U.S.A 66 FR 49560; 09/28/2001 Larry Crist, Project Leader, 801-975-3330; [email protected] Ecological Services, Utah Field Office, 2369 W. Orton Circle, #50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits milk-vetch Endangered Utah, U.S.A 66 FR 49560; 09/28/2001 Larry Crist, Project Leader, 801-975-3330; [email protected] Ecological Services, Utah Field Office, 2369 W. Orton Circle, #50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Astragalus osterhoutii Osterhout milkvetch Endangered Colorado, U.S.A 54 FR 29658; 7/13/1989 Ann Timberman, Western Colorado Field Supervisor, 970-628-7181; [email protected] Ecological Services, Western Colorado Office, 445 W. Gunnison Ave., #240, Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711. Eutrema penlandii Penland alpine fen mustard Threatened Colorado, U.S.A 58 FR 40539; 7/28/1993 Ann Timberman, Western Colorado Field Supervisor, 970-628-7181; [email protected] Ecological Services, Western Colorado Office, 445 W. Gunnison Ave., #240, Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711. Ipomopsis polyantha Pagosa skyrocket Endangered Colorado, U.S.A 76 FR 45054; 07/27/2011 Ann Timberman, Western Colorado Field Supervisor, 970-628-7181; [email protected] Ecological Services, Western Colorado Office, 445 W. Gunnison Ave., #240, Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711. Penstemon penlandii Penland beardtongue Endangered Colorado, U.S.A 54 FR 29658; 7/13/1989 Ann Timberman, Western Colorado Field Supervisor, 970-628-7181; [email protected] Ecological Services, Western Colorado Office, 445 W. Gunnison Ave., #240, Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711. Physaria congesta (Lesquerella congesta) Dudley Bluffs bladderpod Threatened Colorado, U.S.A 55 FR 4152; 02/06/1990 Ann Timberman, Western CO Field Supervisor, 970-628-7181; [email protected] Ecological Services, Western CO Field Office, 445 W. Gunnison Ave., #240, Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711. Physaria obcordata Dudley Bluffs twinpod Threatened Colorado, U.S.A 55 FR 4152; 02/06/1990 Ann Timberman, Western CO Field Supervisor, 970-628-7181; [email protected] Ecological Services, Western Colorado Office, 445 W. Gunnison Ave., #240, Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711. Schoenocrambe suffrutenscens Shrubby reed-mustard Endangered Utah, U.S.A 52 FR 37416; 10/06/1987 Larry Crist, Project Leader, 801-975-3330; [email protected] Ecological Services, Utah Field Office, 2369 W. Orton Circle, #50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Schoenocrambe argillacea Clay reed-mustard Endangered Utah, U.S.A 52 FR 37416; 10/06/1987 Larry Crist, Project Leader, 801-975-3330; [email protected] Ecological Services, Utah Field Office, 2369 W. Orton Circle, #50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Sclerocactus brevispinus Pariette cactus Threatened Utah, U.S.A 74 FR 47117; 09/15/2009 Larry Crist, Project Leader, 801-975-3330; [email protected] Ecological Services, Utah Field Office, 2369 W. Orton Circle, #50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Sclerocactus wetlandicus Uinta Basin hookless cactus Threatened Utah, U.S.A 74 FR 47112; 09/15/2009 Larry Crist, Project Leader, 801-975-3330; [email protected] Ecological Services, Utah Field Office, 2369 W. Orton Circle, #50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Sclerocactus wrightiae Wright fishhook cactus Endangered Utah, U.S.A 44 FR 58866; 10/11/1979 Larry Crist, Project Leader, 801-975-3330; [email protected] Ecological Services, Utah Field Office, 2369 W. Orton Circle, #50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Request for New Information

    To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See “What Information Do We Consider in Our Review?” for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.

    How do I ask questions or provide information?

    If you wish to provide information for any species listed above, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in the table above. You may also direct questions to those contacts. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.

    Public Availability of Submissions

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.

    Completed and Active Reviews

    A list of all completed and currently active 5-year reviews addressing species for which the Mountain-Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has lead responsibility is available at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

    Authority

    This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: April 19, 2016. Matt Hogan, Deputy Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12585 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2016-0070; FXIA16710900000-156-FF09A30000] Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of applications for permit.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibit activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before June 27, 2016. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2016-0070.

    U.S. Mail or Hand-Delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2016-0070; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information). Viewing Comments: Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2095.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax); [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Comment Procedures A. How do I request copies of applications or comment on submitted applications?

    Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under ADDRESSES. Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an email or address not listed under ADDRESSES. If you provide an email address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.

    Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

    The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).

    B. May I review comments submitted by others?

    Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under ADDRESSES. The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    II. Background

    To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), along with Executive Order 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,” and the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies of January 21, 2009—Transparency and Open Government (74 FR 4685; January 26, 2009), which call on all Federal agencies to promote openness and transparency in Government by disclosing information to the public, we invite public comment on these permit applications before final action is taken. Under the MMPA, you may request a hearing on any MMPA application received. If you request a hearing, give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Service Director.

    III. Permit Applications A. Endangered Species Applicant: Zoological Society of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH; PRT-145194

    The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from wild black-footed cats (Felis nigripes) for the purpose of survival of the species/scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: Odysea Aquarium, LLC, Scottsdale, AZ; PRT-87012B

    The applicant requests a permit to import 20 captive bred, African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 1-year period.

    Applicant: Dwayne Lake, East Dublin, GA; PRT-050246

    The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Brown lemur (Eulemur fulvus), ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta), black and white ruffed lemur (Varecia variegate), and red-ruffed lemur (Varecia variegate ruber). This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Multiple Applicants

    The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

    Applicant: Patrick Ballenger, Morral, OH; PRT-93135B Applicant: Geoffrey Stone, Fallon, NV; PRT-95502B Applicant: Terry Jones, Bryan, TX; PRT-88951B Applicant: Terry Freeman, Russellville, AZ; PRT-94211B Applicant: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA; PRT-78234B

    The applicant requests renewal of a permit to acquire, import, and export legally taken specimens of polar bear (Ursus maritimus), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus), sea otter (Enhydra lutris), marine otter (Lontra felina), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), Amazonian manatee (Trichechus inunguis), West African manatee (Trichechus senegalensis), and dugong (Dugong dugon) for purposes of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Concurrent with publishing this notice in the Federal Register, we are forwarding copies of the above applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors for their review.

    Brenda Tapia, Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12550 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [USGS-GX16WC00COM0001] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of revision of a currently approved information collection, (1028-0106).

    SUMMARY:

    We (the U.S. Geological Survey) are notifying the public that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the information collection request (ICR) described below. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this ICR. This collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments on this ICR are considered, OMB must receive them on or before June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, via email: ([email protected]); or by fax (202) 395-5806; and identify your submission with `OMB Control Number 1028-0106 USGS Ash Fall Report'. Please also forward a copy of your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7195 (fax); or [email protected] (email). Please reference `OMB Information Collection 1028-0106: USGS Ash Fall Report' in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristi Wallace, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Volcano Observatory, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, office phone: 907-786-7109, email: [email protected] You may also find information about this ICR at www.reginfo.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The USGS provides notifications and warnings to the public of volcanic activity in the U.S. in order to reduce the loss of life, property, and economic and societal impacts. Ash fallout to the ground can pose significant disruption and damage to buildings, transportation, water and wastewater, power supply, communications equipment, agriculture, and primary production leading to potentially substantial societal impacts and costs, even at thicknesses of only a few millimeters or inches. Additionally, fine grained ash, when ingested can cause health impacts to humans and animals. USGS will use reports entered in real time by respondents of ash fall in their local area to correct or refine ash fall forecasts as the ash cloud moves downwind. Retrospectively these reports will enable USGS to improve their ash fall models and further research into eruptive processes.

    This project is a database module and web interface allowing the public and Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) staff to enter reports of ash fall in their local area in real time and retrospectively following an eruptive event. Users browsing the AVO Web site during eruptions will be directed towards a web form allowing them to fill in ash fall information and submit the information to AVO.

    Compiled ashfall reports are available in real-time to AVO staff through the AVO internal Web site. A pre-formatted summary report or table that distills information received online will show ash fall reports in chronological order with key fields including (1) date and time of ash fall, (2) location, (3) positive or negative ash fall (4) name of observer, and (5) contact information is easily viewable internally on the report so that calls for clarification can be made by AVO staff quickly and Operations room staff can visualize ashfall information quickly.

    Ash fall report data will also be displayed on a dynamic map interface and show positive (yes ash) and negative (no ash) ash fall reports by location. Ash fall reports (icons) will be publically displayed for a period of 24 hours and shaded differently as they age so that the age of reports is obvious.

    The ash fall report database will help AVO track eruption clouds and associated fallout downwind. These reports from the public will also give scientists a more complete record of the amount and duration and other conditions of ash fall. Getting first-hand accounts of ash fall will support model ash fall development and interpretation of satellite imagery. AVO scientists will—as time allows—be able to contact the individuals using their entered contact information for clarification and details. Knowing the locations from which ash-fall reports have been filed will improve ash fall warning messages, AVO Volcanic Activity Notifications, and make fieldwork more efficient. AVO staff will be able to condense and summarize the various ash fall reports and forward that information on to emergency management agencies and the wider public. The online form will also free up resources during exceedingly busy times during an eruption, as most individuals currently phone AVO with their reports.

    Observers may also collect and submit a physical ashfall sample using mail services. The area over which ash can fall is large. Timely access is often difficult for USGS employees and local individuals are ideally positioned to collect quality samples.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028-0106.

    Form Number: NA.

    Title: USGS Ash Fall Report.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Respondent Obligation: Participation is voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion, after each ashfall event.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals and households.

    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: Approximately 200 individuals will respond with an observation event each year.

    Estimated Time per Response: We estimate the public reporting burden will average 3.5 minutes per response. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, and answering a web-based questionnaire.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 33 hours.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: There are a few optional “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this collection of information, such as clipboards, plastic bags, and preparing ash collection tools. We estimate the maximum for all respondents is $711.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until the OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obliged to respond.

    Comments: On February 12, 2016, we published a Federal Register notice (81 FR 7582) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval and soliciting comments. The comment period closed on April 12, 2016. We received no comments.

    III. Request for Comments

    We again invite comments concerning this ICR as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) how to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Please note that comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us and the OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    Thomas L. Murry, Director, Volcano Science Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12569 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNVC00000.L16100000.DR0000; 14-08807; MO# 4500084731] Notice of Availability Nevada and California Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Land Use Plan Amendment and Record of Decision AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the approved Nevada and California Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) for the Carson City District and the Tonopah Field Office located in Nevada. The Nevada State Director signed the ROD on May 27, 2016, which constitutes the final decision of the BLM and makes the LUPA effective immediately.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the ROD/approved LUPA are available upon request from the Carson City District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, NV 89701, Battle Mountain District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, NV 89820 or via the Internet at http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/carson_city_field.html. Copies of the ROD/approved LUPA are available for public inspection at the Carson City or Battle Mountain District Offices at the above addresses.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colleen Sievers, Project Manager, telephone: 775-885-6168; address: 5665 Morgan Mill Rd., Carson City, NV 89701; email: [email protected]. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Nevada California Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Land Use Plan will amend the Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan (RMP) (2001) and the Tonopah Field Office RMP (1997). The LUPA and associated environmental impact statement (EIS) were developed using a collaborative planning process. The United States Forest Service (USFS) was the lead agency for preparing the EIS and LUPA. The BLM was a cooperating agency. The LUPA encompasses approximately 280,000 acres of public land administered by the BLM Nevada, located in Carson City, Douglas, Esmeralda, Lyon, and Mineral counties in Nevada and Alpine County, California. The decision area does not include private lands, State lands, tribal lands, or Federal lands not administered by the BLM. The LUPA/ROD will add goals, objectives, action, and best management practices specifically designed to conserve, enhance, and restore habitats to provide for the long-term viability of the Greater Sage-Grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment (BSSG). The LUPA provides direction at the land-use-plan level to include regulatory mechanisms for the management and conservation of BSSG habitats within the BLM Carson City and Battle Mountain Districts to support the BSSG population management objectives within the States of Nevada and California.

    The proposed LUPA/final EIS was made available to the public on February 13, 2015 (80 FR 8081). Three valid protest letters were received and seven issues were identified. No inconsistencies were identified by the Offices of the Governor for the States of California or Nevada during the Governor's consistency review. The Director's Protest Report is available from the Carson City District's Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/carson_city_field.html.

    The following changes to the Proposed Amendment are made final in the ROD/Approved Amendment as a result of protests raised during the protest process and additional agency discussions: Set a total anthropogenic disturbance of no more than 3 percent of the total BSSG habitat on Federal lands within the Bodie Mountain/Grant, Desert Creek/Fales, and White Mountains population management unit boundaries (PMU); and a total anthropogenic disturbance of no more than 1.5 percent of the total BSSG habitat on Federal lands within the Pine Nut Mountains PMU; tall structures, which could serve as predator perches, will not be authorized within 4 miles of an active or pending lek; designate right-of-way exclusion areas within BSSG habitat for new high-power (120kV) transmission line corridors, rights-of-way, facilities, or construction areas in habitat (outside of existing corridors); and clarify that connective areas will be maintained or enhanced.

    The EIS analyzes three alternatives: Alternative A (no action), Alternative B (Modified Proposed Action), and Alternative C (conservation). The BLM Proposed Plan Amendment is the same as Alternative B with the language modified to be consistent with BLM planning language. The BLM Proposed Plan Amendment as described in the Final EIS was selected in the ROD, with some modifications and clarifications based on protests raised during the protest process and additional agency discussions. The ROD adopts the final EIS's goals and objections and the management actions to reach those goals and objections.

    The ROD does not directly implement any specific action. Future actions will be consistent with the management direction in the approved LUPA and will be made through a future decision-making process, including appropriate environmental review. Examples of site-specific planning efforts for resource-use activities are special recreation permits and right-of-way grants.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1506.6.

    John F. Ruhs, State Director, Nevada.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12605 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLIDT000000.L11200000.DD0000.241A.00; 4500069133] Notice of Public Meeting, Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council, Idaho AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The Twin Falls District RAC will meet June 17, 2016 at the Twin Falls District Office, 2878 Addison Ave. E., Twin Falls, ID 83301. The meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. and end no later than 6:00 p.m. The public comment period will take place from 8:15-8:45 a.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Tiel-Nelson, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 2878 Addison Ave. E., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301, (208) 736-2352.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. On June 17, the Twin Falls District RAC will develop permit renewal and travel management planning subcommittees in the morning. The rest of the day will be dedicated to wild horse education as they view the film Unbranded and take a field tour of the Bruneau Off-Range Corrals. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements.

    More information is available at http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/get_involved/resource_advisory/twin_falls_district.html RAC meetings are open to the public.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 1784.4-1.

    Brian C. Amme, BLM Twin Falls District Manager (Acting).
    [FR Doc. 2016-12583 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 2016 Final Fee Rate and Fingerprint Fees AGENCY:

    National Indian Gaming Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 25 CFR 514.2, that the National Indian Gaming Commission has adopted its 2016 final annual fee rates of 0.00% for tier 1 and 0.062% (.00062) for tier 2, which remain the same as the 2016 preliminary fee rates. The tier 2 annual fee rate represents the lowest fee rate adopted by the Commission in the last five years. These rates shall apply to all assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission. If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation under 25 CFR part 518, the 2016 final fee rate on Class II revenues shall be 0.031% (.00031) which is one-half of the annual fee rate. The final fee rates being adopted here are effective June 1, 2016, and will remain in effect until new rates are adopted.

    Pursuant to 25 CFR 514.16, the National Indian Gaming Commission has also adopted its fingerprint processing fees of $21 per card effective June 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yvonne Lee, National Indian Gaming Commission, C/O Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) established the National Indian Gaming Commission, which is charged with regulating gaming on Indian lands.

    Commission regulations (25 CFR 514) provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-administered by gaming operations. Pursuant to those regulations, the Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment rates and the gaming operations are required to apply those rates to their revenues, compute the fees to be paid, report the revenues, and remit the fees to the Commission. All gaming operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission are required to self-administer the provisions of these regulations, and report and pay any fees that are due to the Commission.

    Pursuant to 25 CFR 514, the Commission must also review annually the costs involved in processing fingerprint cards and set a fee based on fees charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and costs incurred by the Commission. Commission costs include Commission personnel, supplies, equipment costs, and postage to submit the results to the requesting tribe. Based on that review, the Commission hereby sets the 2016 fingerprint processing fee at $21 per card effective June 1, 2016.

    Dated: May 24, 2016. Jonodev O. Chaudhuri, Chairman. Dated: May 24, 2016. Kathryn C. Isom-Clause, Vice Chair. Dated: May 24, 2016. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Associate Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12629 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NERO-CAJO-20994; PPNECAJO00, PPMPSPD1Z.Y00000] Selection of the Route of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trails AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of selection of trail route.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the National Trails System Act, the National Park Service is publishing notice of its selection of the route of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. Congress established the trail in 2006, and the Secretary of the Interior designated portions of four rivers as historic components of the trail in 2012.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Hunt, Superintendent, Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, National Park Service, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 314, Annapolis, MD 21403, (410) 260-2471.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 2006, Congress established the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail as a component of the National Trails System. Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act (Act), Public Law 109-418, 120 Stat. 2882 (2006). The Act describes the trail as “a series of water routes extending approximately 3,000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay in the States of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, and in the District of Columbia, that traces the 1607-1609 voyages of Captain John Smith to chart the land and waterways of the Chesapeake Bay,” as generally depicted on the map referenced in the Act, which map is available at https://www.nps.gov/cajo/planyourvisit/maps.htm.

    The map indicates that the water routes are located on portions of the Chesapeake Bay and of the James, Chickahominy, Nansemond, Elizabeth, York, Pamunkey, Mattaponi, Piankatank, Rappahannock, Pocomoke, Potomac, Anacostia, Nanticoke, Patuxent, Patapsco, Bush, Susquehanna, Northeast, Elk, and Sassafras Rivers. In 2012, the Secretary of the Interior, acting pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1245, designated portions of the Susquehanna, Chester, Upper Nanticoke, and Upper James Rivers as historic components of the trail.

    To guide management of the trail, the National Park Service prepared a comprehensive management plan, finalized in 2011, that provides a vision and decision-making framework for the trail; identifies significant natural, historical, and cultural resources to be preserved; and describes anticipated cooperative agreements with State and local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private entities. The trail route consists of a line on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and certain of its tributaries tracing Captain John Smith's explorations and certain related natural, historic, or cultural sites or features located on lands abutting or near the water route, all as depicted or described in the trail's comprehensive management plan and related documents.

    The National Park Service held a series of public meetings to elicit public input and met with representatives of State and local governments and Indian tribes. A trail conservation strategy and detailed segment plans for the James River and Potomac River were subsequently developed.

    Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1244(a) and 1246(a)(2), the Secretary of the Interior must select the route for the trail and publish notice of the availability of appropriate maps or descriptions in the Federal Register.

    This Federal Register notice announces the route for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail as a line on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and certain of its tributaries following the routes generally depicted on the map referenced in the Act or described in the 2012 secretarial order designating portions of the Susquehanna, Chester, Upper Nanticoke, and Upper James Rivers as historic components of the trail. The route also includes certain related natural, historic, or cultural sites or features located on lands abutting or near the designated water route. Both the water route and the related terrestrial sites or features are depicted or described in more detail in the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan (2011), A Conservation Strategy for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (2013), and segment plans for the James River (2011) and Potomac River (2015), all of which are available at https://www.nps.gov/cajo/getinvolved/planning.htm.

    Authority:

    National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(25) and 1246(a)(2).

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Charles Hunt, Superintendent, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12284 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-WV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement [S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 167S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 16XS501520] Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0087 AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request approval for the collection of information for the Abandoned Mine Land Problem Area Description form, OSM-76. This information collection activity was previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and assigned control number 1029-0087.

    DATES:

    OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection requests but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by June 27, 2016, in order to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Department of the Interior Desk Officer, via email at [email protected], or by facsimile to (202) 395-5806. Also, please send a copy of your comments to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203-SIB, Washington, DC 20240, or electronically to [email protected] Please reference 1029-0087 in your correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at [email protected] You may also review the information collection request online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require 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)]. OSMRE has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval for the collection of information found in the form OSM-76, Abandoned Mine Land Problem Area Description form. OSMRE is requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0087, and may be found on the OSM-76 form in OSMRE's e-AMLIS system.

    As required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on this collection was published on February 16, 2016 (81 FR 7829). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

    Title: OSM-76—Abandoned Mine Land Problem Area Description Form.

    OMB Control Number: 1029-0087.

    Summary: This form will be used to update the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's electronic inventory of abandoned mine lands (e-AMLIS). From this inventory, the most serious problem areas are selected for reclamation through the apportionment of funds to States and Indian tribes.

    Bureau Form Number: OSM-76.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Description of Respondents: State governments and Indian tribes.

    Total Annual Responses: 1,888.

    Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,016.

    Obligation to Respond: Required in order to obtain or retain benefits.

    Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the places listed in ADDRESSES. Please refer to control number 1029-0087 in all correspondence.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: May 20, 2016. Harry J. Payne, Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12570 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-559-561 and 731-TA-1317-1328 (Preliminary)] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey; Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey, provided for in subheadings 7208.51.00, 7208.52.00, 7211.13.00, 7211.14.00, 7225.40.11, 7225.40.30, 7226.20.00, and 7226.91.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and that are alleged to be subsidized by the governments of China and Korea. The Commission further determines that allegedly subsidized imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Brazil are negligible pursuant to section 771(24) of the Act, and its countervailing duty investigation with regard to certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from this country is thereby terminated pursuant to section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Commencement of Final Phase Investigations

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations on which it has made preliminary determinations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Background

    On April 8, 2016, ArcelorMittal USA LLC (Chicago, Illinois), Nucor Corporation (Charlotte, North Carolina), and SSAB Enterprises, LLC (Lisle, Illinois) filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Brazil, China, and Korea, and LTFV imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey. Accordingly, effective April 8, 2016, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-559-561 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1317-1328 (Preliminary).

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22116). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2016, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on May 23, 2016. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4615 (May 2016), entitled Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-559-561 and 731-TA-1317-1328 (Preliminary).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 23, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12537 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-548 and 731-TA-1298 (Final)] Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from India; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-548 and 731-TA-1298 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of welded stainless steel pressure pipe from India, provided for in subheadings 7306.40.50 and 7306.40.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair-value.1

    1 For purposes of these investigations, the Department of Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as “circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter. References to size are in nominal inches and include all products within tolerances allowed by pipe specifications. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.” For a full description of the scope of the investigation, including product exclusions, see Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From India: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 28824, May 10, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: May 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Szustakowski ((202) 205-3169), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in India of welded stainless steel pressure pipe, and that such products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in petitions filed on September 30, 2015, by Bristol Metals, LLC, Bristol, TN; Felker Brothers Corp., Marshfield, WI; Marcegaglia USA, Munhall, PA; and Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc., Wildwood, FL.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on September 8, 2016, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

    Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 22, 2016, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before September 16, 2016. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should participate in a prehearing conference to be held on September 20, 2016, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

    Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is September 15, 2016. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is September 29, 2016. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before September 29, 2016. On October 18, 2016, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before October 20, 2016, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 24, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12622 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same, DN 3150; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing under section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,1 and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    1 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.2 The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS.3 Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    2 United States International Trade Commission (USITC): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Tessera Technologies, Inc.; Tessera, Inc. and Invensas Corporation on May 23, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor devices, semiconductor device packages, and products containing same. The complaint names as respondents Broadcom Limited of Singapore; Broadcom Corporation of Irvine, CA; Avago Technologies Limited of Singapore; Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. of San Jose, CA; Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA; ARRIS International plc of Suwanee, GA; ARRIS Group, Inc. of Suwanee, GA; ARRIS Technology, Inc. of Horsham, PA; ARRIS Enterprises LLC of Suwanee, GA; ARRIS Solutions, Inc. of Suwanee, GA; Pace Ltd. (formerly Pace plc) of England; Pace Americas, LLC of Boca Raton, FL; Pace USA, LLC of Boca Raton, FL; ASUSTeK Computer Inc. of Taiwan; ASUS Computer International of Fremont, CA; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC of Philadelphia, PA; Comcast Business Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, PA; HTC Corporation of Taiwan; HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, WA; NETGEAR, Inc. of San Jose, CA; Technicolor S.A. of France; Technicolor USA, Inc. of Indianapolis, IN; and Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC of Indianapolis, IN. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3150”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures.4 ) Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.5

    5 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 24, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12623 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation [OMB Number 1110-0001] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Return A—Monthly Return of Offenses Known to Police and Supplement to Return A—Monthly Return of Offenses Known to Police; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division will submit the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 15350, on March 22, 2016, allowing for a 60 day comment period and no comments were received.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until June 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Mr. Samuel Berhanu, Unit Chief, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, Module E-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile (304) 625-3566. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate 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; —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/or —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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Return A—Monthly Return of Offenses Known to Police and Supplement to Return A—Monthly Return of Offenses Known to Police.

    3. The agency form number: 1-720 and 1-706.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: City, county, state, federal, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Under title 28, U.S. Code, section 534, Acquisition, Preservation, and Exchange of Identification Records; Appointment of Officials, 1930, this collection requests part I offense and clearance data as well as stolen and recovered monetary values of stolen property throughout the United States from city, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies in order for the FBI UCR Program to serve as the national clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of crime data and to publish these statistics in the Semiannual and Preliminary Annual Reports and Crime in the United States.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: There are potential of 18,498 law enforcement agency respondents; calculated estimates indicate 10 minutes for the Return A and 11 minutes for the Supplement to Return A.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are approximately 189,336.5 hours, annual burden, associated with this information collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: May 23, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12431 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection AGENCY:

    Merit Systems Protection Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Board's Appeal Form (MSPB Form 185) and corresponding e-Appeal Online system (e-Appeal). MSPB Form 185 and e-Appeal provides an efficient way for respondents to submit information required by the Board's regulations to initiate an appeal. The MSPB has requested an emergency extension of this information collection, which expires on May 31, 2016, for 90 days.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information to William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20419. Because of possible mail delays, respondents are encouraged to submit comments by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-653-7130.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please contact William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20419; telephone 202-653-7200; fax 202-653-7130; email to [email protected] Persons without internet access may request a paper copy of the MSPB Appeal Form from the Office of the Clerk of the Board.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The MSPB is an independent, quasi-judicial agency in the Executive branch that serves as the guardian of Federal merit systems. The Board was established by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978, which was codified by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454. The Board is authorized to adjudicate appeals of certain Federal agency personnel and retirement actions and certain alleged violations of law. See 5 U.S.C. 1204, 1221, 3330a and 7701; 38 U.S.C. 4324. The Board has published its regulations for processing appeals at 5 CFR parts 1201, 1208, and 1209. In order to fulfill its statutory and regulatory mandates, the Board is authorized to collect information pertinent to a case, appeal, or request for review. 5 U.S.C. 1204. This information may include pleadings, evidence, and other case related information necessary for the adjudication and administration of the case. The parties to MSPB actions submit such records in the course of adjudication. The Board's regulations require that appellants provide certain information when filing an appeal so that the Board can determine whether it has jurisdiction over the appeal and whether it has been filed within the applicable time limit. Although an appeal may be filed in any format, including letter form, MSPB provides an appeal form so that a person seeking to file an appeal will know that he or she is providing all information required for the Board to initiate processing. An electronic filing system, e-Appeal, is also available to respondents to submit same required information.

    Collection of Information

    Title: Merit Systems Protection Board Appeal Form (MSPB FORM 185).

    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection.

    OMB Number: 3124-0009.

    MSPB Forms: MSPB Form 185.

    Abstract: MSPB's regulations (5 CFR 1201, 1208, and 1209) require appellants to provide certain information when filing an appeal to determine jurisdiction and timeliness. While the information may be submitted in any format, this form provides an efficient way to ensure that all of the required information is submitted. This form is available to download as a PDF or appellants may use the electronic filing system, e-Appeal.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 7,150.

    Number of Responses: 7,150.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,150.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents operations and maintenance costs for technical services is $232,518. There are no annual start-up or capital costs.

    Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12562 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7400-01-P
    THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Institute of Museum and Library Services Notice of Proposed Information Collection Request: State Library Administrative Agencies Survey FY 2016 & FY 2018 AGENCY:

    Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice, request for comments, collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Institute of Museum and Library Service (“IMLS”) 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). This pre-clearance consultation 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 requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The purpose of this Notice is to solicit comments concerning the continuance of the State Library Administrative Agencies Survey for FY 2016 & FY 2018.

    A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before July 27, 2016.

    The IMLS is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate 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;

    • 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 to respond, including