Federal Register Vol. 81, No.109,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 109 (June 7, 2016)

Page Range36433-36785
FR Document

81_FR_109
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 36610 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 36519 - Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Reinstatement of Order, in PartPDF
81 FR 36501 - Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz BandPDF
81 FR 36496 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
81 FR 36480 - Child Nutrition Program Integrity; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 36627 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of GovernorsPDF
81 FR 36539 - Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board; Regular MeetingPDF
81 FR 36641 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 36647 - Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls: Notifications to the Congress of Proposed Commercial Export LicensesPDF
81 FR 36546 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
81 FR 36547 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
81 FR 36544 - Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS)PDF
81 FR 36543 - Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC) and Request for Suggested Meeting Topics for CLIACPDF
81 FR 36548 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR)PDF
81 FR 36546 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 36654 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2016-29.PDF
81 FR 36654 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects CommitteePDF
81 FR 36653 - Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 36653 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint CommitteePDF
81 FR 36653 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 36557 - Notice of National Disaster Resilience Competition Grant RequirementsPDF
81 FR 36599 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive LicensePDF
81 FR 36580 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Pay for Success Pilot Application RequirementsPDF
81 FR 36594 - Section 108: Draft Revision of the Library and Archives Exceptions in U.S. Copyright LawPDF
81 FR 36536 - Wells Rural Electric Company; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 36531 - El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 36530 - Alta Ski Area; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
81 FR 36535 - Windham Solar LLC, Allco Finance Limited; Notice of Petition for EnforcementPDF
81 FR 36652 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 36653 - Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 36652 - Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee.PDF
81 FR 36555 - Intent To Request Extension From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Aviation Security Customer Satisfaction Performance Measurement Passenger SurveyPDF
81 FR 36549 - Announcement of a Single-Source Award to Healthy Families San Angelo, San Angelo, TXPDF
81 FR 36465 - Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port ZonePDF
81 FR 36468 - Special Local Regulation for Marine Events; James River, Midlothian, VAPDF
81 FR 36518 - Notice of National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship MeetingPDF
81 FR 36534 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
81 FR 36537 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 36532 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
81 FR 36537 - Ware River Power, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 36535 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
81 FR 36536 - North Hartland, LLC; Notice of Petition for EnforcementPDF
81 FR 36533 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 36655 - Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee June 27, 2016 Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 36518 - Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 36549 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36540 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 36528 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (DL) RegulationsPDF
81 FR 36519 - President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 36481 - Amendment to the Export Administration Regulations: Removal of Special Iraq Reconstruction LicensePDF
81 FR 36541 - Information Collection; Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, GSA Form 3702PDF
81 FR 36660 - Agency Information Collection (Alternate Signer Certification) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 36661 - Agency Information Collection (Marital Status Questionnaire, 21P-0537) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 36659 - Agency Information Collection (Request for Details of Expenses, VA Form 21P-8049) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 36658 - Proposed Information Collection (Application for Burial Benefits (Under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 23), VA Form 21P-530); Activity: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36659 - Proposed Information Collection (Request for Nursing Home Information in Connection With Claim for Aid and Attendance (VA Form 21-0779)); Activity: Comment Request.PDF
81 FR 36660 - Agency Information Collection-Request for a Certificate of Eligibility VA Form 26-1880; Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 36525 - Training Land Expansion at Fort Benning, Georgia and Alabama, Withdrawal of Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact StatementPDF
81 FR 36612 - Changes to Aging Management Guidance for Various Steam Generator ComponentsPDF
81 FR 36610 - Consequential SGTR Analysis for Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering Plants With Thermally-Treated Alloy 600 and 690 Steam Generator TubesPDF
81 FR 36556 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Travel Document, Form I-131; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 36484 - Public Staff Roundtable on Elements of Regulation Automated Trading; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 36599 - Freedom of Information Act Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 36660 - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 36554 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36528 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program RegsPDF
81 FR 36526 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 36655 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 36651 - Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC); Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 36516 - Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 36516 - Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota-Rushmore Connector Trail ProjectPDF
81 FR 36582 - Notice of Public Meeting, Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council, IdahoPDF
81 FR 36581 - Endangered Species; Recovery Permit ApplicationPDF
81 FR 36554 - Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 36521 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Rip Current Visualization Survey and Focus GroupsPDF
81 FR 36511 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; North and South Atlantic 2016 Commercial Swordfish QuotasPDF
81 FR 36550 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Biological Products: Reporting of Biological Product Deviations and Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Deviations in Manufacturing; Forms FDA 3486 and 3486APDF
81 FR 36592 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Placement Verification and Follow-Up of Job Corps ParticipantsPDF
81 FR 36522 - Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and OrderPDF
81 FR 36470 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Portland, OR and Vancouver, WAPDF
81 FR 36470 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hood Canal, Port Gamble, WAPDF
81 FR 36541 - Proposed Amendment to Initial Funded Priorities ListPDF
81 FR 36531 - Juneau Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric ProjectPDF
81 FR 36534 - Alabama Power Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental AssessmentPDF
81 FR 36521 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18769PDF
81 FR 36582 - Certain Wireless Standard Compliant Electronic Devices, Including Communication Devices and Tablet Computers, Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation on the Basis of Settlement; Termination of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 36584 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Identification of Explosive MaterialsPDF
81 FR 36592 - Century Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From MAU Workforce Solutions, Goose Creek, South Carolina, Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 36590 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 36585 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 36540 - FY 2015 Service Contract InventoryPDF
81 FR 36626 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 36627 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 36600 - Modernizing Data Collection for Regulatory Oversight of Credit UnionsPDF
81 FR 36650 - Recommendations for Facilities Realignments To Support Transition to NextGen as Part of Section 804 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012-Part 2; Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 36584 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Modification to Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
81 FR 36636 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36585 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know ActPDF
81 FR 36492 - Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks North Myrtle Beach, SCPDF
81 FR 36494 - Safety Zone, Swim Around Charleston; Charleston, SCPDF
81 FR 36471 - Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit ZonePDF
81 FR 36488 - Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks Murrells Inlet, SCPDF
81 FR 36490 - Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks North Charleston, SCPDF
81 FR 36634 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36646 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1000A(b)(8)PDF
81 FR 36628 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 2242 (Debt Research Analysts and Debt Research Reports)PDF
81 FR 36641 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Senior Management AuthorityPDF
81 FR 36639 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Senior Management AuthorityPDF
81 FR 36627 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BatsBZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4) Shares of the Following Series of Market Vectors ETF Trust: Market Vectors 6-8 Year Municipal Index ETF; Market Vectors 8-12 Year Municipal Index ETF; and Market Vectors 12-17 Year Municipal Index ETFPDF
81 FR 36632 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 14.13, Company Listing FeesPDF
81 FR 36635 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 506PDF
81 FR 36637 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Reporting Time for Exchange of Contract for Related Position Transactions and Block Trades That Involve Trade at Settlement TransactionsPDF
81 FR 36433 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 36552 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 36554 - National Cancer Institute Amended; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 36553 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-day Comment Request, U.S. Nuclear Medicine Technologists Study (NCI)PDF
81 FR 36593 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor LawsPDF
81 FR 36583 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition, and Implements of War, ATF F 6 (5330.3A) Part IPDF
81 FR 36540 - Notice of Termination, 10227, Champion Bank, Creve Coeur, MissouriPDF
81 FR 36540 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10118, Brickwell Community Bank, Woodbury, MNPDF
81 FR 36485 - Compassionate ReleasePDF
81 FR 36544 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 36547 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 36529 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NCES System Clearance for Cognitive, Pilot, and Field Test StudiesPDF
81 FR 36458 - Implementation of the February 2015 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Decisions and the June 2015 AG Plenary UnderstandingsPDF
81 FR 36538 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of ArizonaPDF
81 FR 36463 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
81 FR 36473 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 36506 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Food Services for Dining Facilities on Military Installations (DFARS Case 2015-D012)PDF
81 FR 36613 - Biweekly Notice, Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
81 FR 36524 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery Honor and Remember Subcommittees Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 36762 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Zuni Bluehead SuckerPDF
81 FR 36454 - Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for InflationPDF
81 FR 36664 - Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 36438 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 36474 - Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Use of Seat BeltsPDF
81 FR 36447 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 36433 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 36452 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 36436 - Airworthiness Directives; EVEKTOR, spol. S.r.o. GlidersPDF
81 FR 36449 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 36704 - Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention ProgramPDF
81 FR 36601 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards InformationPDF
81 FR 36443 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 36440 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF

Issue

81 109 Tuesday, June 7, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition, and Implements of War, 36583-36584 2016-13305 Identification of Explosive Materials, 36584 2016-13349 Army Army Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Training Land Expansion at Fort Benning, Georgia and Alabama, 36525-36526 2016-13389 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery Honor and Remember Subcommittees, 36524-36525 2016-13253 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36544-36548 2016-13292 2016-13293 Charter Renewals: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 36546-36547 2016-13436 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 36548-36549 2016-13437 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 36546-36547 2016-13441 2016-13442 2016-13440 Tribal Advisory Committee Meeting and 15th Biannual Tribal Consultation Session, 36544 2016-13439 Requests for Nominations: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee, 36543-36544 2016-13438 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36549-36550 2016-13401 Single-Source Awards: Healthy Families San Angelo, San Angelo TX, 36549 2016-13415 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Columbia River, Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA, 36470 2016-13360 Hood Canal, Port Gamble, WA, 36470-36471 2016-13359 Safety Zones: Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone, 36471-36473 2016-13324 Special Local Regulations: Marine Events at James River, Midlothian, VA, 36468-36470 2016-13413 Marine Events held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone, 36465-36468 2016-13414 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Fourth of July Fireworks, Murrells Inlet, SC, 36488-36490 2016-13323 Fourth of July Fireworks, North Charleston, SC, 36490-36492 2016-13322 Fourth of July Fireworks, North Myrtle Beach, SC, 36492-36494 2016-13326 Swim Around Charleston; Charleston, SC, 36494-36496 2016-13325 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RULES Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation, 36454-36458 2016-13231
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Public Staff Roundtable on Elements of Regulation Automated Trading, 36484-36485 2016-13385 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Settlement Agreements and Orders: Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions, 36522-36524 2016-13362 Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress NOTICES Draft Revision of the Library and Archives Exceptions in U.S. Copyright Law, 36594-36599 2016-13426 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Technical Amendments, 36473-36474 2016-13258 PROPOSED RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Food Services for Dining Facilities on Military Installations, 36506-36511 2016-13257 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 36526-36528 2016-13379
Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 36518 2016-13412 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Health Education Assistance Loan Program, 36528-36529 2016-13380 NCES System Clearance for Cognitive, Pilot, and Field Test Studies, 36529-36530 2016-13291 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Regulations, 36528 2016-13399 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Worker Adjustment Assistance; Amended Certifications: Century Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc. Including On-Site Leased Workers from MAU Workforce Solutions, Goose Creek, SC, 36592 2016-13345 Worker Adjustment Assistance; Determinations, 36585-36590 2016-13343 Worker Adjustment Assistance; Investigations, 36590-36592 2016-13344 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program, 36704-36759 2016-12547
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 36496-36501 2016-13493 NOTICES Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Arizona; Authorized Program Revision Approval, 36538-36539 2016-13269 Farm Credit System Insurance Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, 36539-36540 2016-13479 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 36443-36447 2016-12056 EVEKTOR, spol. S.r.o. Gliders, 36436-36438 2016-12606 Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes, 36438-36443, 36447-36449 2016-11928 2016-13050 2016-13101 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 36433-36436, 36449-36454 2016-12599 2016-12842 2016-12847 NOTICES National Facilities Realignment and Consolidation Report, Part 2, 36650-36651 2016-13331 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure Devices in the 5 GHz Band, 36501-36506 2016-13510 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: Brickwell Community Bank Woodbury, MN, 36540 2016-13296 Champion Bank Creve Coeur, MO, 36540 2016-13297 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: El Dorado Irrigation District, 36531 2016-13423 Ware River Power, Inc., 36537-36538 2016-13408 Wells Rural Electric Co., 36536-36537 2016-13424 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Alabama Power Co., 36534-36535 2016-13354 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Juneau Hydropower, Inc.; Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project, 36531-36532 2016-13355 Petitions for Enforcement: North Hartland, LLC, 36536 2016-13406 Windham Solar LLC, Allco Finance Limited, 36535 2016-13421 Preliminary Determinations of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility: Alta Ski Area, 36530-36531 2016-13422 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 36532-36533 2016-13409 Requests under Blanket Authorization: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 36537 2016-13410 Northern Natural Gas Co., 36533-36534 2016-13405 Staff Attendances, 36534-36535 2016-13407 2016-13411 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Service Contract Inventory, 36540 2016-13337 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Use of Seat Belts, 36474-36479 2016-13099 NOTICES Meetings: Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee, 36651-36652 2016-13376 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 36540-36541 2016-13400 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker, 36762-36785 2016-13246 PROPOSED RULES Marine Mammals: Incidental Take During Specified Activities, 36664-36701 2016-13124 NOTICES Endangered Species: Recovery Permit Application, 36581-36582 2016-13370 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Biological Products: Reporting of Biological Product Deviations and Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Deviations in Manufacturing, 36550-36552 2016-13366 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service PROPOSED RULES Child Nutrition Program Integrity, 36480-36481 2016-13489 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota—Rushmore Connector Trail Project, 36516-36518 2016-13373 Meetings: Eastern Washington Cascades Provinicial Advisory Committee, 36516 2016-13375 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, 36541 2016-13396 Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council NOTICES Initial Funded Priorities List, 36541-36543 2016-13356 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Transportation Security Administration

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

RULES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 36433 2016-13311
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36580-36581 2016-13427 National Disaster Resilience Competition Grant Requirements, 36557-36580 2016-13430 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Implementation of the February 2015 Australia Group Intersessional Decisions and the June 2015 Australia Group Plenary Understandings, 36458-36463 2016-13271 PROPOSED RULES Export Administration: Removal of Special Iraq Reconstruction License, 36481-36484 2016-13397 NOTICES Meetings: President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration, 36519 2016-13398 Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee, 36518-36519 2016-13402 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36654-36655 2016-13435 Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee, 36653 2016-13432 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee, 36653 2016-13419 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee, 36654 2016-13434 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee, 36653-36654 2016-13431 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee, 36653 2016-13433 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee, 36652-36653 2016-13420 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee, 36652 2016-13418 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 36519-36521 2016-13534 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications and Rulings, etc.: Certain Wireless Standard Compliant Electronic Devices, Including Communication Devices and Tablet Computers, 36582-36583 2016-13350 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

See

Prisons Bureau

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decree under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 36585 2016-13327 Proposed Modification to Consent Decrees under the Clean Water Act, 36584-36585 2016-13330
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Notification of Employee Rights under Federal Labor Laws, 36593-36594 2016-13306 Placement Verification and Follow-up of Job Corps Participants, 36592-36593 2016-13365
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council, Idaho, 36582 2016-13371 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Exclusive Licenses; Proposed Approvals, 36599 2016-13429 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration See

Office of Government Information Services

National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Requests for Information: Modernizing Data Collection for Regulatory Oversight of Credit Unions, 36600-36601 2016-13332 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36553-36554 2016-13308 Meetings: National Cancer Institute; Amendment, 36554 2016-13309 National Institute of Mental Health, 36552-36553 2016-13310 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: North and South Atlantic 2016 Commercial Swordfish Quotas, 36511-36515 2016-13367 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Rip Current Visualization Survey and Focus Groups, 36521 2016-13368 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 18769, 36521-36522 2016-13351 Navy Navy Department RULES International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea; Certifications and Exemptions, 36463-36465 2016-13260 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 36601-36610, 36613-36626 2016-12484 2016-13255 Guidance: Changes to Aging Management for Various Steam Generator Components, 36612-36613 2016-13388 Consequential SGTR Analysis for Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering Plants with Thermally-Treated Alloy 600 and 690 Steam Generator Tubes, 36610-36611 2016-13387 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 36610 2016-13563 OGIS Office of Government Information Services NOTICES Charter Renewals: Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee, 36599-36600 2016-13384 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 36626-36627 2016-13335 2016-13336 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 36627 2016-13488 Prisons Prisons Bureau PROPOSED RULES Compassionate Release; Procedures for Implementation, 36485-36488 2016-13294 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36634-36637 2016-13320 2016-13321 2016-13329 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 36641 2016-13478 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 36632-36634 2016-13314 BatsBZX Exchange, Inc., 36627-36628 2016-13315 C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 36639-36641 2016-13316 CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, 36637-36638 2016-13312 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 36641-36646 2016-13317 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 36628-36632 2016-13318 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 36635-36636 2016-13313 NASDAQ PHLX LLC, 36646-36647 2016-13319 State Department State Department NOTICES Notifications to the Congress of Proposed Commercial Export Licenses, 36647-36650 2016-13453 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36554-36555 2016-13382 Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council, 36554 2016-13369 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Aviation Security Customer Satisfaction Performance Measurement Passenger Survey, 36555-36556 2016-13416 Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

See

United States Mint

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Travel Document, 36556-36557 2016-13386 U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES Meetings: Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, 36655 2016-13403 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Alternate Signer Certification, 36660-36661 2016-13395 Application for Burial Benefits, 36658-36659 2016-13392 Marital Status Questionnaire, 36661 2016-13394 Request for a Certificate of Eligibility, 36660 2016-13390 Request for Details of Expenses, 36659 2016-13393 Request for Nursing Home Information in Connection with Claim for Aid and Attendance, 36659-36660 2016-13391 Meetings: Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, 36660 2016-13383 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 36655-36658 2016-13378 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 36664-36701 2016-13124 Part III Energy Department, 36704-36759 2016-12547 Part IV Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 36762-36785 2016-13246 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.

81 109 Tuesday, June 7, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2016-0035] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records AGENCY:

Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is issuing a final rule to extend the exemptions from certain provisions of the Privacy Act to the updated and reissued system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records.” Specifically, the Department exempts portions of the “DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records” from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

DATES:

This final rule is effective June 7, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For general questions, please contact: John Connors, (202) 344-1610, Privacy Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Privacy and Diversity Office, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, 81 FR 19932, April 6, 2016, proposing to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. DHS reissued the DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records in the Federal Register on April 6, 2016 (81 FR 19985), to provide notice to the public that DHS/CBP was updating the categories of records to include the capture of Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) or Social Security numbers (SSNs), also known as a Federal Taxpayer Identifying Number, pursuant to 19 CFR 24.5, 19 CFR 149.3, and E.O. 9397, as amended by E.O. 13748. This final rule exempts portions of the new categories of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).

II. Public Comments

DHS received no comments on the NPRM and will implement the rulemaking as proposed.

List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

Freedom of information; Privacy.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

2. In appendix C to part 5, revise the introductory text of paragraph 25, and paragraph 25(a), to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act

25. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its Components. The DHS/CBP-014 RAAS System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to: the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations; inquiries; and proceedings there under. The DHS/CBP-014 RAAS System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its Components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:

(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.

Dated: May 23, 2016. Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2016-13311 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2958; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-248-AD; Amendment 39-18545; AD 2016-11-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 787 airplanes. This AD was prompted by the disclosure that the inner diameters of some batches of landing gear pins were not shot peened in accordance with design specifications, and need to be replaced. This AD requires inspection for improperly manufactured landing gear pins, and replacement if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct insufficient shot peening that could lead to stress corrosion cracking and failure of the landing gear pin, and cause landing gear collapse and inability to control the airplane at high speeds on the ground.

DATES:

This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, 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-2015-2958.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2958; 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:

Melanie Violette, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6422; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 787 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43642) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that the inner diameters of some batches of landing gear pins were not shot peened and need to be replaced. The NPRM proposed to require inspection for improperly manufactured landing gear pins, and replacement if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct insufficient shot peening that could lead to stress corrosion cracking and failure of the landing gear pin, and cause landing gear collapse and inability to control the airplane at high speeds on the ground.

Comments

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

Request To Use Revised Service Information

One commenter, Junji Miura, found several errors in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 001, dated November 14, 2014, and requested that we include a reference to the upcoming corrections. The commenter stated that Boeing will correct these errors in the next revision, and that referencing this revision in this AD will avoid the need for a global alternative method of compliance (AMOC).

We agree with the request. Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016. We have reviewed this service information, which was issued to correct typographical errors and part numbers, and to update statements, but adds no new actions. The changes in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016, address the commenter's concerns. We have revised the service information references throughout this final rule to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016, and we have added a new paragraph (h) to this AD to provide credit for the original service information. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Request for Correction to Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD

Boeing requested a correction to paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD to replace the word “or” with the word “and” in the phrase “part number or serial number.”

We agree to correct the applicable paragraphs of this AD because the intent was to require replacement of the pin only if both the part number and serial number are identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016. In paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, we revised the phrase “part number or serial number” to “part number and serial number.”

Request for Clarification of Airplanes Affected by Inspection Requirements

One commenter, Raja Rehman, requested that we clarify the required actions for airplanes that are covered by this AD, but not listed in the “Effectivity” section of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 001, dated November 14, 2014. The commenter asked if the inspection requirements of the proposed AD would apply to all delivered and to-be-delivered Model 787 airplanes, and if Boeing intends to issue a revision to the service bulletin that will cover the additional airplanes. The commenter also asked if an airplane that did not have the affected pins installed at production/delivery, and had never replaced the pins during service would comply with the AD.

We agree that clarification is necessary. The landing gear pin is a removable structural component (rotable part). Through maintenance action, the affected (discrepant) pins could be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable pins. Therefore, the applicability of this AD is all Model 787 airplanes—both those that are currently delivered and future deliveries—because the affected pins could be installed on any Model 787 airplane. It is not necessary for the applicability of the AD to match the effectivity of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 001, dated November 14, 2014, or Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.

We have modified paragraph (g) to require the inspections only for airplanes that received their original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness on or before the effective date of this AD. These are the airplanes that either had the affected (discrepant) pins installed in production, or may have had them installed through maintenance action. Paragraph (i), which remains applicable to all Model 787 airplanes, prohibits installation of the affected pins in the future.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016. The service information describes procedures to inspect and replace certain landing gear pins. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $3,315

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement Up to 19 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,615 $35,569 Up to $37,184
    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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-11-18 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18545; Docket No. FAA-2015-2958; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-248-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 787 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the disclosure that the inner diameters of some batches of landing gear pins were not shot peened in accordance with design specifications, and need to be replaced. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct insufficient shot peening that could lead to stress corrosion cracking and failure of the landing gear pin, and cause landing gear collapse and inability to control the airplane at high speeds on the ground.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Replacement

    For airplanes on which the original airworthiness certificate or the original export certificate of airworthiness was issued on or before the effective date of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 5, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016, do a landing gear pin part number and serial number inspection, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016. A review of airplane maintenance or delivery records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the installed landing gear pins can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (1) If the part number and serial number do not match the list of affected pin numbers: No further action is required by this paragraph at that pin location.

    (2) If the part number and serial number match the list of affected pin numbers: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 5, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016, replace the affected pin with a pin that does not have an affected part number and serial number, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 001, dated November 14, 2014. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a landing gear pin having an affected part number and serial number identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016.

    (j) 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 (k) 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.

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Melanie Violette, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6422; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (l) 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) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320022-00, Issue 002, dated April 6, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) 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.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 24, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12847 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4232; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-043-AD; Amendment 39-18538; AD 2016-11-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EVEKTOR, spol. S.r.o. Gliders AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.). This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 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 lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4232; or in person at 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 service information identified in this AD, contact EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/sales-and-support. You may view this referenced 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 Docket No. FAA-2016-4232.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2016 (81 FR 11475). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    Colour marking of elevator drive is not inspected or re-painted during sailplane operation. The elevator drive is asymmetrical and improper installation causes significant elevator deflection changes.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2016-4232-0003.

    A review of records revealed that the FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders. This AD addresses this MCAI for the EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and requires painting or re-painting the elevator drive mechanism a contrasting color to prevent the backward installation of the elevator drive bellcrank.

    The FAA is addressing the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders in another AD action.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 11475, March 4, 2016) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 11475, March 4, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 11475, March 4, 2016).

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-003a, dated December 15, 1998. The service information describes procedures for painting the left arm of the elevator drive. 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 of the AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $855, or $95 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

    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-2016-4232; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2016-11-11 EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o.: Amendment 39-18538; Docket No. FAA-2016-4232; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-043-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.

    (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 lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent backward installation of the elevator drive, which could cause significant elevator deflection changes and lead to loss of control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Within the next 3 calendar months after July 12, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), paint the elevator drive mechanism using a contrasting color (such as red) following the procedures in AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-003a, dated December 15, 1998.

    (2) As of July 12, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), only install an elevator bellcrank that has been painted as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and that has been properly oriented to make sure it is not being installed backward.

    (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: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; 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 Civil Aviation Authority AD CAA-AD-4-099/98, dated December 30, 1998, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2016-4232-0003.

    (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) AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-003a, dated December 15, 1998.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/sales-and-support.

    (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. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4232.

    (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 23, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12606 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-046-AD; Amendment 39-18549; AD 2016-11-22] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD was prompted by the need for more restrictive airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate certain maintenance requirement tasks, thresholds, and intervals. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential for significant failure conditions and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.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-2016-0464.

    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-2016-0464; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2016 (81 FR 8166) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by the need for more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate certain maintenance requirement tasks, thresholds, and intervals. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential for significant failure conditions and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0027, dated February 20, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fokker Services published issue 11 of Engineering Report SE-473, containing Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs). This report is Part 1 of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS Part 1) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, referred to in Section 06, Appendix 1, of the Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) document.

    The complete ALS currently consists of:

    Part 1—Report SE-473 (CMRs), Part 2—Report SE-623, Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALIs) and Safe Life Items (SLIs), and Part 3—Report SE-672, Fuel ALIs and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs).

    The instructions contained in those reports have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires implementation of the maintenance actions as specified in ALS Part 1 of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Fokker Services Engineering Report SE-473 at issue 11.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0464.

    Comments

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

    Changes to Paragraph Reference

    We have updated paragraph (h) of this AD. In paragraph (h) of the NPRM, we inadvertently referenced paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM. Paragraph (h) of this AD has been updated to reference paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed “Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,” of Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report, Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), SE-473, Issue 11, released January 19, 2015. This service information describes certification maintenance requirements. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $680, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-11-22 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-18549. Docket No. FAA-2016-0464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-046-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the need for more restrictive airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential for significant failure conditions and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the certification maintenance requirements (CMR) specified in “Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,” of Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report, Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), SE-473, Issue 11, released January 19, 2015.

    (2) Do the applicable initial CMR inspection at the time specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, as specified in “Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,” of Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report, ALS, SE-473, Issue 11, released January 19, 2015. If any discrepancy is found during any inspection, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency; or Fokker B.V. Service's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Repair any discrepancy before further flight.

    (i) For CMR inspection 783100-CM-01: Within 1 year or 3,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, but not later than 12,000 flight hours after accomplishing Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Task 783100-00-04.

    (ii) For CMR inspection 783500-CM-01: Within 1 year or 3,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, but not later than 10,000 flight hours after accomplishing MRB Task 783100-01-01.

    (h) No Alternative Inspections or Inspection Intervals

    After accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals, may be used, unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Fokker Services B.V.'s EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0027, dated February 20, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0464.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report, Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), SE-473, Issue 11, released January 19, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 26, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13101 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-5810; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-116-AD; Amendment 39-18526; AD 2016-10-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a design review that revealed that a wiring failure, external to the center wing fuel tank, could cause a hot short circuit to a maximum level sensor wire, and result in excessive heating of the maximum level sensor element. This AD requires modifying the wiring of the maximum level sensors in the center wing fuel tank, performing after-installation tests, and corrective action if necessary. This AD also requires revising the airplane maintenance or inspection program to incorporate fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective July 12, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5810.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5810; 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 regulation evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2015 (80 FR 74039) (“the NPRM”).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0138, dated May 30, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    * * * [T]he FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.

    The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker 70/100 design, in response to these regulations, revealed that a wiring failure, external to the centre wing fuel tank, causing a hot short circuit to a maximum (max) level sensor wire may result in excessive heating of the max level sensor element.

    This condition, if not corrected, could create an ignition source in the centre wing fuel tank vapour space, possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    EASA issued AD 2012-0240 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2012_0240.pdf/AD_2012-0240], to address this unsafe condition, which required installation of three fuses in the wiring of the max level sensor(s) in the centre wing fuel tank per Fokker Services Service Bulletin (SB) SBF100-28-073. After that AD was issued, it was found that this technical solution caused fuel spills during refueling and, consequently, EASA cancelled AD 2012-0240.

    More recently, Fokker Services issued SBF100-28-078, which cancelled SBF100-28-073, to correct the unsafe condition without the risk of fuel spills.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires removal of one fuse from post-SBF100-28-073 aeroplanes, and installation of only two fuses on pre-SBF100-28-073 aeroplanes and, subsequently, the implementation of the associated Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL) items.

    More information this subject can be found in Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF100.186#03.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5810.

    Comments

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

    Explanation of Changes Made to This AD

    We have made the following changes to this AD. These changes are for formatting purposes and do not affect the requirements of this AD.

    • Added a new paragraph (j) to this AD to specify the required service information, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

    • Revised paragraph (g) of this AD by referring to the document citations in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-078, dated January 23, 2014, and Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM-F100-166, dated January 23, 2014.

    This service information describes procedures for modifying the wiring of the maximum level sensors in the center wing fuel tank, after-installation tests, and corrective action if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it takes up to 9 work-hours per product to modify the wiring of the maximum level sensors in the center wing fuel tank, as specified in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,700 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this modification on U.S. operators to be up to $36,975, or up to $2,465 per product.

    We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to revise the maintenance or inspection program as specified in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this revision on U.S. operators to be $1,275, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-10-15 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-18526. Docket No. FAA-2015-5810; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-116-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with a center wing tank.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design review which revealed that a wiring failure, external to the center wing fuel tank, could cause a hot short circuit to a maximum level sensor wire, and result in excessive heating of the maximum level sensor element. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Wiring Modification

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the wiring of the maximum level sensors of the center wing fuel tank, as specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Before further flight after accomplishing the modification, do all applicable tests and corrective actions, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (1) For post-SBF100-28-073 configuration airplanes: Do the modification in accordance with Part 1 or Part 3, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (2) For pre-SBF100-28-073 configuration airplanes: Do the modification in accordance with Part 2 or Part 4, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (h) Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 30 days after installing the modification specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) specified in paragraph 2.L.(1)(c) of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-078, dated January 23, 2014.

    (i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or CDCCLs

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Required Service Information

    Do the actions specified in this AD in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-078, dated January 23, 2014, and Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM-F100-166, dated January 23, 2014, as applicable.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker B.V. Service's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0138, dated May 30, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5810.

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-078, dated January 23, 2014, including the attached required drawings specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i)(A), (m)(2)(i)(B), and (m)(2)(i)(C) of this AD, as applicable.

    (A) Drawing W41192, Sheet 052, Issue AW, “Retro-Fit Wiring Diagram, Tank Fueling/Defueling, Center Tank,” undated;

    (B) Drawing W41192, Sheet 054, Issue AW, “Retro-Fit Wiring Diagram, Tank Fueling/Defueling,” undated; and

    (C) Drawing W59520-405, “Cableloom Connection List,” Sheet 3, Issue F, dated May 12, 2011.

    (ii) Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM-F100-166, dated January 23, 2014.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 12, 2016. Suzanne Masterson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11928 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7533; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-080-AD; Amendment 39-18528; AD 2016-11-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of an under-torqued forward engine mount bolt. This AD requires a one-time torque check of the forward and aft engine mount bolts and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct improperly torqued engine mount bolts, which could lead to detachment of the engine from the airplane during flight and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to persons on the ground.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7533.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7533; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81216) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an under-torqued forward engine mount bolt. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time torque check of the forward and aft engine mount bolts, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct improperly torqued engine mount bolts, which could lead to detachment of the engine from the airplane during flight and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to persons on the ground.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0082, dated May 11, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In 2013, during a pre-delivery test on an A330 aeroplane fitted with Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4170 engines, an issue with N1 [low pressure spool] vibrations level on [engine] ENG1 was identified. While performing an engine removal, one forward engine mount bolt was found improperly torqued. The investigation concluded this was due to a production line engine installation quality issue. Further analysis showed that some aeroplanes, delivered between June 2006 and January 2014, may have had the rear (AFT) and forward (FWD) engine mount bolts improperly torqued.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could ultimately lead to an in-flight detachment of the engine from the aeroplane, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the ground.

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued four Alert Operators Transmissions (AOT) A71L004-14 (for A330 aeroplanes fitted PW engines), AOT A71L006-14 (for A330 aeroplanes fitted with General Electric (GE) engines), AOT A71L005-14 (for A330 aeroplanes fitted with Rolls Royce (RR) Trent 700 engines) and AOT A71L008-14 (for A340 aeroplanes fitted with RR Trent 500 engines) to provide torque check instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time torque check of the FWD and AFT engine mount bolts and, depending on findings, re-torque of the affected [engine mount] bolt(s) and/or replacement of all four [engine mount] bolts and associated nuts.

    Findings (or discrepancies) include one engine mount bolt that is loose or able to rotate, two or more engine mount bolts that are loose or able to rotate, or one or more engine mount bolts that are fully broken. Corrective actions include re-torqueing the affected engine mount bolt(s), and replacing all engine mount bolts and associated nuts with new engine mount bolts and nuts on the engine where the loose or fully broken engine mount bolt(s) were detected. This AD specifies reporting of all findings (including no discrepancies). The corrective actions include re-torqueing loose engine mount bolts before further flight. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7533.

    Comments

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

    Changes to the NPRM

    Paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (i) of the proposed AD refer to the accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 01, dated February 20, 2012. However, operators might also accomplish Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 02, dated August 31, 2015. Therefore, we have revised paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (i) of this AD to refer to the actions specified in “Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028.”

    Paragraph (m)(1) of the proposed AD refers to Airbus AOT A71L008-14, dated September 29, 2014, and is an exception to the service information specified in paragraph (l) of the proposed AD. However, paragraph (l) of the proposed AD refers to Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014. We have revised paragraph (m)(1) of this AD to refer to Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014.

    For consistency, we have also replaced the words “bolt(s)” and “pylon bolt(s)” in this AD with “engine mount bolt(s)” in order to match the language in the MCAI. In the service information referenced in this AD, the term “pylon” is also used in some sentences to describe the engine mount bolts.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We have reviewed the following service information.

    • Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014. The service information describes procedures for doing a one-time torque check to determine if there are any loose or fully broken engine mount bolts at four positions at the forward engine pylon 1 and pylon 2 of Airbus Model A330 series airplanes having PW engines, doing corrective actions, and reporting all findings.

    • Airbus AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014. The service information describes procedures for doing a one-time torque check to determine if there are any loose or fully broken engine mount bolts at four positions at the forward engine pylon 1 and pylon 2 of Airbus Model A330 series airplanes having RR Trent 700 engines, doing corrective actions, and reporting all findings.

    • Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014. The service information describes procedures for doing a one-time torque check to determine if there are any loose or fully broken engine mount bolts at five FWD and four AFT positions at the forward engine pylon 1 and pylon 2 of Airbus Model A330 series airplanes having GE engines, doing corrective actions, and reporting all findings.

    • Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014. The service information describes procedures for doing a one-time torque check to determine if there are any loose or fully broken engine mount bolts at four positions at the forward engine pylon 1 and pylon 2 of Airbus Model A340 series airplanes having Trent 500 engines, doing corrective actions, and reporting all findings.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it will take about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD, and 1 work-hour per product to report torque check findings. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $60,755, or $1,105 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 20 work-hours and require parts costing $90,200 for a cost of $91,900 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-11-01 Airbus: Amendment 39-18528. Docket No. FAA-2015-7533; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-080-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, from manufacturer serial number (MSN) 0715 through MSN 1507 inclusive, and MSN 1509, except airplanes on which all engines have been removed and/or replaced since the date of the first flight of the airplane.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A340-541 airplanes.

    (5) Airbus Model A340-642 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an under-torqued forward engine mount bolt. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct improperly torqued engine mount bolts, which could lead to detachment of the engine from the airplane during flight, and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to persons on the ground.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Definition of Affected Engine

    For the purpose of this AD, an affected engine is an engine that has never been removed and/or replaced since first flight of the airplane.

    (h) Action for Airbus Model A330 Airplanes Equipped With Pratt and Whitney (PW) Engines

    (1) For Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes equipped with PW engines: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, accomplish a one-time torque check of the forward (FWD) and rear (AFT) engine mount bolts on each affected engine, at the locations specified in, and in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.2, “Inspection Requirements,” of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.

    (i) Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) During the accomplishment of actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, if done after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, only one FWD engine mount bolt is found that rotates: Do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii), (h)(2)(iii), or (h)(2)(iv) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) For Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes with an average flight time of greater than 132 minutes and having accumulated less than 2,350 flight cycles and less than 24,320 flight hours since first flight of the airplane: Before further flight, re-torque the affected engine mount bolt, and, within 2,350 flight cycles or 24,320 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts, in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.

    (ii) For Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes with an average flight time of 132 minutes or lower and having accumulated less than 1,950 flight cycles and less than 20,210 flight hours since first flight of the airplane: Before further flight, re-torque the affected engine mount bolt, and within 2,350 flight cycles or 24,320 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts, in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.

    (iii) For Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes having accumulated less than 2,140 flight cycles and less than 6,600 flight hours since first flight of the airplane: Before further flight, re-torque the affected engine mount bolt and within 2,140 flight cycles or 6,600 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts, in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.

    (iv) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (h)(2)(iv)(A), (h)(2)(iv)(B), and (h)(2)(iv)(C) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.

    (A) Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes with an average flight time of greater than 132 minutes and having accumulated 2,350 flight cycles or more or 24,320 flight hours or more since first flight of the airplane.

    (B) Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes with an average flight time of 132 minutes or lower and having accumulated 1,950 flight cycles or more or 20,210 flight hours or more since first flight of the airplane.

    (C) Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes having accumulated 2,140 flight cycles or more or 6,600 flight hours or more since first flight of the airplane.

    (3) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, two or more FWD engine mount bolts are found that rotate: Before further flight, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.

    (4) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, one or more FWD engine mount bolts are found fully broken: Before further flight, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014, except as required by paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.

    (5) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, only one AFT engine mount bolt is found that rotates: Before further flight, re-torque the affected engine mount bolt, and replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts at the next engine removal, in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.

    (6) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, two or more AFT engine mount bolts are found that rotate: Before further flight, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.

    (7) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, one or more AFT engine mount bolts are found fully broken: Before further flight, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014, except as required by paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Clarification of Concurrent Actions for Airbus Model A330-223F, A330-223, A330-321, A330-322, and A330-323 Airplanes Equipped With Pratt and Whitney (PW) Engines

    AD 2013-14-04, Amendment 39-17509 (78 FR 68352, November 14, 2013), requires a torque check of FWD engine mount bolts using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 01, dated February 20, 2012. If accomplishing the torque check of FWD engine mount bolts, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2013-14-04, perform the torque check of the AFT engine mount bolts at the same time as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Action for Airbus Model A330 Airplanes Equipped With General Electric (GE) Engines

    (1) For Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes equipped with GE engines: Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, accomplish a one-time torque check of the FWD and AFT engine mount bolts on each affected engine, at the locations specified in, and in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.2, “Inspection Requirements,” of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014.

    (2) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, only one FWD engine mount bolt is found that rotates: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 4,000 flight cycles and less than 30,800 flight hours since first flight of the airplane: Before further flight, re-torque affected FWD engine mount bolt(s), in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014, and, within 4,000 flight cycles or 30,800 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever is first, replace the 5 engine mount bolts, as applicable, and their associated nuts with new engine mount bolts and nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014.

    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 4,000 flight cycles or more or 30,800 flight hours or more since first flight of the airplane: Before further flight, replace the 5 FWD engine mount bolts, as applicable, and their associated nuts with new engine mount bolts and nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014.

    (3) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, two or more FWD engine mount bolts are found that rotate: Repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD.

    (4) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, one or more FWD engine mount bolts are found fully broken: Repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD.

    (5) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, only one AFT engine mount bolt is found that rotates: Before further flight, re-torque the affected AFT engine mount bolt(s) in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014, and, at the next engine removal, replace the 4 engine mount bolts and associated nuts with new engine mount bolts and nuts in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014.

    (6) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, two or more AFT engine mount bolts are found that rotate: Repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD.

    (7) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, one or more AFT engine mount bolts are found fully broken: Before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.

    (k) Action for Airbus Model A330 Airplanes Equipped With Rolls-Royce (RR) Trent 700 Engines

    (1) For Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes equipped with RR Trent 700 Engines: Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, accomplish a one-time torque check of the FWD and AFT engine mount bolts on each affected engine, at the locations specified in, and in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.2, “Inspection Requirements,” of Airbus AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014.

    (2) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected (one engine mount bolt rotates, two or more engine mount bolts rotate, or one or more engine mount bolts are fully broken): Within the compliance time specified in Airbus AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014, accomplish all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014, except as required by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD.

    (l) Action for Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 Airplanes Equipped With RR Trent 500 Engines

    (1) For Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes equipped with RR Trent 500 Engines: Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, accomplish a one-time torque check of FWD and AFT engine mount bolts on each affected engine, at the locations specified in, and in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.2, “Inspection requirements,” of Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014.

    (2) If, during the torque check required by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected (one engine mount bolt rotates, two or more engine mount bolts rotate, or one or more engine mount bolts are fully broken): Within the compliance time specified in Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014, accomplish all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the instructions of Section 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014, except as required by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD.

    (m) Service Information Exceptions

    (1) Where Airbus AOTs A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014; A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014; and A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014; specify to contact Airbus for further actions, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (2) Where Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014; AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014; AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014; and AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014, specify actions “if one pylon bolt fully broken,” this AD requires that those actions be done if one or more engine mount bolt is found fully broken during any torque check required by paragraph (h)(1), (j)(1), (k)(1) or (l)(1) of this AD.

    (n) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD: After accomplishment of any torque check required by paragraphs (h), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD, report all inspection results to Airbus, including no findings, in accordance with the “Reporting” section of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (h), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD.

    (1) If the torque check was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the torque check.

    (2) If the torque check was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (o) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A71L004-14, dated April 1, 2014 (for Airbus Model A330 Airplanes Equipped with PW Engines), which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A71L005-14, dated September 29, 2014 (for Airbus Model A330 Airplanes Equipped with RR Trent 700 Engines), which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A71L008-14, dated September 29, 2014 (for Airbus Model A340 Airplanes Equipped with RR Trent 500 Engines), which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (q) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0082, dated May 11, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7533.

    (r) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus AOT A71L004-14, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2014.

    (ii) Airbus AOT A71L005-14, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2014.

    (iii) Airbus AOT A71L006-14, dated July 22, 2014.

    (iv) Airbus AOT A71L008-14, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2014.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email airworthiness. [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 12, 2016. Suzanne Masterson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12056 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8466; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-045-AD; Amendment 39-18542; AD 2016-11-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD was prompted by the need for more restrictive fuel system airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising the maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate certain fuel system airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8466.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8466; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3059) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by the need for more restrictive fuel system airworthiness limitations. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate certain fuel system airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0032, dated February 24, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fokker Services published issue 5 of Engineering Report SE-672, containing Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALIs) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). This report is Part 3 of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS Part 3) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, referred to in Section 06, Appendix 1, of the Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) document.

    The complete ALS currently consists of:

    Part 1—Report SE-473, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Part 2—Report SE-623, ALIs and Safe Life Items (SLIs), and Part 3—Report SE-672, Fuel ALIs and CDCCLs.

    The instructions contained in those reports have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires implementation of the maintenance actions as specified in ALS Part 3 of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Fokker Services Engineering Report SE-672 at issue 5.

    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8466.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report SE-672, “Fokker 70/100 Fuel ALI's and CDCCL's,” Issue 5, released December 11, 2014. The service information describes fuel system airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $680, or $85 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-11-15 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-18542. Docket No. FAA-2015-8466; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-045-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the need for more restrictive fuel system airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Maintenance Program Revision

    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the fuel system airworthiness limitation items (ALIs) and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) specified in Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report SE-672, “Fokker 70/100 Fuel ALI's and CDCCL's,” Issue 5, released December 11, 2014.

    (2) The initial compliance times and repetitive intervals for the actions are at the applicable times specified within Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report SE-672, “Fokker 70/100 Fuel ALI's and CDCCL's,” Issue 5, released December 11, 2014. If any discrepancy is found, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker B.V. Service's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Repair any discrepancy before further flight.

    (h) No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs

    After accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Fokker Services B.V.'s EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0032, dated February 24, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8466.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report SE-672, Fokker 70/100 Fuel ALI's and CDCCL's, Issue 5, released December 11, 2014.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13050 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8130; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-175-AD; Amendment 39-18534; AD 2016-11-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes equipped with Pratt and Whitney engines. This AD was prompted by reports of blocked drain lines at the engine forward strut that caused flammable fluid to accumulate in a flammable leakage zone. This AD requires doing the following actions on the left strut and right strut: A one-time cleaning of certain forward strut drain lines; installing new forward strut drain lines and insulation blankets; a leak check of the forward strut drain lines; and repair if any leak is found. This AD also requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a certain airworthiness limitation. We are issuing this AD to prevent blockage of forward strut drain lines. This condition could cause flammable fluids to collect in the forward strut area and potentially cause an uncontrolled fire or cause failure of engine attachment structure and consequent airplane loss.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, 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-2015-8130.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8130; 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 Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6501; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes equipped with Pratt and Whitney engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2015 (80 FR 81788) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of blocked drain lines at the engine forward strut that caused flammable fluid to accumulate in a flammable leakage zone. The NPRM proposed to require doing the following actions on the left strut and right strut: A one-time cleaning of certain forward strut drain lines; installing new forward strut drain lines and insulation blankets; a leak check of the forward strut drain lines; and repair if any leak is found. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a certain airworthiness limitation. We are issuing this AD to prevent blockage of forward strut drain lines. This condition could cause flammable fluids to collect in the forward strut area and potentially cause an uncontrolled fire or cause failure of engine attachment structure and consequent airplane loss.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM.

    Support for the NPRM

    Boeing, United Airlines, and Airline Pilots Association International have no objections to the NPRM.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:

    • Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2013. This service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection for hydraulic fluid contamination of the interior of the strut forward dry bay and corrective actions.

    • Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, Revision 1, dated April 15, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing new forward strut drain lines and insulation blankets on the left and right engines.

    • Airworthiness Limitation 54-AWL-01, “Forward Strut Drain Line,” as specified in Section D.4, Pratt and Whitney Forward Strut Drain Line, dated March 2014, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622W001-9, dated October 2014. This service information describes an airworthiness limitation task for the functional check of the forward strut drain line.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 54 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Cleaning strut drain lines, installing new drain lines and insulation blankets, doing a leak check, and revising the maintenance or inspection program 16 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,360 $17,080 $18,440 $995,760

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

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-11-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18534; Docket No. FAA-2015-8130; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-175-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD.

    (1) AD 2014-20-10, Amendment 39-17983 (79 FR 60331, October 7, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-10”).

    (2) AD 2015-17-13, Amendment 39-18246 (80 FR 52948, September 2, 2015) (“AD 2015-17-13”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with Pratt and Whitney engines, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, Revision 1, dated April 15, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of blocked drain lines at the engine forward strut that caused flammable fluid to accumulate in a flammable leakage zone. We are issuing this AD to prevent blockage of forward strut drain lines. This condition could cause flammable fluids to collect in the forward strut area and potentially cause an uncontrolled fire or cause failure of engine attachment structure and consequent airplane loss.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Actions

    Within 4,000 flight cycles or 750 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD on the left and right struts, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, Revision 1, dated April 15, 2015; and accomplish the revision specified in paragraph (g)(5) of this AD.

    (1) Disconnect and remove the forward strut drain lines.

    (2) Clean the left system disconnect, the strut forward lower spar, and the forward fireseal pan drain lines.

    (3) Install new forward strut drain lines and insulation blankets.

    (4) Do a leak check of the forward strut drain lines for any leak, and repair if any leak is found.

    (5) Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airworthiness Limitation 54-AWL-01, “Forward Strut Drain Line” as specified in Section D.4, Pratt and Whitney Forward Strut Drain Line, dated March 2014, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622W001-9, dated October 2014. The initial compliance time for Airworthiness Limitation 54-AWL-01 is within 2,000 flight cycles or 1,500 days, whichever occurs first, after doing the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.

    (h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g)(5) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (i) Terminating Action for Other ADs

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraph (g) of AD 2015-17-13 at the modified area only.

    (2) Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of AD 2014-20-10 at the modified area only, provided the actions are accomplished concurrently, or the actions specified in paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this AD are done after accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this AD.

    (i) The actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD on the left and right struts are done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, Revision 1, dated April 15, 2015; and the revision specified in paragraph (g)(5) of this AD is done.

    (ii) A one-time general visual inspection for hydraulic fluid contamination (including contamination caused by hydraulic fluid in its liquid, vapor, and/or solid (coked) form) of the interior of the strut forward dry bay, and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions (including checking drain lines for blockage due to hydraulic fluid coking, and cleaning or replacing drain lines to allow drainage) are done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2013, except where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2013, specifies to contact Boeing for repair, the repair must be done using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, dated June 12, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (k) 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 (l)(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.

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6501; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    (m) 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) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2013.

    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-71-0055, Revision 1, dated April 15, 2015.

    (iii) Airworthiness Limitation 54-AWL-01, “Forward Strut Drain Line,” as specified in Section D.4, Pratt and Whitney Forward Strut Drain Line, dated March 2014, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data Document Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations and Certification Maintenance Requirements, D622W001-9, dated October 2014.

    (3) For Boeing 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.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12599 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3987; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-066-AD; Amendment 39-18544; AD 2016-11-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of wire chafing caused by a left wing spoiler actuator wire not having enough separation from a certain bracket when the spoiler is in the deployed position. This AD requires measuring the separation between a certain electro-mechanical actuator wire of the left wing, spoiler 4, and the support bracket of the flap variable camber trim unit; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wire chafing. Such chafing could result in an electrical short and potential fire in a flammable fluid leakage zone and possible loss of several functions essential for safe flight.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, 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-2015-3987.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3987; 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 Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean J. Schauer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6479; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63132) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of insufficient clearance and wire chafing between the wiring to the number 4 spoiler electro-mechanical actuator and a bracket of the flap variable camber trim unit with the spoiler fully deployed. The NPRM proposed to require measuring the separation between a certain electro-mechanical actuator wire of the left wing, spoiler 4, and the support bracket of the flap variable camber trim unit, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wire chafing. Such chafing could result in an electrical short and potential fire in a flammable fluid leakage zone and possible loss of several functions essential for safe flight.

    Comments

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

    Support for the NPRM

    United Airlines stated that it agrees with the NPRM, has completed the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270024-00, Issue 001, dated September 24, 2014, and has no technical findings/issues to report.

    We acknowledge United Airlines' comment.

    An anonymous commenter stated that it is in the airplane manufacturer's best interest to address the faulty wire as soon as possible as this safety issue may have an impact on profits because of the impact to the company's image.

    We agree with the commenter in so much as the identified unsafe condition needs to be addressed on the affected airplanes. No change to this final rule was requested.

    Request To Clarify the Issue That Prompted the NPRM

    Boeing requested that we revise the Discussion section of the NPRM to clarify that the safety issue was prompted by a report of wire chafing caused by insufficient clearance between the wiring to the number 4 spoiler electro-mechanical actuator and a bracket of the flap variable camber trim unit with the spoiler fully deployed.

    We agree with Boeing's statement regarding the action that prompted this AD. We have revised the Discussion section of this final rule accordingly.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270024-00, Issue 001, dated September 24, 2014. The service information describes procedures for accomplishing the following actions.

    • Measuring the separation between the electro-mechanical actuator wire W801182 of the left wing, spoiler 4, and the support bracket of the flap variable camber trim unit.

    • Related investigative actions and corrective actions such as doing a general visual inspection for chafing of the electro-mechanical actuator wire W801182 of the left wing, spoiler 4; adjusting the electro-mechanical actuator wire W801182 of the left wing, spoiler 4; and replacing the electro-mechanical actuator wire W801182 of the left wing, spoiler 4.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Measurement 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 $510 $6,120

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Related investigative and corrective actions 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $24 $194

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-11-17 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18544 ; Docket No. FAA-2015-3987; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-066-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270024-00, Issue 001, dated September 24, 2014.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of wire chafing caused by a left wing spoiler actuator wire not having enough separation from a certain bracket when the spoiler is in the deployed position. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wire chafing; such chafing could result in an electrical short and potential fire in a flammable fluid leakage zone and possible loss of several functions essential for safe flight.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Wire Separation Measurement, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Measure the separation between the electro-mechanical actuator wire W801182 of the left wing, spoiler 4, and the support bracket of the flap variable camber trim unit, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270024-00, Issue 001, dated September 24, 2014. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

    (h) 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 (i) 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 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. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sean J. Schauer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6479; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (j) 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) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270024-00, Issue 001, dated September 24, 2014.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Boeing 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.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12842 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the Secretary 15 CFR Part 6 [Docket No. 160523449-6449-01] RIN 0605-AA44 Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This interim final rule is being issued to adjust for inflation each civil monetary penalty (CMP) provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce (Commerce Department). The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, requires the head of each agency to adjust for inflation its CMP levels in effect as of November 2, 2015, under a revised methodology effective for 2016 which provides for initial catch up adjustments for inflation in 2016, and under a revised methodology for each year thereafter. The revised methodologies provide for the improvement of the effectiveness of CMPs and to maintain their deterrent effect. The initial catch up adjustment for inflation of a CMP in 2016 shall not exceed 150 percent of the amount of the CMP on the date of enactment of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (November 2, 2015). The initial catch up adjustments for inflation to CMPs are required to be published through an interim final rule not later than July 1, 2016, and the adjustments for inflation shall take effect not later than August 1, 2016. For each year thereafter, the adjustments for inflation to CMPs shall take effect not later than January 15. These adjustments for inflation apply only to CMPs with a dollar amount, and will not apply to CMPs written as functions of violations. These adjustments for inflation apply only to those CMPs, including those whose associated violation predated such adjustment, which are assessed by Commerce Department after the effective date of the new CMP level.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 7, 2016; comments must be received on or before July 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the regulations.gov docket number DOC-2016-0004, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOC-2016-0004 click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Office of Financial Management, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave NW., Room D200, Washington, DC 20230.

    Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods to ensure that Commerce Department receives the comments and considers them. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    Commerce Department will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Ayers, Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Director for Financial Management, Office of Financial Management, at (202) 482-1207, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room D200, Washington, DC 20230. The Commerce Department Civil Monetary Penalties; Adjustment for Inflation are available for downloading from Commerce Department, Office of Financial Management's Web site at the following address: http://www.osec.doc.gov/ofm/OFM_Publications.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410; 28 U.S.C. 2461), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134), provided for adjustments for inflation to CMPs to ensure that CMPs continue to maintain their deterrent value and that CMPs due to the Federal Government were properly accounted for and collected. On October 24, 1996, November 1, 2000, December 14, 2004, December 11, 2008, and December 7, 2012, Commerce Department published in the Federal Register a schedule of CMPs adjusted for inflation as required by law.

    A CMP is defined as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that:

    1. Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law, or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; and,

    2. Is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and,

    3. Is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.

    On November 2, 2015, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Section 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 to improve the effectiveness of CMPs and to maintain their deterrent effect. This amendment requires agencies to: (1) Adjust the CMP levels in effect as of November 2, 2015, with initial catch up adjustments for inflation through an interim final rulemaking; and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation to CMPs.

    Agencies are required to publish interim final rules with initial catch up adjustments for inflation by July 1, 2016, and the adjustments for inflation shall take effect no later than August 1, 2016. For each year thereafter, the adjustments for inflation to CMPs shall take effect not later than January 15.

    The maximum amount for an initial catch up adjustment for inflation shall not exceed 150 percent of the amount of that CMP on the date of enactment of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (November 2, 2015).

    These adjustments for inflation apply only to CMPs with a dollar amount, and will not apply to CMPs written as functions of violations. These adjustments for inflation apply only to those CMPs, including those whose associated violation predated such adjustment, which are assessed by Commerce Department after the effective date of the new CMP level.

    For an initial catch up adjustment for inflation to a CMP, agencies may adjust for inflation the amount of a CMP by less than the otherwise required amount if after publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing an opportunity for comment, the agency determines in a final rule that increasing that CMP by the otherwise required amount will have a negative economic impact; or the social costs of increasing that CMP by the otherwise required amount outweigh the benefits. The concurrence of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will be required if the adjustment for inflation is less than the otherwise required amount.

    This regulation adjusts for inflation CMPs that are provided by law within the jurisdiction of Commerce Department. The actual CMP assessed for a particular violation is dependent upon a variety of factors. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Policy for the Assessment of Civil Administrative Penalties and Permit Sanctions (Penalty Policy), a compilation of NOAA internal guidelines that are used when assessing CMPs for violations for most of the statutes NOAA enforces, will be interpreted in a manner consistent with this regulation to maintain the deterrent effect of the CMPs. The CMP ranges in the Penalty Policy are intended to aid enforcement attorneys in determining the appropriate CMP to assess for a particular violation. The Penalty Policy is maintained and made available to the public on the NOAA Office of the General Counsel, Enforcement Section, Web site at: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office3.html.

    The initial catch up adjustments for inflation to CMPs set forth in this regulation were determined pursuant to the revised methodology prescribed by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which requires the maximum CMP, or the minimum and maximum CMP, as applicable, to be increased by the cost-of-living adjustment. The term “cost -of-living adjustment” is defined by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. For the initial catch up adjustments for inflation to CMPs, the cost-of-living adjustment is the percentage (if any) for each CMP by which the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 2015 exceeds the Consumer Price Index of October of the calendar year during which the amount of such CMP was established or adjusted under a provision of law other than the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. For subsequent adjustments for inflation to CMPs, the cost-of-living adjustment is the percentage (if any) for each CMP by which the Consumer Price Index for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the previous month of October.

    Classification

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)B, there is good cause to issue this rule without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment because it would be impracticable and unnecessary. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Section 701(b)(1)) requires initial catch up adjustments for inflation to CMPs and to provide the new CMP levels through an interim final rulemaking, to be published by July 1, 2016. This law also requires agencies to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation to CMPs notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code. Additionally, the methodologies used for adjusting CMPs for inflation is given by statute, with no discretion provided to agencies regarding the substance of the adjustments for inflation to CMPs. Commerce Department is charged only with performing ministerial computations to determine the dollar amount of adjustments for inflation to CMPs. Accordingly, prior public notice and comment are not required for this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

    Regulatory Analysis E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action as the term is defined in Executive Order 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 6

    Law enforcement, Civil monetary penalties.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Jennifer Ayers, Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Director for Financial Management, Department of Commerce. Authority and Issuance For the reasons stated in the preamble, Commerce Department revises 15 CFR part 6 to read as follows: PART 6—CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION Sec. § 6.1 Definitions. § 6.2 Purpose and scope. § 6.3 Limitation on initial catch up adjustments for inflation. § 6.4 Adjustments for inflation. § 6.5 Effective date of adjustments for inflation. § 6.6 Subsequent adjustments for inflation. Authority:

    Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (31 U.S.C. 3701 note); Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599 (28 U.S.C. 1 note; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

    § 6.1 Definitions.

    (a) Commerce Department means the United States Department of Commerce.

    (b) Civil Monetary Penalty means any penalty, fine, or other sanction that:

    (1) Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law, or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; and

    (2) Is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and

    (3) Is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.

    § 6.2 Purpose and scope.

    The purpose of this part is to make adjustments for inflation to civil monetary penalties, as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410; 28 U.S.C. 2461), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134) and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Section 701 of Pub. L. 114-74), of each civil monetary penalty provided by law within the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Commerce (Commerce Department).

    § 6.3 Limitation on initial catch up adjustments for inflation.

    The initial catch up adjustment for inflation to a civil monetary penalty shall not exceed 150 percent of the amount of that civil monetary penalty that was in effect as of November 2, 2015.

    § 6.4 Adjustments for inflation.

    The civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of Commerce Department, as set forth in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section, are hereby adjusted for inflation in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, from the amount of such civil monetary penalties that was in effect as of November 2, 2015, to the amounts of such civil monetary penalties, as thus adjusted. The year stated in parenthesis represents the year that the civil monetary penalty was last set by law or adjusted by law (excluding adjustments for inflation).

    (a) United States Department of Commerce. (1) 31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(1), Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (1986), violation, maximum from $5,500 to $10,781.

    (2) 31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(2), Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (1986; newly reported penalty), violation, maximum $10,781.

    (3) 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(G), False Claims Act (1986); violation, minimum from $5,500 to $10,781; maximum from $11,000 to $21,563.

    (b) Bureau of Industry and Security. (1) 15 U.S.C. 5408(b)(1), Fastener Quality Act (1990), violation, maximum from $32,500 to $44,539.

    (2) 22 U.S.C. 6761(a)(1)(A), Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (1998), violation, maximum from $25,000 to $36,256.

    (3) 22 U.S.C. 6761(a)(l)(B), Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (1998), violation, maximum from $5,000 to $7,251.

    (4) 50 U.S.C. 1705(b), International Emergency Economic Powers Act (2007), violation, maximum $284,582.

    (5) 22 U.S.C. 8142(a), United States Additional Protocol Implementation Act (2006), violation, maximum from $27,500 to $29,464.

    (c) Census Bureau. (1) 13 U.S.C. 304, Collection of Foreign Trade Statistics (2002), each day's delinquency of a violation; total of not to exceed maximum violation, from $1,000 to $1,312; maximum per violation, from $10,000 to $13,118.

    (2) 13 U.S.C. 305(b), Collection of Foreign Trade Statistics (2002), violation, maximum from $10,000 to $13,118.

    (d) Economics and Statistics Administration. (1) 22 U.S.C. 3105(a), International Investment and Trade in Services Act (1990); failure to furnish information, minimum from $2,500 to $4,454; maximum from $32,500 to $44,539.

    (e) International Trade Administration. (1) 19 U.S.C. 81s, Foreign Trade Zone (1934), violation, maximum from $1,100 to $2,750.

    (2) 19 U.S.C. 1677f(f)(4), U.S.-Canada FTA Protective Order (1988), violation, maximum from $130,000 to $197,869.

    (f) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1) 51 U.S.C. 60123(a), Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 2010 (2010), violation, maximum from $10,000 to $10,874.

    (2) 51 U.S.C. 60148(c), Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 2010 (2010), violation, maximum from $10,000 to $10,874.

    (3) 16 U.S.C. 773f(a), Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (2007), violation, maximum from $200,000 to $227,666.

    (4) 16 U.S.C. 783, Sponge Act (1914), violation, maximum from $650 to $1,625.

    (5) 16 U.S.C. 957(d), (e), and (f), Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 (1962):

    (i) Violation of 16 U.S.C. 957(a), maximum from $32,500 to $81,250.

    (ii) Subsequent violation of 16 U.S.C. 957(a), maximum from $70,000 to $175,000.

    (iii) Violation of 16 U.S.C. 957(b), maximum from $1,100 to $2,750.

    (iv) Subsequent violation of 16 U.S.C. 957(b), maximum from $6,500 to $16,250.

    (v) Violation of 16 U.S.C. 957(c), maximum from $140,000 to $350,000.

    (6) 16 U.S.C. 957(i), Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 1 (new penalty), violation, maximum $178,156.

    1 This National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration maximum civil monetary penalty, as prescribed by law, is the maximum civil penalty per 16 U.S.C. 1858(a), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act civil monetary penalty (item (15)).

    (7) 16 U.S.C. 959, Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 2 (new penalty), violation, maximum $178,156.

    2 See footnote 1.

    (8) 16 U.S.C. 971f(a), Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975,3 violation, maximum from $140,000 to $178,156.

    3 See footnote 1.

    (9) 16 U.S.C. 973f(a), South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 (1988), violation, maximum from $350,000 to $494,672.

    (10) 16 U.S.C. 1174(b), Fur Seal Act Amendments of 1983 (1983), violation, maximum from $11,000 to $23,548.

    (11) 16 U.S.C. 1375(a)(1), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (1972), violation, maximum from $11,000 to $27,500.

    (12) 16 U.S.C. 1385(e), Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act,4 violation, maximum from $130,000 to $178,156.

    4 This National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration maximum civil monetary penalty was revised by law in 2015 to be the maximum civil penalty per 16 U.S.C. 1858(a), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act civil monetary penalty (item (15)).

    (13) 16 U.S.C. 1437(d)(1), National Marine Sanctuaries Act (1992), violation, maximum from $140,000 to $167,728.

    (14) 16 U.S.C. 1540(a)(1), Endangered Species Act of 1973:

    (i) Violation as specified (1988), maximum from $32,500 to $49,467.

    (ii) Violation as specified (1988), maximum from $13,200 to $23,744.

    (iii) Otherwise violation (1978), maximum from $650 to $1,625.

    (15) 16 U.S.C. 1858(a), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1990), violation, maximum from $140,000 to $178,156.

    (16) 16 U.S.C. 2437(a), Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984,5 violation, maximum from $6,500 to $178,156.

    5 See footnote 4.

    (17) 16 U.S.C. 2465(a), Antarctic Protection Act of 1990,6 violation, maximum from $6,500 to $178,156.

    6 See footnote 4.

    (18) 16 U.S.C. 3373(a), Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (1981):

    (i) 16 U.S.C. 3373(a)(1), violation, maximum from $11,000 to $25,464.

    (ii) 16 U.S.C. 3373(a)(2), violation, maximum from $275 to $637.

    (19) 16 U.S.C. 3606(b)(1), Atlantic Salmon Convention Act of 1982,7 violation, maximum from $140,000 to $178,156.

    7 See footnote 1.

    (20) 16 U.S.C. 3637(b), Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985,8 violation, maximum from $140,000 to $178,156.

    8 See footnote 1.

    (21) 16 U.S.C. 4016(b)(1)(B), Fish and Seafood Promotion Act of 1986 (1986); violation, minimum from $500 to $1,078; maximum from $6,500 to $10,781.

    (22) 16 U.S.C. 5010, North Pacific Anadromous Stocks Act of 1992,9 violation, maximum from $130,000 to $178,156.

    9 See footnote 4.

    (23) 16 U.S.C. 5103(b)(2), Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act,10 violation, maximum from $140,000 to $178,156.

    10 See footnote 1.

    (24) 16 U.S.C. 5154(c)(1), Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act,11 violation, maximum from $140,000 to $178,156.

    11 See footnote 1.

    (25) 16 U.S.C. 5507(a), High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995 (1995), violation, maximum from $130,000 to $154,742.

    (26) 16 U.S.C. 5606(b), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995,12 violation, maximum from $140,000 to $178,156.

    12 See footnote 1.

    (27) 16 U.S.C. 6905(c), Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act,13 violation, maximum from $140,000 to $178,156.

    13 See footnote 1.

    (28) 16 U.S.C. 7009(c) and (d), Pacific Whiting Act of 2006,14 violation, maximum from $140,000 to $178,156.

    14 See footnote 1.

    (29) 22 U.S.C. 1978(e), Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 (1971):

    (i) Violation, maximum from $11,000 to $27,500.

    (ii) Subsequent violation, maximum from $32,500 to $81,250.

    (30) 30 U.S.C. 1462(a), Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (1980), violation, maximum, from $32,500 to $70,117.

    (31) 42 U.S.C. 9152(c), Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980 (1980), violation, maximum from $32,500 to $70,117.

    (32) 16 U.S.C. 1827a, Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 15 (new penalty), violation, maximum $178,156.

    15 See footnote 1.

    (33) 16 U.S.C. 7407(b)(1), Port State Measures Agreement Act of 2015 16 (new penalty), violation, maximum $178,156.

    16 See footnote 1.

    (34) 16 U.S.C. 1826g(f), High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act 17 (new penalty), violation, maximum $178,156.

    17 See footnote 1.

    § 6.5 Effective date of adjustments for inflation.

    The adjustments for inflation made by § 6.4, of the civil monetary penalties there specified, are effective on July 7, 2016, and said civil monetary penalties, as thus adjusted by the adjustments for inflation made by § 6.4, apply only to those civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such adjustment, which are assessed by Commerce Department after the effective date of the new civil monetary penalty level, and before the effective date of any future adjustments for inflation to civil monetary penalties thereto made subsequent to July 7, 2016 as provided in § 6.6.

    § 6.6 Subsequent adjustments for inflation.

    The Secretary of Commerce or his or her designee by regulation shall make subsequent adjustments for inflation to Commerce Department's civil monetary penalties annually, which shall take effect not later than January 15, 2017, and for each year thereafter, notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13231 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 710, 745, and 774 [Docket No. 160302176-6176-01] RIN 0694-AG88 Implementation of the February 2015 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Decisions and the June 2015 AG Plenary Understandings AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) publishes this final rule to amend the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement the recommendations presented at the February 2015 Australia Group (AG) intersessional implementation meeting, and later adopted pursuant to the AG silent approval procedure, and the understandings reached at the June 2015 AG Plenary meeting. This rule amends three Commerce Control List (CCL) entries to reflect the February 2015 intersessional recommendations that were adopted by the AG. Specifically, this rule amends the CCL entry that controls chemical precursors by adding the chemical diethylamine (C.A.S. 109-89-7), which was not previously identified on the AG's “Chemical Weapons Precursors” common control list. This rule also amends the CCL entry that controls certain human and zoonotic pathogens and toxins by adding two viruses that were not previously identified on the AG “List of Human and Animal Pathogens and Toxins for Export Control” and by updating the nomenclature of certain viruses that were already identified on this AG common control list. In addition, this rule amends the CCL entry that controls equipment capable of handling biological materials to reflect the AG intersessional updates to the controls on biocontainment chambers, isolators, and biological safety cabinets and the controls on aerosol inhalation equipment described on the AG “Control List of Dual-Use Biological Equipment and Related Technology and Software.” Consistent with the understandings adopted at the June 2015 AG Plenary meeting, this rule also amends the CCL entry that controls equipment capable of handling biological materials by updating the controls on freeze-drying (lyophilization) equipment.

    Finally, this rule amends the EAR to reflect the addition of Angola and Burma as States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and also amends the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR) to reflect the addition of these two countries as States Parties.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard P. Duncan, Ph.D., Director, Chemical and Biological Controls Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-3343, Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement the recommendations presented at the Australia Group (AG) Intersessional meeting held in The Hague, Netherlands, on February 4, 2015, and adopted pursuant to the AG silent approval procedure in April 2015, and the understandings reached at the AG Plenary meeting held in Perth, Australia, from June 1-5, 2015. The AG is a multilateral forum consisting of 41 participating countries that maintain export controls on a list of chemicals, biological agents, and related equipment and technology that could be used in a chemical or biological weapons program. The AG periodically reviews items on its control list to enhance the effectiveness of participating governments' national controls and to achieve greater harmonization among these controls.

    Amendments to the CCL Based on the February 2015 AG Intersessional Recommendations

    This rule amends three Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) on the Commerce Control List (CCL) (see Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR), as described below, to reflect the February 2015 intersessional recommendations that were adopted by the AG.

    Amendments to ECCN 1C350 (Precursor Chemicals)

    This final rule amends ECCN 1C350 on the CCL, to reflect the addition of the chemical diethylamine (C.A.S. 109-89-7) to the AG's “Chemical Weapons Precursors” common control list, by adding this chemical to 1C350.d, which controls precursor chemicals identified on the AG common control list that are not also “scheduled” chemicals (i.e., chemicals identified as Schedule 1, Schedule 2, or Schedule 3 chemicals) under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

    Like the other precursor chemicals controlled under ECCN 1C350.d, diethylamine requires a license for chemical/biological (CB) reasons to destinations indicated under CB Column 2 on the Commerce Country Chart (see Supplement No. 1 to part 738 of the EAR) and for anti-terrorism (AT) reasons to destinations in Country Group E:1 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 742 of the EAR). Because none of the precursor chemicals controlled under ECCN 1C350.d (including diethylamine) are identified as “scheduled” chemicals under the CWC, these precursor chemicals do not require a license for chemical weapons (CW) reasons. (See part 742 of the EAR for additional information on the AT controls that apply to Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. See part 746 of the EAR for additional information on the sanctions that apply to Iran, North Korea, and Syria.)

    Amendments to ECCN 1C351 (Human and Animal Pathogens and “Toxins”)

    This final rule amends ECCN 1C351 on the CCL to reflect the addition of two viruses (severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, a.k.a. SARS-related coronavirus, and reconstructed 1918 influenza virus) that were not previously identified on the AG “List of Human and Animal Pathogens and Toxins for Export Control” and to update the nomenclature for seventeen viruses that were already identified on this AG common control list and in ECCN 1C351.a (nineteen viruses were updated on the AG common control list, but only seventeen viruses in ECCN 1C351.a required updating). Prior to the publication of this final rule, the two viruses that are being added to ECCN 1C351.a were listed under ECCN 1C351.b, which controls viruses identified on the “select agents” lists maintained by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, but not identified on the AG “List of Human and Animal Pathogens and Toxins for Export Control.”

    The license requirements applicable to the viruses affected by the amendments in this final rule (including the two viruses that are being moved from 1C351.b to 1C351.a) remain unchanged. Specifically, all of these viruses continue to require a license for CB reasons to destinations indicated under CB Column 1 on the Commerce Country Chart and for AT reasons to destinations indicated in AT Column 1 on the Commerce Country Chart.

    This final rule also makes conforming changes to ECCN 1C351 by renumbering certain items in ECCN 1C351.a to reflect the addition of the two aforementioned viruses (i.e., the SARS-related coronavirus and the reconstructed 1918 influenza virus) and the updates to the nomenclature for seventeen other viruses listed in 1C351.a. The following table lists the viruses that are controlled under ECCN 1C351.a, as a result of the amendments made by this final rule, and indicates the previous and current names and CCL designations for each of these viruses. The names and CCL designations of thirteen viruses were not affected by this rule (these viruses continue to be designated as 1C351.a.1 through .a.8 and 1C351.a.42 through .a.46, as indicated in the following table). Twenty-six additional viruses in 1C351.a, whose names are not updated by this rule, have new CCL designations. All seventeen of the viruses in 1C351.a whose names are updated by this final rule also have new CCL designations, as do the two aforementioned viruses that are being moved from 1C351.b to 1C351.a (both of whose names are updated, as well).

    Previous names of AG-controlled viruses Current names of AG-controlled viruses Previous CCL
  • designation
  • Current CCL
  • designation
  • African horse sickness virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.1 No change. African swine fever virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.2 No change. Andes virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.3 No change. Avian influenza virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.4 No change. Bluetongue virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.5 No change. Chapare virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.6 No change. Chikungunya virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.7 No change. Choclo virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.8 No change. Congo-Crimean haemorrhagic fever virus Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus ECCN 1C351.a.9 ECCN 1C351.a.10. Dengue fever virus Dengue virus ECCN 1C351.a.10 ECCN 1C351.a.11. Dobrava-Belgrade virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.11 ECCN 1C351.a.12. Eastern equine encephalitis virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.12 ECCN 1C351.a.13. Ebola virus Ebolavirus (includes all members of the Ebolavirus genus) ECCN 1C351.a.13 ECCN 1C351.a.14. Foot and mouth disease virus Foot-and-mouth disease virus ECCN 1C351.a.14 ECCN 1C351.a.15. Goat pox virus Goatpox virus ECCN 1C351.a.15 ECCN 1C351.a.16. Guanarito virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.16 ECCN 1C351.a.17. Hantaan virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.17 ECCN 1C351.a.18. Hendra virus (Equine morbillivirus) No change ECCN 1C351.a.18 ECCN 1C351.a.19. Herpes virus (Aujeszky's disease) Suid herpesvirus 1 (Pseudorabies virus; Aujeszky's disease) ECCN 1C351.a.19 ECCN 1C351.a.51. Hog cholera virus (syn.: swine fever virus) Classical swine fever virus (Hog cholera virus) ECCN 1C351.a.20 ECCN 1C351.a.9. Japanese encephalitis virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.21 ECCN 1C351.a.20. Junin virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.22 ECCN 1C351.a.21. Kyasanur Forest virus Kyasanur Forest disease virus ECCN 1C351.a.23 ECCN 1C351.a.22. Laguna Negra virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.24 ECCN 1C351.a.23. Lassa fever virus Lassa virus ECCN 1C351.a.25 ECCN 1C351.a.24. Louping ill virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.26 ECCN 1C351.a.25. Lujo virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.27 ECCN 1C351.a.26. Lumpy skin disease virus No change ECCN 1C352.a.28 ECCN 1C351.a.27. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.29 ECCN 1C351.a.28. Machupo virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.30 ECCN 1C351.a.29. Marburg virus Marburgvirus (includes all members of the Marburgvirus genus) ECCN 1C351.a.31 ECCN 1C351.a.30. Monkey pox virus Monkeypox virus ECCN 1C351.a.32 ECCN 1C351.a.31. Murray Valley encephalitis virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.33 ECCN 1C351.a.32. Newcastle disease virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.34 ECCN 1C351.a.33. Nipah virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.35 ECCN 1C351.a.34. Omsk haemorrhagic fever virus Omsk hemorrhagic fever virus ECCN 1C351.a.36 ECCN 1C351.a.35. Oropouche virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.37 ECCN 1C351.a.36. Peste des petits ruminants virus Peste-des-petits ruminants virus ECCN 1C351.a.38 ECCN 1C351.a.37. Porcine enterovirus type 9 (syn.: swine vesicular disease virus) Swine vesicular disease virus ECCN 1C351.a.39 ECCN 1C351.a.52. Powassan virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.40 ECCN 1C351.a.39. Rabies virus and other members of the Lyssavirus genus No change ECCN 1C351.a.41 ECCN 1C351.a.40. Reconstructed replication competent forms of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus Reconstructed 1918 influenza virus ECCN 1C351.b.1 ECCN 1C351.a.41. Rift Valley fever virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.42 No change. Rinderpest virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.43 No change. Rocio virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.44 No change. Sabia virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.45 No change. SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-related coronavirus) ECCN 1C351.b.2 ECCN 1C351.a.47. Seoul virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.46 No change. Sheep pox virus Sheeppox virus ECCN 1C351.a.47 ECCN 1C351.a.48. Sin nombre virus Sin Nombre virus ECCN 1C351.a.48 ECCN 1C351.a.49. St. Louis encephalitis virus No change (correction needed on AG common control list, only) ECCN 1C351.a.49 ECCN 1C351.a.50. Teschen disease virus Porcine Teschovirus ECCN 1C351.a.50 ECCN 1C351.a.38. Tick-borne encephalitis virus (Russian Spring-Summer encephalitis virus) No change (correction needed on AG common control list, only) ECCN 1C351.a.51 ECCN 1C351.a.53. Variola virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.52 ECCN 1C351.a.54. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.53 ECCN 1C351.a.55. Vesicular stomatitis virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.54 ECCN 1C351.a.56. Western equine encephalitis virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.55 ECCN 1C351.a.57. Yellow fever virus No change ECCN 1C351.a.56 ECCN 1C351.a.58.

    With the transfer of two viruses (i.e., severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, a.k.a. SARS-related coronavirus, and reconstructed 1918 influenza virus) from ECCN 1C351.b to 1C351.a by this rule, only one virus continues to be controlled under 1C351.b: Tick-borne encephalitis virus (Siberian subtype, formerly West Siberian virus), which is listed in 1C351.b.3. This rule makes a conforming change to ECCN 1C351.b.3 by updating the cross reference therein to tick-borne encephalitis virus (Far Eastern subtype, formerly known as Russian Spring-Summer encephalitis virus) to reflect the re-designation of that virus (now listed under ECCN 1C351.a.53) by the amendments to ECCN 1C351.a described above.

    Amendments to ECCN 2B352 (Equipment Capable of Use in Handling Biological Materials)

    This final rule amends ECCN 2B352 on the CCL to reflect changes to the AG “Control List of Dual-Use Biological Equipment and Related Technology and Software” based on the February 2015 intersessional recommendations that were adopted by the AG. Specifically, this rule amends the controls on biocontainment chambers, isolators, and biological safety cabinets described in 2B352.g.2 to more fully identify the characteristics that such equipment must possess in order to be controlled under ECCN 2B352. As amended by this rule, ECCN 2B352.g.2 controls biocontainment chambers, isolators, or biological safety cabinets having all of the following characteristics, for normal operation: (i) A fully enclosed workspace where the operator is separated from the work by a physical barrier; (ii) the ability to operate at negative pressure; (iii) the means to safely manipulate items in the workspace; and (iv) the supply and exhaust air to and from the workspace is high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered.

    Consistent with the AG intersessional changes described above, this rule also adds two notes to ECCN 2B352 to further clarify the scope of the controls in 2B352.g.2. Note 1 to ECCN 2B352.g.2 indicates that the items subject to these controls include class III biosafety cabinets, as specified in the World Health Organization (WHO) Laboratory Biosafety Manual (3rd edition, Geneva, 2004) or constructed in accordance with national standards, regulations or guidance. Note 2 to ECCN 2B352.g.2 indicates that these controls do not apply to isolators specially designed for barrier nursing or transportation of infected patients.

    This rule also amends the controls on aerosol inhalation equipment described in ECCN 2B352.h to include nose-only exposure apparatus. As amended by this final rule, ECCN 2B352.h now controls the following aerosol inhalation equipment designed for aerosol challenge testing with microorganisms, viruses or toxins: (i) Whole-body exposure chambers having a capacity of 1 cubic meter or greater; and (ii) nose-only exposure apparatus utilizing directed aerosol flow and having a capacity for the exposure of 12 or more rodents, or 2 or more animals other than rodents, and closed animal restraint tubes designed for use with such apparatus.

    All items controlled under ECCN 2B352 require a license for CB reasons to destinations indicated under CB Column 2 on the Commerce Country Chart and for AT reasons to destinations indicated in AT Column 1 on the Commerce Country Chart.

    Amendments to the CCL Based on the June 2015 AG Plenary Understandings Amendments to ECCN 2B352 (Equipment Capable of Use in Handling Biological Materials)

    This final rule also amends ECCN 2B352 on the CCL to reflect changes to the AG “Control List of Dual-Use Biological Equipment and Related Technology and Software” based on the understandings reached at the June 2015 AG Plenary meeting. Specifically, this rule amends 2B352.e to control steam, gas or vapor sterilizable freeze-drying equipment with a condenser capacity of 10 kg of ice or greater in 24 hours (10 liters of water or greater in 24 hours) and less than 1000 kg of ice in 24 hours (less than 1,000 liters of water in 24 hours). This change is being made in recognition of the increasing viability of gas or vapor sterilizable freeze-drying equipment as an efficient and low-cost alternative to steam sterilization.

    Conforming Change to ECCN 1C351 (Human and Animal Pathogens and “Toxins”)

    In addition to the AG plenary and intersessional changes described above, this rule amends ECCN 1C351 by adding a fifth note to the License Requirement Notes in the License Requirements section of this ECCN. This new License Requirement Note is intended to provide guidance, consistent with the AG “List of Human and Animal Pathogens and Toxins for Export Control,” in determining whether a particular pathogen or “toxin” is controlled under ECCN 1C351. License Requirement Note 5 reads as follows:

    Biological agents and pathogens are controlled under ECCN 1C351 when they are an isolated live culture of a pathogen agent, or a preparation of a toxin agent that has been isolated or extracted from any source or material, including living material that has been deliberately inoculated or contaminated with the agent. Isolated live cultures of a pathogen agent include live cultures in dormant form or in dried preparations, whether the agent is natural, enhanced or modified.

    Addition of Angola and Burma as States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

    This rule also amends the EAR to reflect the addition of Angola and Burma as States Parties to the CWC on October 16, 2015, and August 7, 2015, respectively. Specifically, this rule amends Supplement No. 2 to part 745 of the EAR (States Parties to the CWC) to add Angola and Burma in alphabetical order. Because Angola and Burma are not AG participating countries, their addition to the list of CWC States Parties in Supplement No. 2 to part 745 does not affect the CB Column 1 and CB Column 2 license requirements for these countries that are indicated in Supplement No. 1 to part 738 of the EAR (Commerce Country Chart). The CB Column 3 license requirements indicated for Burma, in the Commerce Country Chart, also continue to apply. However, a license is no longer required for CB or CW reasons for exports to Angola or Burma of mixtures and test kits controlled under ECCN 1C395.a and .b, respectively, although a license would be required if any of the end-user or end-use requirements in part 744 of the EAR apply.

    In order to maintain consistency between the EAR and the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR) (15 CFR parts 710-721), with respect to those countries that are identified as States Parties to the CWC, this rule also amends Supplement No. 1 to part 710 of the CWCR (States Parties to the CWC) to add Angola and Burma in alphabetical order.

    Effect of This Rule on the Scope of the CB Controls in the EAR

    The changes made by this rule only marginally affect the scope of the EAR controls on precursor chemicals, human and animal pathogens/toxins, and equipment capable of use in handling biological materials.

    The amendments to ECCN 1C350, which add the chemical diethylamine (C.A.S. 109-89-7), are expected to have only a small impact on the scope of the CB controls in this ECCN. This chemical has corrosive properties that, in combination with its flammable characteristics, cause it to be categorized as a hazardous substance. As such, this chemical is regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and also is listed in the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Hazardous Materials Table (see 49 CFR 171.101). For these reasons, together with the limited number of commercial applications for this chemical, there is a relatively low volume of exports of this chemical from the United States. Therefore, the addition of this chemical to ECCN 1C350 is not expected to have a significant impact on the number of export license applications that must be submitted to BIS for items controlled under this ECCN.

    The scope of the CCL-based CB controls on human and animal pathogens and toxins was not affected by the addition of two viruses (i.e., severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, a.k.a. SARS-related coronavirus, and reconstructed 1918 influenza virus) to ECCN 1C351.a because these viruses were controlled under ECCN 1C351.b prior to the publication of this rule, and the license requirements that apply to items listed under 1C351.a are identical to those that apply to items listed under 1C351.b. Therefore, these changes are not expected to have a significant impact on the number of license applications that will have to be submitted for such items.

    The addition of new License Requirement Note 5 to ECCN 1C351 is merely intended to provide guidance, consistent with the AG “List of Human and Animal Pathogens and Toxins for Export Control,” for determining whether a particular pathogen or “toxin” is controlled under this ECCN. It does not affect the scope of the controls of this ECCN and, therefore, is not expected to have any discernable effect on the number of license applications that will have to be submitted for items controlled under ECCN 1C351.

    Although the updates in this rule to the controls on freeze-drying (lyophilization) equipment (see ECCN 2B352.e), biocontainment chambers, isolators, and biological safety cabinets (see ECCN 2B352.g.2) and aerosol inhalation equipment (see ECCN 2B352.h) represent an expansion in the number of items that require a license under ECCN 2B352, the expanded controls apply to only a relatively small percentage of these types of items that were not controlled under ECCN 2B352 prior to the publication of this rule. Consequently, any increase in the number of license applications resulting from this change is not expected to be significant, when considered as a percentage of these types of items.

    Finally, the amendments adding Angola and Burma to Supplement No. 2 to part 745 of the EAR (States Parties to the CWC) and Supplement No. 1 to part 710 of the CWCR are expected to have only a small impact on the scope of the controls applicable to exports to these countries of items on the CCL that are also identified on the AG common control lists. Because Angola and Burma are not AG participating countries, the CB Column 1 and CB Column 2 license requirements for these countries, as indicated in Supplement No. 1 to part 738 of the EAR (Commerce Country Chart), continue to apply. In addition, the CB Column 3 license requirements indicated for Burma, in the Commerce Country Chart, continue to apply. However, under ECCN 1C395, a license is no longer required for CB or CW reasons for exports to Angola or Burma of mixtures and test kits controlled by ECCN 1C395.a and .b, respectively. Therefore, collectively, these changes are expected to result in a small decrease in the number of license applications that will have to be submitted for these two countries.

    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015 (80 FR 48233 (Aug. 11, 2015)), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.

    Rulemaking Requirements

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

    2. 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 of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule contains a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA. This collection has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0694-0088 (Multi-Purpose Application), which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget, by email to [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-7285; and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230 or by email to [email protected]

    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (see 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Immediate implementation of these amendments is non-discretionary and fulfills the United States' international obligation to the Australia Group (AG). The AG contributes to international security and regional stability through the harmonization of export controls and seeks to ensure that exports do not contribute to the development of chemical and biological weapons. The AG consists of 41 member countries that act on a consensus basis and the amendments set forth in this rule implement changes made to the AG common control lists (as a result of the adoption of the recommendations made at the February 2015 AG intersessional meeting and the understandings reached at the June 2015 AG plenary meeting) and other changes that are necessary to ensure consistency with the controls maintained by the AG. Because the United States is a significant exporter of the items in this rule, immediate implementation of this provision is necessary for the AG to achieve its purpose. Any delay in implementation will create a disruption in the movement of affected items globally because of disharmony between export control measures implemented by AG members, resulting in tension between member countries. Export controls work best when all countries implement the same export controls in a timely manner.

    Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form.

    List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 710

    Chemicals, Exports, Foreign trade, Imports, Treaties.

    15 CFR Part 745

    Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    15 CFR Part 774

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 710 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (15 CFR parts 710-721) and parts 745 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

    PART 710—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 710 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    22 U.S.C. 6701 et seq.; E.O. 13128, 64 FR 36703, 3 CFR 1999 Comp., p. 199.

    2. Supplement No. 1 to Part 710 is amended by revising the undesignated center heading “List of States Parties as of November 1, 2013” to read “List of States Parties as of June 1, 2016” and by adding, in alphabetical order, the countries “Angola” and “Burma”. PART 745—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for Part 745 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950); Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015).

    4. Supplement No. 2 to Part 745 is amended by revising the undesignated center heading “List of States Parties as of November 1, 2013” to read “List of States Parties as of June 1, 2016” and by adding, in alphabetical order, the countries “Angola” and “Burma”. PART 774—[AMENDED] 5. The authority citation for Part 774 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. 4305; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

    6. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, Category 1—Special Materials and Related Equipment, Chemicals, “Microorganisms” and “Toxins,” ECCN 1C350 is amended by revising paragraph d.24 and adding a new paragraph d.25 in the “Items” paragraph, under the “List of Items Controlled” section, to read as follows: Supplement No. 1 to Part 774—The Commerce Control List 1C350 Chemicals that may be used as precursors for toxic chemical agents (see List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled Items:

    d. * * *

    d.24. (C.A.S. #16893-85-9) Sodium hexafluorosilicate;

    d.25. (C.A.S. #109-89-7) Diethylamine.

    7. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Special Materials and Related Equipment, Chemicals, “Microorganisms” and “Toxins,” ECCN 1C351 is amended by adding a Note 5 to the “License Requirement Notes,” under the “License Requirements” section, and by revising paragraphs a. and b. in the “Items” paragraph, under the “List of Items Controlled” section, to read as follows: 1C351 Human and animal pathogens and “toxins”, as follows (see List of Items Controlled). License Requirements License Requirement Notes: * * *

    5. Biological agents and pathogens are controlled under this ECCN 1C351 when they are an isolated live culture of a pathogen agent, or a preparation of a toxin agent that has been isolated or extracted from any source or material, including living material that has been deliberately inoculated or contaminated with the agent. Isolated live cultures of a pathogen agent include live cultures in dormant form or in dried preparations, whether the agent is natural, enhanced or modified.

    List of Items Controlled Items:

    a. Viruses identified on the Australia Group (AG) “List of Human and Animal Pathogens and Toxins for Export Control,” as follows:

    a.1. African horse sickness virus;

    a.2. African swine fever virus;

    a.3. Andes virus;

    a.4. Avian influenza (AI) viruses identified as having high pathogenicity (HP), as follows:

    a.4.a. AI viruses that have an intravenous pathogenicity index (IVPI) in 6-week-old chickens greater than 1.2; or

    a.4.b. AI viruses that cause at least 75% mortality in 4- to 8-week-old chickens infected intravenously.

    Note: Avian influenza (AI) viruses of the H5 or H7 subtype that do not have either of the characteristics described in 1C352.a.4 (specifically, 1C352.a.4.a or a.4.b) should be sequenced to determine whether multiple basic amino acids are present at the cleavage site of the haemagglutinin molecule (HA0). If the amino acid motif is similar to that observed for other HPAI isolates, then the isolate being tested should be considered as HPAI and the virus is controlled under 1C352.a.4.

    a.5. Bluetongue virus;

    a.6. Chapare virus;

    a.7. Chikungunya virus;

    a.8. Choclo virus;

    a.9. Classical swine fever virus (Hog cholera virus);

    a.10. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus;

    a.11. Dengue virus;

    a.12. Dobrava-Belgrade virus;

    a.13. Eastern equine encephalitis virus;

    a.14. Ebolavirus (includes all members of the Ebolavirus genus);

    a.15. Foot-and-mouth disease virus;

    a.16. Goatpox virus;

    a.17. Guanarito virus;

    a.18. Hantaan virus;

    a.19. Hendra virus (Equine morbillivirus);

    a.20. Japanese encephalitis virus;

    a.21. Junin virus;

    a.22. Kyasanur Forest disease virus;

    a.23. Laguna Negra virus;

    a.24. Lassa virus;

    a.25. Louping ill virus;

    a.26. Lujo virus;

    a.27. Lumpy skin disease virus;

    a.28. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus;

    a.29. Machupo virus;

    a.30. Marburgvirus (includes all members of the Marburgvirus genus);

    a.31. Monkeypox virus;

    a.32. Murray Valley encephalitis virus;

    a.33. Newcastle disease virus;

    a.34. Nipah virus;

    a.35. Omsk hemorrhagic fever virus;

    a.36. Oropouche virus;

    a.37. Peste-des-petits ruminants virus;

    a.38. Porcine Teschovirus;

    a.39. Powassan virus;

    a.40. Rabies virus and all other members of the Lyssavirus genus;

    a.41. Reconstructed 1918 influenza virus;

    Technical Note: 1C351.a.41 includes reconstructed replication competent forms of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus containing any portion of the coding regions of all eight gene segments.

    a.42. Rift Valley fever virus;

    a.43. Rinderpest virus;

    a.44. Rocio virus;

    a.45. Sabia virus;

    a.46. Seoul virus;

    a.47. Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-related coronavirus);

    a.48. Sheeppox virus;

    a.49. Sin Nombre virus;

    a.50. St. Louis encephalitis virus;

    a.51. Suid herpesvirus 1 (Pseudorabies virus; Aujeszky's disease);

    a.52. Swine vesicular disease virus;

    a.53. Tick-borne encephalitis virus (Far Eastern subtype, formerly known as Russian Spring-Summer encephalitis virus—see 1C351.b.3 for Siberian subtype);

    a.54. Variola virus;

    a.55. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus;

    a.56. Vesicular stomatitis virus;

    a.57. Western equine encephalitis virus; or

    a.58. Yellow fever virus.

    b. Viruses identified on the APHIS/CDC “select agents” lists (see Related Controls paragraph #2 for this ECCN), but not identified on the Australia Group (AG) “List of Human and Animal Pathogens and Toxins for Export Control,” as follows:

    b.1. [Reserved];

    b.2. [Reserved]; or

    b.3. Tick-borne encephalitis virus (Siberian subtype, formerly West Siberian virus—see 1C351.a.53 for Far Eastern subtype).

    8. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 2—Materials Processing, ECCN 2B352 is amended in the “Items” paragraph, under the List of Items Controlled section, by revising paragraph e., by revising paragraph g.2., by adding Notes 1 and 2 to paragraph g.2., and by revising paragraph h., to read as follows: 2B352 Equipment Capable of Use in Handling Biological Materials, as Follows (See List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled Items:

    e. Steam, gas or vapor sterilizable freeze-drying equipment with a condenser capacity of 10 kg of ice or greater in 24 hours (10 liters of water or greater in 24 hours) and less than 1000 kg of ice in 24 hours (less than 1,000 liters of water in 24 hours).

    g. * * *

    g.2. Biocontainment chambers, isolators, or biological safety cabinets having all of the following characteristics, for normal operation:

    g.2.a. Fully enclosed workspace where the operator is separated from the work by a physical barrier;

    g.2.b. Able to operate at negative pressure;

    g.2.c. Means to safely manipulate items in the workspace; and

    g.2.d. Supply and exhaust air to and from the workspace is high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered.

    Note 1 to 2B352.g.2: 2B352.g.2 controls class III biosafety cabinets, as specified in the WHO Laboratory Biosafety Manual (3rd edition, Geneva, 2004) or constructed in accordance with national standards, regulations or guidance.

    Note 2 to 2B352.g.2: 2B352.g.2 does not control isolators “specially designed” for barrier nursing or transportation of infected patients.

    h. Aerosol inhalation equipment designed for aerosol challenge testing with microorganisms, viruses or toxins, as follows:

    h.1. Whole-body exposure chambers having a capacity of 1 cubic meter or greater.

    h.2. Nose-only exposure apparatus utilizing directed aerosol flow and having a capacity for the exposure of 12 or more rodents, or two or more animals other than rodents, and closed animal restraint tubes designed for use with such apparatus.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13271 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS GERALD R. FORD (CVN 78) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 7, 2016 and is applicable beginning May 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Commander Theron R. Korsak, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

    This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS GERALD R. FORD (CVN 78) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(g), pertaining to the placement of the sidelights above the hull; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the placement of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship; Rule 21(a), pertaining to the placement of the masthead lights over the fore and aft centerline of the ship; and, Rule 21 (b), pertaining to the placement of the side lights arc of visibility. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

    Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1605.

    2. Section 706.2 is amended by: a. In Table Two, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS GERALD R. FORD (CVN 78); b. In Table Three, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS GERALD R. FORD (CVN 78); and c. In Table Five, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS GERALD R. FORD (CVN 78).
    § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy Under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Two Vessel No. Masthead lights,
  • distance to stbd of keel in
  • meters;
  • rule 21(a)
  • Forward
  • anchor light, distance below flight dk in
  • meters;
  • § 2(K),
  • annex I
  • Forward
  • anchor light, number of;
  • rule 30(a)(i)
  • AFT anchor light, distance below flight dk in
  • meters;
  • rule 21(e), rule 30(a)(ii)
  • AFT anchor light, number of;
  • rule 30(a)(ii)
  • Side lights, distance below flight dk in
  • meters;
  • § 2(g),
  • annex I
  • Side lights, distance
  • forward of
  • forward
  • masthead light in
  • meters;
  • § 3(b),
  • annex I
  • Side lights, distance
  • inboard of ship's sides in
  • meters;
  • § 3(b),
  • annex I
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS GERALD R. FORD CVN 78 31.57 0.13 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Table Three Vessel No. Masthead lights arc of visibility;
  • rule 21(a)
  • Side lights arc of visibility;
  • rule 21(b)
  • Stern light arc of visibility;
  • rule 21(c)
  • Side lights distance
  • inboard of ship's sides in meters;
  • 3(b) annex 1
  • Stern light, distance
  • forward of stern in
  • meters;
  • rule 21(c)
  • Forward
  • anchor light, height above hull in meters;
  • 2(K) annex 1
  • Anchor lights relation-ship of aft light to forward light in meters;
  • 2(K) annex 1
  • USS GERALD R. FORD CVN 78 115.6 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Table Five Vessel No. Masthead lights not over all other lights and
  • obstructions;
  • annex I, sec. 2(f)
  • Forward
  • masthead light not in forward quarter of ship;
  • annex I, sec. 3(a)
  • After masthead light less than 1/2 ship's length aft of forward masthead light;
  • annex I, sec.3(a)
  • Percentage horizontal
  • separation
  • attained
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS GERALD R. FORD CVN 78 X *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Approved: May 9, 2016. A.B. Fischer, Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). Dated: May 31, 2016. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13260 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0324] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing two special local regulations for two separate marine events within the Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound (LIS) Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. This temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during these events. Entry into, transit through, mooring or anchoring within these regulated areas is prohibited unless authorized by COTP Sector Long Island Sound.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from 12:01 a.m. on June 7, 2016 until 5 p.m. on June 12, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, 18 May, 2016, until June 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0324 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, contact Petty Officer Jay TerVeen, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4446, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NAD 83 North American Datum 1983 II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    This rulemaking establishes two special local regulations for one regatta and one air show. Each event and its corresponding regulatory history are discussed below.

    Jones Beach (Air Show): A special local regulation was established in 2015 for the Jones Beach Air Show event when the Coast Guard issued a final rule entitled, “Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Marine Events held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone”. This rulemaking was published on May 18, 2015 in the Federal Register (80 FR 28176).

    The Harvard-Yale Regatta is a reoccurring marine event with regulatory history and is cited in 33 CFR 100.100(1.1). This event has been included in this rule due to deviation from the cite date.

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is insufficient time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before these events take place. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1233.

    The COTP Sector LIS has determined that the special local regulations established by this temporary final rule are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during these events.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes two special local regulations for one regatta and one air show. The locations of these regulated areas are as follows:

    Special Local Regulations 1 Jones Beach Air Show Location: There will be three areas created for the special local regulation. The first area, “No Entry Area”, is on the navigable waterway located along the south shore of Jones Beach State Park. The second area, “Slow/No Wake Area”, is located on the navigable waterway between Meadowbrook State Parkway and Wantagh State Parkway. The third area, “No Southbound Traffic Area”, in the navigable waters of Zach's Bay. 2 Harvard-Yale Regatta Location: All waters of the Thames River at New London, Connecticut, between the Penn Central Draw Bridge 41°21′46.94″ N. 072°5′14.46″ W. to Bartlett Cove 41°25′35.9″ N. 072°5′42.89″ W. (NAD 83).

    This rule establishes additional vessel movement rules within areas specifically under the jurisdiction of the special local regulations during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive order 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 Order13563 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 Order12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The enforcement of these regulated areas will be relatively short in duration, (2) persons or vessels desiring entry into the “No Entry” area or a deviance from the stipulations within the “Slow/No Wake Area” may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative, may do so with permission from the COTP Sector LIS or a designated representative; (3) vessels can operate within the regulated area provided they do so in accordance with the regulation and (4) before the effective period, public notifications will be made to local mariners through appropriate means, which may include the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit these regulated areas 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. 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.

    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 proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Orders 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This temporary rule involves the establishment of two regulated areas. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233

    2. Add § 100.T01-0324 to read as follows:
    § 100.T01-0324 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone.

    (a) Location. This section will be enforced at the locations listed for each event in the Table to § 100.T01-0324.

    (b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced on the dates and times listed for each event in TABLE 1 to § 100.T01-0324.

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the COTP, Sector Long Island Sound, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. “Official patrol vessels” may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 100.35 apply.

    (2) Operators of vessels desiring to deviate from these regulations should contact the COTP Sector Long Island Sound at 203-468-4401 (Sector LIS command center) or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.

    (3) Any vessel given permission to deviate from these regulations must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.

    (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.

    Table to § 100.T01-0324—Special Local Regulations 1 Jones Beach Air Show • Date: May 26-29, 2016
  • • Time:
  • (1) The “No Entry Area” will be enforced each day from the start of the air show until 30 minutes after it concludes.
  • (2) The Slow/No Wake Area and the “No Southbound Traffic Area” will be enforced each day for six hours after the air show concludes.
  • • Location: “No Entry Area”: Waters of the Atlantic Ocean off Jones Beach State Park, Wantagh, NY contained within the following described area; Beginning in approximate position 40°34′54″ N., 073°33′21″ W., then running east along the shoreline of Jones Beach State Park to approximate position 40°35′53″ N., 073°28′48″ W.; then running south to a position in the Atlantic Ocean off of Jones Beach at approximate position 40°35′05″ N., 073°28′34″ W.; then running west to approximate position 40°33′15″ N., 073°33′09″ W.; then running north to the point of origin.
  • “Slow/No Wake Area”: All navigable waters between Meadowbrook State Parkway and Wantagh State Parkway and contained within the following area. Beginning in approximate position 40°35′49.01″ N. 73°32′33.63″ W. then north along the Meadowbrook State Parkway to its intersection with Merrick Road in approximate position 40°39′14.00″ N. 73°34′00.76″ W. then east along Merrick Road to its intersection with Wantagh State Parkway in approximate position 40°39′51.32″ N. 73°30′43.36″ W. then south along the Wantagh State Parkway to its intersection with Ocean Parkway in approximate position 40°35′47.30″ N. 73°30′29.17″ W. then west along Ocean Parkway to its intersection with Meadowbrook State Parkway at the point of origin in approximate position 40°35′49.01″ N. 73°32′33.63″ W.
  • “No Southbound Traffic Area”: All navigable waters of Zach's Bay south of the line connecting a point near the western entrance to Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′29.20″ N., 073°29′22.88″ W. and a point near the eastern entrance of Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′16.53″ N., 073°28′57.26″ W.
  • 2 Harvard-Yale Regatta • Date: June 12, 2016
  • • Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
  • • Location: “All waters of the Thames River at New London, Connecticut, between the Penn Central Draw Bridge 41°21′46.94″ N. 072°5′14.46″ W. to Bartlett Cove 41°25′35.9″ N. 072°5′42.89″ W. (NAD 83).
  • • Additional Stipulations: Spectator vessels must be at anchor within a designated spectator area or moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the races. They must remain moored or at anchor until the men's varsity have passed their positions. At that time, spectator vessels located south of the Harvard Boathouse may proceed downriver at a reasonable speed. Vessels situated between the Harvard Boathouse and the finish line must remain stationary until both crews return safely to their boathouses. If for any reason the men's varsity crew race is postponed, spectator vessels will remain in position until notified by Coast Guard or regatta patrol personnel. The last 1,000 feet of the race course near the finish line will be delineated by four temporary white buoys provided by the sponsor. All spectator craft shall remain behind these buoys during the event. Spectator craft shall not anchor: to the west of the race course, between Scotch Cap and Bartlett Point Light, or within the race course boundaries or in such a manner that would allow their vessel to drift or swing into the race course. During the effective period all vessels shall proceed at a speed not to exceed six knots in the regulated area. Spectator vessels shall not follow the crews during the races. Swimming is prohibited in the vicinity of the race course during the races. A vessel operating in the vicinity of the Submarine Base may not cause waves which result in damage to submarines or other vessels in the floating dry-docks.
  • Dated: May 18, 2016. E.J. Cubanski, III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13414 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0355] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation for Marine Events; James River, Midlothian, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will establish a special local regulation during the VBC Sprints Regatta event on the James River. The event consists of a series of crew rowing and sculling races to be held on the waters of the James River, near Robious Landing Park in Midlothian, Virginia. This regulated area will restrict vessel traffic and is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during the event.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m. through 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0355 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, Waterways Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 757-668-5580, 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 Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because information about the Regatta on June 18, 2016 not received in sufficient time to permit publication of an NPRM.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction on vessel traffic is necessary to protect life, property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the regulated area's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels, and enhancing public and maritime safety.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this special local regulation under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation on specified waters of the James River near Robious Landing Park in Midlothian, Virginia. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the regulated area during the VBC Sprints Regatta.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Captain of the Port Hampton Roads is establishing special local regulation on the specified waters of the James River bound by the following coordinates: 37°33′35.193″ N. 077°38′51.6156″ W.; thence to 37°33′33.7608″ N./077°38′51.1044″ W.; thence to 37°33′33.75″ N./077°38′8.88″ W.; thence to 37°33′36.0174″ N./077°38′8.8008″ W. (NAD 1983), in the vicinity of Robious Landing Park in Midlothian, VA. This regulated area still allows for navigation on the waterway. This regulated area will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

    The Captain of the Port will utilize various methods, including those listed in 33 CFR 165.7, provide notice to the affected segments of the public of the regulated area and restrictions. This includes publication in the Local Notice to Mariners Broadcast and Marine Information Broadcasts.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area which will impact a small designated area of the James River in Midlothian, VA for less than one day and in an area where vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area 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.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the instruction. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that may have potential for negative impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail board racing.

    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 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add temporary § 100.35T05-0355 to read as follows:
    § 100.35T05-0355 James River, Midlothian, VA.

    (a) Definitions: For the purposes of this section, Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads. Representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port. Participants mean individuals and vessels involved in the rowing and sculling races of the VBC Sprints Regatta.

    (b) Location. The regulated area is established for the waters for the James River near the Robious Landing Park within the areas bounded by coordinates 37°33′35.193″ N./077°38′51.6156″ W.; thence to 37°33′33.7608″ N./077°38′51.1044″ W.; thence to 37°33′33.75″ N./077°38′8.88″ W.; thence to 37°33′36.0174″ N./077°38′8.8008″ W. (NAD 1983) in Midlothian, VA.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing special local regulations in § 100.35 of this part.

    (2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.

    (3) All vessels underway within this regulated area at the time it is implemented are to depart the area immediately, unless they are participants.

    (4) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his representative can be contacted at telephone number (757) 668-5555.

    (5) The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the regulated area can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).

    (6) This section does not apply to participants and vessels that are engaged in the following operations:

    (i) Enforcing laws;

    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and

    (iii) Emergency response vessels.

    (7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016.

    Dated: May 17, 2016. Christopher S. Keane, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13413 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0468] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Interstate 5(I-5) Bridges across the Columbia River, mile 106.5, between Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the movement of heavier than normal roadway traffic associated with the Independence Day fireworks show near the I-5 Bridges. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the event.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0468] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Oregon Department of Transportation has requested that the I-5 Bridges across the Columbia River remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate heavier than normal roadway traffic volume associated with a fireworks show on July 4, 2016 near the bridges. The I-5 Bridges cross the Columbia River at mile 106.5, and provide three designated navigation channels with vertical clearances ranging from 39 to 72 feet above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while the lift spans are in the closed-to-navigation position. The normal operating schedule for the I-5 Bridges is codified at 33 CFR 117.869. This deviation period is from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The deviation allows the lift spans of the I-5 Bridges across the Columbia River, mile 106.5, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic during that period. The bridge shall operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.869 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and tow vessels to recreational pleasure craft.

    Vessels able to pass under the bridges in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13360 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0469] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hood Canal, Port Gamble, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge across Hood Canal (Admiralty Inlet), mile 5.0, near Port Gamble, WA. This deviation allows the bridge to open the Main span half-way, 300 feet; as opposed to a full opening, which is 600 feet to allow for the replacement of bridge anchor cables for this section of the bridge.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on August 1, 2016, until 7 p.m. on October 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0469] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has requested that the Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge be allowed to only open half of the Main span from 6 a.m. on August 1, 2016 until 7 p.m. on October 15, 2016 to facilitate safe and uninterrupted bridge anchor cable replacements. The Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge crosses Hood Canal, mile 5.0, near Port Gamble, WA. The bridge has two fixed spans (East and West), and one draw span (Main). The East span provides 50 feet of vertical clearance, the West span provides 35 feet of vertical clearance and the Main span provides zero feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position. The Main span provides unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Vertical clearances are referenced to mean high-water elevation.

    The deviation period allows the Main span of the Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge across Hood Canal, mile 5.0, to only open half-way from 6 a.m. on August 1, 2016 until 7 p.m. on October 15, 2016.

    During the time of the deviation, the drawbridge will not be able to operate according to the normal operating schedule. The normal operating schedule for the bridge is in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1045. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1045 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of Hood Canal includes commercial tugs and barges, U.S. Navy vessels, and small pleasure craft. Coordination has been completed with known waterway users, and no objections to the deviation have been received.

    Vessels able to pass through the East and West spans may do so at anytime. The Main span does not provide passage in the closed-to-navigation position. The bridge will be able to open half the Main span for Navy vessels during emergencies, when requested by the Department of the Navy. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13359 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0461] Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones for annual marine events in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone from 9:20 p.m. on May 29, 2016 through 9:45 p.m. on September 4, 2016. Enforcement of these zones is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after these fireworks events. During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a specified area immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks events. During each enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.941 will be enforced without actual notice at various dates and times between 9:20 p.m. on June 7, 2016 through 9:45 p.m. on September 4, 2016. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 1, 2016 until June 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email PO1 Todd Manow, Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit MI, 48207; telephone (313)568-9580; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.941, Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone, at the following dates and times for the following events, which are listed in chronological order by date and time of the event:

    (1) Catawba Island Club Memorial Day Fireworks, Catawba Island, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(56) will be enforced from 9:20 p.m. to 9:40 p.m. on May 29, 2016.

    (2) Bay-Rama Fishfly Festival Fireworks, New Baltimore, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(29), all waters of Lake St. Clair-Anchor Bay, off New Baltimore City Park, within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 42°41′ N., 082°44′ W. (NAD 83), usually on an evening during the first week in June, will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 23, 2016.

    (3) St. Clair Shores Fireworks, St. Clair Shores, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(39) will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 24, 2016.

    (4) Washington Township Firefighters Summerfest, Toledo, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(2) will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 25, 2016.

    (5) Sigma Gamma Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(51) will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on June 27, 2016.

    (6) Ford (formerly Target) Fireworks, Detroit, MI. The first safety zone, listed in § 165.941(a)(50)(i)(A), all waters of the Detroit River bounded by the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius with its center in position 42°19′23″ N., 083°04′34″ W. (NAD 83), on the waterfront area adjacent to 1351 Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, Michigan will be enforced from 8 a.m. on June 24, 2016 to 8 p.m. on June 27, 2016.

    The second safety zone, listed in § 165.941(a)(50)(i)(B), a portion of the Detroit River bounded on the South by the International Boundary line, on the West by 083°03′30″ W. (NAD 83), on the North by the City of Detroit shoreline and on the East by 083°01′15″ W. (NAD 83), will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 11:55 p.m. on June 27, 2016.

    The third safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(50)(i)(C), a portion of the Detroit River bounded on the South by the International Boundary line, on the West by the Ambassador Bridge, on the North by the City of Detroit shoreline, and on the East by the downstream end of Belle Isle, will be enforced from 6 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on June 27, 2016.

    (7) Roostertail Fireworks, Detroit, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(1), all waters of the Detroit River within a 300-foot radius of the fireworks launch site on shore near the Roostertail Restaurant, will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 27, 2015. In the event of inclement weather on the evening of June 27, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 28, 2016.

    (8) Bay City Fireworks Festival, Bay City, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(53), all waters of the Saginaw River near Bay City, MI, from the Veteran's Memorial Bridge south approximately 1000-yards to the River Walk Pier, will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 30, and July 1 and 2, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on any scheduled day, this safety zone will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2016.

    (9) Lexington Independence Festival Fireworks, Lexington, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(42), all waters of Lake Huron within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks barge located 300 yards east of the Lexington break wall, will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 1, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on July 1, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2016.

    (10) Catawba Island Club Fireworks, Catawba Island, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(21) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 09:50 p.m. on July 1, 2016.

    (11) Harrisville Fireworks, Harrisville, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(7), a 450-foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at the end of the break wall at the Harrisville harbor, will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 2, 2016.

    (12) Grosse Ile Yacht Club Fireworks, Grosse Ile, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(44), all waters of the Detroit River within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at the Grosse Ile Yacht Club at position 42°06′ N., 083°09′ W. (NAD 83), will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on July 2, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2016.

    (13) Luna Pier Fireworks Show, Luna Pier, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941 (a)(16) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 2, 2016.

    (14) Red, White and Blues Bang Fireworks, Huron, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(22) will be enforced between from 10:30 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 2, 2016.

    (15) Bay Point Fireworks Display, Marblehead, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(58) will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 2 and 3, 2016.

    (16) Algonac Pickerel Tournament Fireworks, Algonac, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(37), all waters of the St. Clair River, within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at position 42°37′ N., 082°32′ W. (NAD 83), North of Russell Island, will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on July 2, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2016.

    (17) Port Sanilac Fireworks, Port Sanilac, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(38) will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 2, 2016.

    (18) Grosse Pointe Farms Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(35), all waters of Lake St. Clair, within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch site at position 42°23.85′ N., 082°53.25′ W. (NAD 83), at a private park at Harbor Hill and Lake Shore Rd, will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 2, 2016.

    (19) Oscoda Township Fireworks, Oscoda, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(32) will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2016.

    (20) Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, Lakeside, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(20) will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    (21) Grosse Pointe Yacht Club 4th of July Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Shores, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(41), all U.S. waters of the Lake St. Clair, within a 300 yard radius of position 42°26′ N., 082°52′ W. (NAD 83), approximately 500 feet east of the Grosse Point Yacht Club, will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2016.

    (22) Belle Maer Harbor 4th of July Fireworks, Harrison Township, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(46), all U.S. waters of Lake St. Clair, within a 400 yard radius of position 42°36′30″ N., 082°47′40″ W. (NAD 83), will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2016.

    (23) Port Austin Fireworks, Port Austin, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(33), all waters of Lake Huron within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch site, at position 42°03′ N., 082°59′ W. (NAD 83), off of the Port Austin break wall, will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2016.

    (24) City of St. Clair Fireworks, St. Clair, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(31) will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on July 4, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 5, 2016.

    (25) Tawas City 4th of July Fireworks, Tawas City, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(47), all U.S. waters of Lake Huron, within a 300 yard radius of position 44°16′ N., 083°30′ W. (NAD 83), 2000 feet west of the State Dock in East Tawas, will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    (26) Huron Riverfest Fireworks, Huron, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(23) will be enforced between from 10:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 8, 2016.

    (28) Marine City Maritime Festival Fireworks, Marine City, MI. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(13), all waters of the St. Clair River within a 500-foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 42°43.15′ N., 082°29.2′ W. (NAD 83), approximately 500 feet offshore from the intersection of Pearl St. and N. Water St, will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on August 5, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on August 5, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on August 6, 2016.

    (29) Catawba Island Club Fireworks, Catawba Island, OH. The safety zone listed in § 165.941(a)(28) will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on September 4, 2016.

    Under the provisions of § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during the enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zones may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via Local Notice to Mariners and VHF radio broadcasts that the regulation is in effect.

    This document is issued under authority of § 165.941 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these safety zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Scott B. Lemasters, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13324 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 207, 209, 211, 215, 237, 242, 245, and 252 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical Amendments AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial changes.

    DATES:

    Effective June 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jennifer L. Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6115; facsimile 571-372-6094.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This final rule amends the DFARS as follows—

    1. Directs contracting officers to DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) for information on the Governmentwide moratorium on public-private competitions by adding a cross reference at DFARS 207.302 and 237.102(b);

    2. Corrects a typographical error at DFARS 209.505-4(b)(ii);

    3. Updates hyperlinks to information on passive radio frequency identification at DFARS 211.275-2(a)(2) and paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (d)(2) of DFARS clause 252.211-7006;

    4. Corrects a threshold at DFARS 215.408(3)(ii)(A)(1)(i) to reflect $700,000 in lieu of $750,000 because that threshold was not subject to the inflation adjustment at DFARS Case 2014-D025 published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 36903;

    5. Updates DFARS 237.102-75 to reference the “Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 14, Acquisition of Services” instead of the “Guidebook for the Acquisition of Services;”

    6. Updates DFARS 237.102-77 to reference the “Acquisition Requirements Roadmap Tool” instead of the “Automated Requirements Roadmap Tool;”

    7. Corrects a cross reference at DFARS 242.7202(a) by changing paragraph (e) to paragraph (d) of the clause at 252.242.7004; and

    8. Corrects a cross reference at DFARS 245.102(4)(i) by changing PGI 245.201-71 to PGI 245.103-72.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR 207, 209, 211, 215, 237, 242, 245, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 207, 209, 211, 215, 237, 242, 245, and 252 are amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 207, 209, 211, 215, 237, 242, 245, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 207—ACQUISITION PLANNING 2. Add subpart 207.3 to read as follows: Subpart 207.3—Contractor Versus Government Performance Sec. 207.302 Policy. Subpart 207.3—Contractor Versus Government Performance
    207.302 Policy.

    See PGI 207.302 for information on the Governmentwide moratorium and restrictions on public-private competitions conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76.

    PART 209—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
    209.505-4 [Amended]
    3. In section 209.505-4, amend paragraph (b)(ii) by removing “nondisclosure” and adding “non-disclosure” in its place everywhere it appears.
    PART 211—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS
    211.275-2 [Amended]
    4. In section 211.275-2, amend paragraph (a)(2) introductory text by removing “http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/rfid/” and adding “http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/RFID_ship-to-locations.html” in its place.
    PART 215—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
    215.408 [Amended]
    5. Amend section 215.408, in paragraph (3)(ii)(A)(1)(i), by removing “$750,000” and adding “$700,000” in its place.
    PART 237—SERVICE CONTRACTING 6. Amend section 237.102 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    237.102 Policy.

    (b) See PGI 207.302 for information on the Governmentwide moratorium and restrictions on public-private competitions conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76.

    7. Revise section 237.102-75 to read as follows:
    237.102-75 Defense Acquisition Guidebook.

    See PGI 237.102-75 for information on the Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 14, Acquisition of Services.

    237.102-77 [Amended]
    8. In section 237.102-77, amend the heading and the introductory text by removing “Automated” and adding “Acquisition” in both places.
    PART 242—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES
    242.7202 [Amended]
    9. In section 242.7202, amend paragraph (a) introductory text by removing “paragraph (e)” and adding “paragraph (d)” in its place.
    PART 245—GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
    245.102 [Amended]
    10. In section 245.102, amend paragraph (4)(i) by removing “PGI 245.201-71” and adding “PGI 245.103-72” in its place.
    PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    252.211-7006 [Amended]
    11. Amend section 252.211-7006 by— a. Removing the clause date “(SEP 2011)” and adding “(JUN 2016)” in its place; b. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii) introductory text, removing “http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/rfid/” and adding “http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/RFID_ship-to-locations.html” in its place; c. In paragraph (d)(2), removing “located at http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/rfid/tag_data.htm” and adding “located in the DoD Suppliers' Passive RFID Information Guide at http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/ait.html” in its place.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13258 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 392 [Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0396] RIN 2126-AB87 Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Use of Seat Belts AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA revises the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) by requiring passengers in property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) to use the seat belt assembly whenever the vehicles are operated on public roads in interstate commerce. This rule holds motor carriers and drivers responsible for ensuring that passengers riding in the property-carrying CMV are using the seat belts required by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 8, 2016.

    Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted to the FMCSA Administrator no later than July 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles A. Horan, Director; Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety Standards, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at (202) 366-5370. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9896.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary A. Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

    Section 393.93(b)(2)-(3) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR 393.93) requires every truck and truck tractor manufactured on or after July 1, 1971, to comply with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), relating to the installation of seat belt assemblies. They must also comply with FMVSS No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210), dealing with the installation of seat belt assembly anchorages, and FMVSS No. 207 (49 CFR 571.207), addressing seating systems more generally. Under FMVSS No. 208, trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after September 1, 1990, are allowed by S4.3.2.1 an option to comply by providing a “complete passenger protection system,” but nearly all CMV manufacturers choose the second compliance option (S4.3.2.2) and install a “belt system.” This second option requires a seat belt assembly “at each designated seating position.” In short, the FMVSS and FMCSRs require seat belts at every seating position in a property-carrying CMV.

    In addition, 49 CFR 392.16 requires that a CMV that has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat shall not be driven unless the driver has properly restrained himself or herself with the seat belt assembly. In this final rule, FMCSA requires that motor carriers and drivers ensure that passengers riding in property-carrying CMVs use their seat belts when the vehicles are operated on public roads.

    B. Benefits and Costs

    As indicated above, NHTSA requires vehicle manufacturers to install driver and passenger seat belts in large trucks. FMCSA already requires drivers to use their seat belts. However, the FMCSRs were previously silent on the use of seat belts by passengers in trucks. This final rule requires that every passenger in a property-carrying CMV use a seat belt, if one is installed. The only quantifiable cost of the final rule is the value of the person's time necessary to buckle the seat belt, which is negligible. The benefits of this rule are any fatalities or injuries avoided or reduced in severity as a result of seat belt use; these benefits are discussed later.

    II. Rulemaking Documents A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    For access to docket FMCSA-2015-0396 to read background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, 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.

    B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This final rule is based on the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act). The 1935 Act (49 U.S.C. 31502) authorizes FMCSA to prescribe requirements for the safety of operation and equipment standards of for-hire and private motor carriers. This final rule is directly related to safe motor carrier operations. The 1984 Act (49 U.S.C. 31136) requires FMCSA to adopt regulations to ensure, among other things, that “commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely” (sec. 31136(a)(1)). This rule will increase the safety, not only of passengers, but also of CMV drivers whose control of the vehicle could otherwise be affected by unsecured passengers potentially thrown about the cab as a result of emergency steering or braking maneuvers.

    A 2012 amendment to the 1984 Act requires FMCSA to ensure that CMV drivers are not coerced to violate certain provisions of the FMCSRs (sec. 31136(a)(5)). Coercion is now prohibited by 49 CFR 390.6. Given the obvious value of this final rule and the ease of compliance, the Agency believes that no one will be coerced not to wear a seat belt. It should be noted that the 1984 Act also authorizes FMCSA to “perform other acts [the Agency] considers appropriate” (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(10)).

    IV. Background

    This final rule responds to a petition submitted by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) on October 29, 2013 (available in the docket to this rulemaking). CVSA requested that FMCSA require all occupants in a property-carrying CMV to restrain themselves when the vehicle is being driven. The petition referred to data available from the Agency's Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) (available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-analysis/research/large-truck-crash-causation-study). Specifically, the petition noted that the 2011 LTCCS data indicate that 34 percent of truck occupants killed in fatal crashes were not wearing seat belts.

    Today's final rule follows a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the same title, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2015 (80 FR 76649). Although responding to CVSA's petition, the NPRM slightly modified some of the petitioner's requests. FMCSA used the word “occupant” in addition to “passenger” to make clear that the regulation would apply to any person in the property-carrying CMV. “Occupants” would include instructors, evaluators, or any other personnel who might be seated in a property-carrying CMV, regardless of their status. FMCSA also proposed that this requirement be applicable only if there is a seat belt assembly installed in the property-carrying CMV.

    V. Discussion of Comments and Responses

    FMCSA received 17 unique comments to this rulemaking. Nine were from individuals and one was from a motor carrier, Werner Enterprises Inc. (Werner). The rest came from industry and safety organizations, including the American Trucking Associations (ATA), Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), NAFA Fleet Management Association (NAFA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), National Safety Council (NSC), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and CVSA.

    Twelve of the 17 commenters, including all 7 industry and safety organizations and the motor carrier, supported requiring passengers in property-carrying CMVs to use a seat belt, though 2 of the 12 objected to holding the motor carrier responsible for compliance. One commenter asked a question, but did not state whether he supported the rulemaking. Four of the nine individuals who submitted comments did not believe a rulemaking was necessary or did not support the rulemaking because they did not believe drivers should be responsible for a passenger's seat belt use. The other four individuals supported the rulemaking. Three commenters believed the rulemaking should be more extensive.

    A. Compliance Responsibilities

    Comments: Three commenters opposed imposing a new responsibility on drivers to ensure passenger compliance with a seat belt regulation. An individual stated that neither the motor carrier nor the driver should be responsible for requiring passengers to use the seat belts, and mentioned that drivers deal with many other regulations already. Both ATA and Werner stated that a motor carrier could not and should not be responsible for the use of safety belts in CMVs, as they have no practicable way to monitor it.

    Two commenters stated that requiring a driver to ensure that passengers were wearing their seat belts would be a distraction while driving. Another commenter stated that the driver would be required to police passengers. An individual thought that the Agency should enforce existing regulations and rules rather than develop new ones, and questioned whether this rule would actually save lives. One commenter believed the rulemaking would be applicable to drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles, which it is not.

    ATA requested explicit clarification that the driver, not the motor carrier, would be responsible for passenger compliance with this regulation, stating that the NPRM correctly placed this burden on the driver. ATA said it would be impossible for a carrier to monitor actions of passengers and drivers in all of its vehicles. While acknowledging that a carrier may have some leverage with its drivers, ATA claimed it would have none over other occupants of a CMV. Werner echoed that position because a motor carrier would not have the ability to control a driver's or a passenger's use of seat belts. Werner stated, “Motor carriers should not be held liable for actions of an occupant of a CMV.”

    ATA also argued that the “proposed rule does not establish how carriers would be deemed to have `permitted' drivers to violate the seat belt use requirement.” ATA suggested that FMCSA seek a pattern of this type of violation or an investigation into a carrier's policies before taking action against a motor carrier over passengers not wearing seat belts.

    NAFA and NRECA stated that many of their members have policies that require their passengers to use seat belt restraints. NRECA wrote that the rulemaking is consistent with its culture of safety. Werner stated that it has a policy requiring seat belt use as well.

    FMCSA Response: Many States already hold automobile drivers responsible for their passengers' seat-belt use. This rule extends that principle to all property-carrying CMVs. Commercial drivers are already required to satisfy themselves that the vehicle is in good working order (49 CFR 392.7); requiring them to ensure that occupants have fastened their seat belts is a minor additional requirement.

    FMCSA disagrees with ATA's argument that motor carriers should not be held responsible for the activities of their employees and any authorized passengers (including employees and non-employees). Under 49 CFR 390.11, carriers have for decades been held responsible for their drivers' regulatory compliance—for example with the hours-of-service regulations and associated logbook requirements—even though the carrier is not able to physically supervise the driver's performance of these tasks. This rule adds a small burden (with significant potential safety benefits) to the obligations of the carrier and driver.

    Furthermore, the contention that a carrier would have no control over non-drivers riding in a truck contradicts the requirements of 49 CFR 392.60, which prohibits the transportation of anyone without specific written authorization from the carrier. The motor carrier, therefore, has knowledge of each occupant of the property-carrying vehicle and can easily require that authorized passengers buckle up.

    With regard to driver distraction, the rule does not require that drivers continuously monitor the passenger(s) while the vehicle is in operation. However, it is expected that the driver could observe whether the seat belts were in use before the vehicle is operated on a public road and remind the occupants seat belt usage is required if he or she notices that the passenger has unfastened the seat belt.

    B. Enforcement

    Comments: Both NSC and ATA stated that this rule would cause the States to adopt similar regulations shortly after a final rule, and supported this outcome. NSC believed it is time to establish a new, uniform national standard. It commented that such a standard for property-carrying CMV occupants may further help improve seat belt use, particularly among long-haul trucks that often travel through more than one State.

    ATA wrote that CMV enforcement officers would have the authority to cite large truck occupants for failing to wear a seat belt in all 50 States and attributed increased seat belt usage to widespread enforcement of existing seat belt laws. ATA stated their support for the adoption of primary seat belt laws for all motor vehicles by all States and the implementation of a variety of strategies to enhance the use of seat belts.

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees that enforcement has encouraged the growing use of seat belts, but existing State laws are not uniform with respect to seat belt use in trucks, especially where truck passengers are concerned. This rule creates that uniformity and removes any uncertainty about regulatory requirements that may exist among motor carriers or different States. FMCSA believes that this rulemaking will address those gaps in existing laws and inconsistent enforcement; and, as a result, compliance and safety will increase even further.

    C. Sleeper Berth Restraints

    Comments: One individual mentioned that it would be difficult to require restraints for the second driver of a team operation who is resting in the sleeper berth. A different commenter believed that sleeper berth belt use would be a good idea for a new rulemaking.

    The NTSB stated that all the reasons occupants should wear seat belts in the front of the CMV could be applied to the sleeper berth, and that restraints should be required there as well. Advocates, on the other hand, stated “Other than co-drivers using a sleeper berth, all CMV occupants and passengers seated in designated seating positions should be properly belted.” [Emphasis supplied.]

    Werner stated that it has a policy requiring sleeper berth restraints to be utilized.

    FMCSA Response: The robust sleeper berth restraints required by 49 CFR 393.76(h) are designed to keep occupants from being ejected from the CMV during a violent crash. That provision does not focus on the essential function of sleeper berths, i.e., to allow drivers to sleep, even while the CMV is in motion, and thus to avoid the fatigue that contributes significantly to crash risk. Because FMCSA has no information on the effectiveness of current sleeper berth restraints in reconciling crash protection with fatigue prevention, and because standard seat belts are not required to perform that dual function, the Agency chose not to delay the benefits of the NPRM while attempting to analyze the implications of requiring the use of sleeper berth restraints. Commenters provided no information that would enable the Agency to address that topic in this rulemaking.

    D. Buses

    Comments: A commenter believed the proposal would include passenger-carrying vehicles, and stated that safety would be compromised if a driver were held responsible for passengers' seat-belt use. This commenter thought that law enforcement should take the lead on compliance for passengers in a passenger-carrying CMV.

    The NTSB stated that the logic for requiring non-passenger-carrying CMVs to use seat belts is consistent with the logic for requiring seat belt use in passenger-carrying CMVs, and requested additional action for buses. The NTSB submitted several reports of crashes to illustrate the need for an additional rulemaking focusing on passenger-carrying CMVs. The NTSB suggested that the FMSCA address seat belt use for all occupants of passenger-carrying CMVs that are equipped with seat belts and stated, “A rule to address all CMV passengers who have a restraint available would improve the use of the protective equipment already in place and save lives.”

    FMCSA Response: The NPRM did not propose, nor does this final rule require, the use of seat belts in passenger-carrying CMVs. The Agency believes that, in the best interest of safety, this rulemaking should be completed as proposed without further delay. For these reasons, this final rule does not address seat belt use in passenger vehicles.

    The Agency, however, is committed to passenger safety. FMCSA has developed and distributed extensive pre-trip safety briefing materials, available through its Web site.1 NHTSA published a final rule requiring lap/shoulder belts for each passenger seat on newly manufactured over-the-road buses and other larger buses, with certain exclusions, effective November 28, 2016 (78 FR 70416, November 25, 2013). As a result of this rule, FMCSA is currently updating its outreach materials to encourage seat belt use when seat belts are available.

    1https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/passenger-safety/pre-trip-safety-information-bus-passengers.

    E. Horses and Articulated Trailers

    Comments: One individual asked if people caring for horses in trailers would be subject to this rulemaking.

    FMCSA Response: Attendants who ride in horse trailers are not protected by all of the safety requirements applicable to passengers in the cab of a truck or truck tractor, or a bus. As such, they are not subject to this final rule. Nonetheless, if there are designated seating positions for attendants in horse trailers, and seat belts are available, they should be used when the attendant is not moving about the trailer to care for the horses.

    F. Seat Belt Assembly Removed

    Comments: Advocates stated “Owners and drivers of CMVs who have removed a seat belt assembly from the vehicle should not be able to evade this regulation.” Advocates voiced concern about seat belts being removed in order to avoid compliance.

    FMCSA Response: The likelihood that an operator of a vehicle equipped with seat belts for all occupants would remove the belts provided for non-drivers in order to avoid compliance with this rule is very remote. The quantifiable burden of compliance is essentially nil, and there is no obvious reason why anyone would remove the seat belts—it would take more work to remove the seat belts than to instruct drivers and authorized passengers to wear them.

    G. Data

    Comments: NSC believed the cost of the rule would be minimal, but stated that benefits could be much higher than FMCSA states in the proposal, and supported this conclusion with 2014 FARS data documenting that:

    . . . of the 337 large truck non-driver occupants involved in fatal crashes who were wearing a lap and/or shoulder belt, 6 percent were killed. Of the 186 non-driver occupants who were not wearing a lap and/or shoulder belt, 20 percent were killed. About 32 percent of these fatally injured unrestrained occupants were ejected from the truck.

    The FARS data cited by NSC are consistent with the 2013 FARS data upon which FMCSA relied in its consideration of the potential safety benefits of this rule. NSC commented that “seat belt use is the most effective countermeasure to prevent ejection. In one study of passenger vehicles, complete ejection was reduced by a factor of about 600, effectively eliminating complete ejections in those vehicles.” 2

    2 Funk JR, Cormier JM, Bain CE, Wirth JL, Bonugli EB, Watson RA. Factors Affecting Ejection Risk in Rollover Crashes. Ann Adv Automot Med. 2012 Oct; 56: 203-211.

    NSC also referred to the FMCSA Seat Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers Survey, noting that while 83.7 percent of CMV drivers utilize seat belts, only 72.9 percent of CMV passengers do.3

    3 Seat Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers, 2013 Survey; Executive Summary p. V. (Available in docket for this rule)

    CVSA referred back to the data referenced in its original petition that 34 percent of truck occupants killed in fatal crashes were not wearing a seat belt (based on 2011 LTCCS data) and re-stated the importance of this rulemaking.

    ATA supported the use of seat belts and pointed to data from the 2013 Seat Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers Survey 4 that show the use of seat belts is increasing

    4 2013 Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Belt Facts, Figures 1 and 2, available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Safety_Belt%20Factsheet_508.pdf

    Advocates re-stated the 2013 NHTSA FARS data presented by FMCSA, both in this final rule and the NPRM, to emphasize the “grim” nature of the statistics involving fatal crashes, particularly with respect to the ejection risk of unrestrained passengers.

    FMCSA Response: Although commenters reference various sources concerning seat belt use among truck occupants, FMCSA continues to rely upon 2013 NHTSA FARS data that document the increased risk of fatality and ejection involving unrestrained passengers to support the basis for issuing a final rule, and those numbers fall within the range presented by commenters. The data provided by commenters reinforces the societal and safety benefits of this rulemaking as a measure that will ensure increased seat belt use. Though the projected numbers of lives saved vary in the data, all of the calculations involve no cost and a very small amount of time spent complying with this rule.

    VI. Today's Final Rule

    This final rule makes no substantive changes to the 2015 NPRM. Under this final rule, 49 CFR 392.16 is revised to include requirements for seat belt usage by passengers in property-carrying CMVs.

    VII. Regulatory Analyses A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) and DOT policies and procedures, FMCSA must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant,” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the E.O. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one likely to result in a rule that may:

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities.

    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency.

    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof.

    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.

    FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, or significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This regulation will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, lead to a major increase in costs or prices, or have significant adverse effects on the United States economy.

    According to data from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, available in the docket for this rulemaking,5 in 2013, 348 non-driver occupants were in the truck at the time the vehicle was involved in a fatal crash and were wearing a lap or shoulder belt. Seventeen of those non-driver occupants were killed. Also in 2013, 122 non-driver occupants of large trucks were involved in fatal crashes and were not wearing a lap and/or shoulder belt; of these, 30 were killed. Sixteen of the 30 were totally or partially ejected from the truck. The fatality rate was five times lower for passengers who wore seat belts versus those who did not. Table 1 below presents the data described above.

    5See “Restraint Use and Ejection for Large Truck Passenger Fatalities in 2013,” Docket # FMCSA-2015-0396-0002.

    Table 1—Outcomes of Non-Driver Truck Occupants in Fatal Crashes [Source: 2013 NHTSA FARS] N Fatalities Fatality rate
  • (percent)
  • Non-Driver Occupants 470 47 10.0 Wearing Seat Belts 348 17 4.9 Not Wearing Seat Belts 122 30 24.6

    FMCSA believes that some of these fatalities involving occupants not wearing seat belts could have been prevented if this regulation had been in place. This conclusion is indirectly supported by a recent study,6 published by the Kentucky Injury Prevention and Research Center (KIPRC), which analyzed crash data from years 2000 to 2010. The study finds that “in a moving semi-truck collision, the odds for an injury were increased by 2.25 times for both semi-truck drivers and sleeper berth passengers who did not use occupant safety restraints” compared to those who did, with a 95 percent confidence interval ranging from an increased injury risk of 1.15 to 4.41 times to unrestrained occupants. This study provides empirical support to the safety benefits resulting from the use of occupant restraints by drivers and sleeper berth passengers—to whom the rule does not apply. FMCSA assumes that the safety benefits to passengers in property-carrying CMVs would be of similar magnitude to those noted in the KIPRC study.

    6 Bunn, Slavova, Robertson. “Motor Vehicle Injuries Among Semi Truck Drivers and Sleeper Berth Passengers,” Journal of Safety Research 44 (2013) 51-55; available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2012.09.003.

    While all States but one have seat belt laws, failure to use a belt may be either a primary or secondary offense and may not apply to a truck passenger. Furthermore, there may be differences in the vehicle weight threshold at which the law applies. Therefore, adopting a Federal rule applicable to non-driver occupants of property-carrying CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, will provide a uniform national standard. To maintain eligibility for Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants, States would be required to adopt compatible seat belt rules for non-driver occupants of property-carrying CMVs within 3 years of the effective date of today's final rule.

    FMCSA does not know how many trucks carry passengers or precisely how many of those passengers fail to use existing seat belts, though the Seat Belt Usage by CMV Drivers Survey indicates that, as of 2013, 73 percent of passengers in CMVs subject to this rule utilize existing seat belts, leaving a 27 percent share that do not.7 However, given that the only quantifiable cost of the proposal is the negligible amount of time needed for occupants to buckle their seat belts,8 the rule would benefit motor carrier employees and passengers. Seat belts have been proven to save lives. While an estimate of the number of CMV-related fatalities and injuries that could be avoided cannot be provided based on the available data, FMCSA believes motor carriers' and drivers' compliance with today's final rule requiring the use of seat belts by non-driver occupants will save lives.

    7 Seat Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers, 2013 Survey; Executive Summary p. V. (Available in docket for this rule)

    8 FMCSA acknowledges that there is a potential cost for the lost freedom of choice to not wear a seat belt, for CMV passengers in the states where no law currently requires them to use the installed seat belts. FMCSA is unable to quantify this cost, but believes that the safety benefits described herein weigh overwhelmingly in favor of requiring the use of seat belts in this case.

    In addition to the data provided in the docket during the NPRM stage of this rulemaking action, FMCSA received data from several commenters, with more extensive claims about lives saved by the use of seat belts.

    FMCSA also became aware of another Federal survey on this topic, conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).9 The NIOSH survey found that 86 percent of long-haul truck drivers self-reported regular use of seat belts, a result comparable to the FMCSA Seat Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers Survey that estimated this value to be 83.7 percent. While the NIOSH study does not speak to the frequency of passenger seat belt use, the similarity in the estimated rate of seat belt use among drivers between these surveys reinforces the Agency's confidence in the FMCSA survey's estimates of passenger seat belt use. Additionally, this did not alter the Agency's initial conclusions about data, as the final rule's findings are consistent with the proposed rule's conclusions.

    9 NIOSH National Survey of Long-Haul Truck Drivers; Injury and Safety. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631642/pdf/nihms726279.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2016.

    The Agency believes the potential economic impact of this action is positive, because it is likely that some lives will be saved at a cost that would not begin to approach the $100 million annual threshold for economic significance. Moreover, the Agency does not expect the rule to generate substantial congressional or public interest, as there were relatively few comments to the proposed rule, and most were generally positive. This proposed rule therefore has not been formally reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and 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. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996), FMCSA does not expect the rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA believes the cost is minimal and poses no disproportionate burden to small entities.

    Consequently, I certify that the proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million (which is the value of $100 million in 1995 after adjusting for inflation to 2014) or more in any 1 year.

    D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The Agency determined that this rule will not create an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed rulemaking in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.

    G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has Federalism implications if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on the States. FMCSA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and determined that it does not have Federalism implications.

    H. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.

    I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments)

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.

    J. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. No new information collection requirements are associated with this final rule.

    K. National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004) that this action does not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Therefore, this final rule is categorically excluded (CE) from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1, paragraph 6(bb) of Appendix 2. The CE under paragraph 6(bb) addresses regulations concerning vehicle operation safety standards. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov.

    FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of criteria pollutants.

    L. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental justice effects of this rule in accordance with the E.O., and has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with this rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.

    M. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, the rule does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

    N. E-Government Act of 2002

    The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. FMCSA has not completed an assessment of the handling of PII in connection with today's proposal because the final rule does not involve PII.

    O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a separate statement to OMB. Because FMCSA does not adopt its own technical standards, there is no need to submit a statement to OMB on this matter.

    P. Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rule will not require the collection of any personally identifiable information.

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. This final rule will not result in a new or revised Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.

    List of Subjects for 49 CFR Part 392

    Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration amends 49 CFR part 392 as follows:

    PART 392—DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES 1. The authority citation for part 392 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 13902, 31136, 31151, 31502; Section 112 of Pub. L. 103- 311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676 (1994), as amended by sec. 32509 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 805 (2012); and 49 CFR 1.87.

    2. Revise § 392.16 to read as follows:
    § 392.16 Use of seat belts.

    (a) Drivers. No driver shall operate a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver to operate a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, that has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat unless the driver is properly restrained by the seat belt assembly.

    (b) Passengers. No driver shall operate a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver to operate a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, that has seat belt assemblies installed at the seats for other occupants of the vehicle unless all other occupants are properly restrained by such seat belt assemblies.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13099 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    81 109 Tuesday, June 7, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service 7 CFR Parts 210, 215, 220, 225, 226, and 235 [FNS-2016-0040] RIN 0584-AE08 Child Nutrition Program Integrity; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule proposes to codify several provisions of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 affecting the integrity of the Child Nutrition Programs, including the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the Special Milk Program for Children, the School Breakfast Program, the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and State Administrative Expense Funds. The Department is proposing to establish criteria for assessments against State agencies and program operators who jeopardize the integrity of any Child Nutrition Program; establish procedures for termination and disqualification of entities in the SFSP; modify State agency site review requirements in the CACFP; establish State liability for reimbursements incurred as a result of a State's failure to conduct timely hearings in the CACFP; establish criteria for increased State audit funding for CACFP; establish procedures to prohibit the participation of entities or individuals terminated from any of the Child Nutrition Programs; establish serious deficiency and termination procedures for unaffiliated sponsored centers in the CACFP; eliminate cost-reimbursement food service management company contracts in the NSLP; and establish procurement training requirements for State agency and school food authority staff in the NSLP. In addition, this rulemaking would make several operational changes to improve oversight of an institution's financial management and would also include several technical corrections to the regulations. The proposed rule is intended to improve the integrity of all Child Nutrition Programs. The comment period is being extended until July 7, 2016, to provide additional time for interested parties to review and submit comments on this proposed rule.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule that was published on March 29, 2016 (81 FR 17564) has been extended from May 31, 2016 to July 7, 2016. To be assured of consideration, written comments must be postmarked on or before July 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested persons to submit written comments on this proposed rule. In order to ensure proper receipt, written comments must be submitted through one of the following methods only:

    Preferred method: Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Comments should be addressed to Andrea Farmer, Chief, Community Meals Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to the Food and Nutrition Service, Child Nutrition Programs, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594, during normal business hours of 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Comments sent by other methods not listed above will not be able to be accepted and subsequently, not posted. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Duplicate comments are not considered. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. The Department will make the comments publicly available on the Internet via http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Smith, Community Meal Programs Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service at (703) 305-2590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Comment Procedures II. Executive Summary I. Public Comment Procedures

    Your written comments on the proposed rule should be specific, should be confined to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and should explain the reason(s) for any change you recommend or proposal(s) you oppose. Where possible, you should reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposal you are addressing. We invite specific comments on various aspects of the rule as described later in this preamble. We also invite comments from State agencies, sponsors, and providers on the administrative cost of compliance with any of the provisions in the rule. Additionally, we invite comments on the potential impact of the changes in the proposed rule on Program access, particularly in areas through the country where there are a limited number of providers available to operate the Programs. Comments received after the close of the comment period (refer to DATES) will not be considered or included in the Administrative Record for the final rule.

    We also invite your comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

    (1) Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?

    (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?

    (3) Does the format of the rule (e.g., grouping and order of sections, use of headings, and paragraphing) make it clearer or less clear?

    (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it was divided into more (but shorter) sections?

    (5) Is the description of the rule in the preamble section entitled “Background and Discussion of the Proposed Rule” helpful in understanding the rule? How could this description be more helpful in making the rule easier to understand?

    II. Executive Summary Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This proposed rule would codify several provisions of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA), Public Law 111-296, that affect the integrity of the Child Nutrition Programs, including the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the Special Milk Program for Children (SMP), the School Breakfast Program (SBP), the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and State Administrative Expense Funds (SAE). In addition, this rule would incorporate policy changes resulting from several findings from recently conducted targeted management evaluations of the CACFP by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), and USDA Office of Inspector General audit findings, as well as other miscellaneous revisions to the regulations. The rule is intended to improve the integrity of all Child Nutrition Programs.

    USDA anticipates that the provisions under this proposed rule would be implemented 90 days following publication of the final rule, with the exception of those related to CACFP audit funds and those related to assessments against State agencies and program operators. The provision granting eligible State agencies additional CACFP audit funds will be implemented upon publication of the final rule. Because States and school districts have been working diligently to implement the provisions of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, USDA anticipates that the provision establishing criteria for assessments against State agencies and program operators would be implemented one school year following publication of the final rule to provide entities the time they need to complete successful implementation.

    Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    The major provisions addressed in this rule are:

    Section 303 of the HHFKA: Fines for Violating Program Requirements—Section 303 of the HHFKA requires the Secretary to establish criteria for the imposition of fines in the Child Nutrition Programs, referred to as assessments in this proposed rule. An assessment refers to a required payment of funds from non-Federal sources. Under section 303, the Secretary or a State agency may establish an assessment against any school food authority or school administering the Child Nutrition Programs if the Secretary or the State agency determines that the school or school food authority failed to correct severe mismanagement of any program, failed to correct repeated violations of program requirements, or disregarded a requirement of which they have been informed. Section 303 also provides the Secretary the authority to establish an assessment against any State agency if the Secretary determines the State agency has failed to correct severe mismanagement of any program, failed to correct repeated violations of program requirements, or disregarded a requirement of which they have been informed.

    Section 322 of the HHFKA: SFSP Disqualification—Section 322 requires the Secretary to establish procedures for the termination and disqualification of entities participating in the SFSP, to maintain a list of entities that have been terminated or disqualified from SFSP, and to make this list available to States for use in approving or renewing service institutions' applications for SFSP participation.

    Section 331(b) of the HHFKA: State Agency/Sponsor Review Requirements in the CACFP—Section 331(b) requires the Secretary to develop for State agencies additional criteria or priorities for use in choosing institutions for review, including institutions at risk of having serious management problems and institutions conducting activities other than the CACFP.

    Section 332 of the HHFKA: State Liability for Payments to Aggrieved Child Care Institutions—Section 332 requires State agencies to pay all valid claims for reimbursement, from non-Federal sources, if the required timeframes for a fair hearing are not met.

    Section 335 of the HHFKA: CACFP Audit Funding—Section 335 allows the Department to increase the amount of audit funds made available to a CACFP State agency if the State agency demonstrates it can effectively use the funds to improve Program management in accordance with criteria established by the Department.

    Section 362 of the HHFKA: Disqualified Schools, Institutions, and Individuals—Section 362 makes any school, institution, service institution, facility, or individual that has been terminated from any Child Nutrition Program and who is on the CACFP or SFSP National Disqualified List ineligible for participation in or administration of any Child Nutrition Program.

    Costs and Benefits

    While all entities—school food authorities, schools, institutions, sponsors sites, sponsoring organizations, day care centers and State agencies—administering Child Nutrition Programs will be affected by this rulemaking, the economic effect is not expected to be significant as explained below.

    The comment period for this proposed rule is extended until July 7, 2016 to provide additional time for interested parties to review and submit comments on this proposed rule.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Yvette S. Jackson, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13489 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 730, 747, 748, and 762 [Docket No. 160303182-6182-01] RIN 0694-AG89 Amendment to the Export Administration Regulations: Removal of Special Iraq Reconstruction License AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) proposes to amend the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to remove the Special Iraq Reconstruction License (SIRL) from the EAR. The action, if published in final form, would further the objectives of the Retrospective Regulatory Review Initiative that directs BIS and other federal agencies to streamline regulations and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on the public. Specifically, the SIRL is outdated and seldom used by exporters, who now have more efficient options for exports and reexports to Iraq and transfers (in-country) in Iraq. This rule also makes conforming changes.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The identification number for this rulemaking is BIS-2016-0017.

    By email directly to: [email protected] Include RIN 0694-AG89 in the subject line.

    • By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Refer to RIN 0694-AG89.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Andrukonis, Director, Export Management and Compliance Division, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, by telephone at (202) 482-8016 or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) proposes to continue to advance the President's directives in the Retrospective Regulatory Review Initiative to streamline regulations, reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on the public and modernize export controls. (See “Improving Regulatory Review” (Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011). Consistent with these directives and objectives, in this rule, BIS proposes to remove the Special Iraq Reconstruction License (SIRL) from the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

    BIS established the SIRL in 2004 (69 FR 46070, July 30, 2004) to supplement options to facilitate exports and reexports to Iraq and transfers within Iraq of items in furtherance of civil reconstruction and other projects in Iraq funded by specified entities, including the United States government. At the time of its establishment, SIRL was intended to benefit the public by allowing for faster processing times as compared to individual license applications, and longer license validity periods, which would extend to the completion or discontinuation of the associated reconstruction project (in contrast, individual license applications generally only had a two-year validity period). However, exporters supplying items used in support of the civil reconstruction efforts in Iraq have not relied on the SIRL to advance those efforts, apparently because of its complexity and narrowness.

    Since 2004, BIS has processed only three applications for the SIRL, and granted only one approval, as compared to over 400 approved individual license applications for items to Iraq between 2012 and 2015. A SIRL applicant must provide details regarding the items to be exported or reexported to or transferred within Iraq, a narrative statement to identify all parties to the transaction, and a description of the reconstruction project that formed the basis of the transaction. In addition, the applicant must provide separate written statements from all agencies providing funding, and certification that all parties to the transaction will obtain licenses prior to transferring the items on the license application within Iraq or reexporting the items to end users not authorized under the SIRL. SIRL holders must submit reports when the Iraq project is discontinued or is completed and must get approval from BIS to make specified changes to the respective SIRL. These requirements are numerous compared to the individual license application process or the use of other authorizations such as eligible license exceptions, resulting in exporters choosing to apply for or use individual licenses and other authorizations under the EAR to ship items to Iraq instead of the SIRL.

    In addition, with the implementation of updates to the EAR, the relative advantages of the SIRL have been offset by changes to individual licenses and other types of authorizations offered by BIS that provide less complex alternatives to the SIRL. For example, in addition to streamlined procedures for submitting license applications and improved processing times, BIS now issues individual licenses with a four-year validity period, with agency consideration of requests to extend the validity period. Similarly, most individual licenses now do not include a requirement for reports on the authorized items exported or reexported. Additionally, license exceptions such as License Exception Temporary imports, exports, and reexports, and transfers (in-country) (TMP) (Section 740.9 of the EAR) have been expanded. (TMP now includes authorizations for temporary exports to a U.S. person's foreign subsidiary, affiliates, or facility abroad outside of Country Group B. Additionally, BIS will, upon request, authorize the retention of items abroad that were exported under License Exception TMP beyond one year and up to a total of four years.)

    Thus, the SIRL has proven not to be useful. Its removal from the EAR is consistent with and would advance regulatory initiatives priorities. As part of the removal, this rule also would make conforming changes in the EAR.

    Export Administration Act

    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.

    Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    2. This rule amends collections previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Numbers 0694-0088, “Simplified Network Application Processing + System (SNAP+) and the Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 43.8 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748; and 0694-0137, “License Exemptions and Exclusions.”

    The total burden hours associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) and the aforementioned OMB Control Numbers would be expected to decrease as a result of this proposed removal of part 747 of the EAR and related provisions if the rule is eventually issued in final form, thereby reducing burden hours associated with approved collections related to the EAR.

    Public comment is sought regarding: whether the collection of information, for the provisions BIS proposes to remove, is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce at the ADDRESSES above, and email to OMB at [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-7285.

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

    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

    4. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted in final form, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Economic Impact. BIS believes this rule would have no economic impact, because, although this rule would eliminate the availability of the SIRL, entities are not using the SIRL. Moreover, they could still obtain individual validated licenses from BIS to export their product(s). The individual validated licenses that BIS issues are generally less burdensome and require fewer compliance/reporting measures than the measures required for a SIRL. For example, a SIRL applicant must provide a narrative statement to identify all parties to the transaction, and a description of the reconstruction project. In addition, the applicant must provide separate written statements for all participating agencies and certification that all parties to the transaction will obtain licenses prior to transferring items within Iraq or reexporting items outside of Iraq for end users not authorized under the SIRL. SIRL holders must submit reports when the Iraq project is discontinued or is completed and must get prior approval for any changes to their SIRL. Although these requirements may be included as conditions on an individual validated license, BIS's license applications review process for individual validated licenses includes other methods, less burdensome on the exporter, to vet the bona fides of parties to the proposed transaction and to verify compliance. Also, impacted entities would have the convenience of applying for a license via the Simplified Network Application Process-Redesign (SNAP-R) System, an updated system for electronically filing export and reexport license applications, which is not available for the submission of SIRL applications. Finally, the historical lack of usage of the SIRL does not warrant maintaining such a complex option.

    Number of Small Entities. Since the SIRL's introduction in 2004, there have been only three applications for it, with only one application approved. Due to the nature of the SIRL and the complexity of its requirements, BIS expects that past applicants would be considered large entities under the Small Business Administration's size standards. However, BIS does not collect data on the size or annual revenue of these entities, and thus some of these entities may be considered small under the SBA size standards. Also, although small entities likely would not be the direct or the primary users of the SIRL, BIS acknowledges that small entities may have been parties to SIRL transactions. To assist in the evaluation of a significant economic impact of this rule on a substantial number of small entities, BIS welcomes comments to explain how and to what extent your business or organization could be affected, if your business or organization is a small entity and if adoption of any of the amendments discussed in this proposed rulemaking could have a significant financial impact on your operations.

    List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 730

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials.

    15 CFR Part 747

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    15 CFR Part 748

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    15 CFR Part 762

    Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Confidential business information, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, parts 730, 747, 748 and 762 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

    PART 730—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 730 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. 4305; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR, 1976 Comp., p. 114; E.O. 12002, 42 FR 35623, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 133; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12214, 45 FR 29783, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 12981, 60 FR 62981, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 419; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2014 Comp., p. 223; Notice of May 6, 2015, 80 FR 26815 (May 8, 2015); Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015); Notice of September 18, 2015, 80 FR 57281 (September 22, 2015); Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015); Notice of January 20, 2016, 81 FR 3937 (January 22, 2016).

    Supplement No. 1 to Part 730— [Amended]
    2. Supplement No. 1 to Part 730 is amended by revising the entry for Collection number “0694-0129”. The revision reads as follows: SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO PART 730—INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS Collection No. Title Reference in the EAR *         *         *         *         *         *         * 0694-0129 Export and Reexport Controls For Iraq §§ 732.3, 738, 744.18, 746.3(b)(1), 750, 758, 762, 772, 774. PART 747—[REMOVED AND RESERVED] 3. Remove and reserve part 747. PART 748—[AMENDED] 4. The authority citation for part 748 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

    § 748.1—[Amended]
    5. Section 748.1 is amended by removing the parenthetical phrase “(other than Special Iraq Reconstruction License applications)” from the first sentence of paragraph (d).
    § 748.7—[Amended]
    6. Section 748.7 is amended by removing the parenthetical phrase “(other than Special Iraq Reconstruction Licenses)” from paragraphs (a) and (d). PART 762—[AMENDED] 7. The authority citation for part 762 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

    § 762.2—[Amended]
    8. Section 762.2 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b)(17). Dated: June 1, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13397 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 1, 38, 40, and 170 RIN 3038-AD52 Public Staff Roundtable on Elements of Regulation Automated Trading; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of staff roundtable discussion; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 10, 2016, staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) will hold a public roundtable meeting, at which invited participants will discuss specific elements of the Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding Regulation Automated Trading (Regulation AT). The staff roundtable, which will be held at the Commission's Washington, DC, office, will commence at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m. Additional information, including the agenda, is available in the “Press Room” section of the Commission's Web site at www.cftc.gov. In conjunction with the staff roundtable on June 10, the Commission is reopening the comment period for specific elements of Regulation AT. This additional comment period is intended to accept public comments solely on the specific items in the agenda and that arise during the staff roundtable.

    DATES:

    The staff roundtable will take place on Friday, June 10, 2016, commencing at 9:00 a.m. and ending at 4:00 p.m. The comment period will be reopened as of June 10, 2016, and will close on June 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Roundtable: The staff roundtable will take place in the Conference Center at the Commission's headquarters at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC.

    Comments: Members of the public may submit comment letters, identified by RIN 3038-AD52, by any of the following methods:

    CFTC Web site: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Comments Online process on the Web site.

    Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Regarding the staff roundtable, please contact the CFTC's Office of Public Affairs at (202) 418-5080. Regarding the proposed rules in Regulation AT, please contact Sebastian Pujol Schott, Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight (DMO), [email protected] or 202-418-5641; Marilee Dahlman, Special Counsel, DMO, [email protected] or 202-418-5264; Mark Schlegel, Special Counsel, DMO, [email protected] or 202-418-5055; Andrew Ridenour, Special Counsel, DMO, [email protected] or 202-418-5438; Joseph Otchin, Attorney Advisor, DMO, [email protected] or 202-418-5623; Michael Penick, Economist, Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), [email protected] or 202-418-5279; Richard Haynes, Supervisory Research Analyst, OCE, [email protected] or 202-418-5063; Carlin Metzger, Trial Attorney, Division of Enforcement, [email protected] or 312-596-0536; or John Dunfee, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, [email protected] or 202-418-5396.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Commission's NPRM for Regulation Automated Trading was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2015 (80 FR 78824). The NPRM was open for a 90-day comment period, from December 17, 2015 through March 16, 2016. The comment file for Regulation AT is available at: http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/CommentList.aspx?id=1646.

    II. Staff Roundtable Agenda

    The staff roundtable 1 on June 10, 2016 will address the following items: (1) potential amendments to the proposed definition of “Direct Electronic Access” (DEA), consistent with and in furtherance of Regulation AT's proposed registration regime; (2) potential quantitative measures to establish the population of AT Persons; (3) a potential alternative to Regulation AT's requirements for AT Persons in proposed §§ 1.80, 1.81, and 1.83(a), which alternative could require that FCMs impose specific requirements on their customers and perform due diligence regarding customers' compliance; (4) AT Persons' compliance with Regulation AT's proposed requirements for Algorithmic Trading and Algorithmic Trading systems when using third-party algorithms or systems; and (5) source code access and retention.

    1See “CFTC Staff to Hold Roundtable on Certain Elements of Regulation AT,” (May 27, 2016), available at: http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7377-16.

    The staff roundtable will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis, and will take place in the Conference Center at the Commission's headquarters at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC. Members of the public may also listen by telephone. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation. The information for the conference call may be found on the CFTC's Web site at www.cftc.gov.

    III. Reopening of Comment Period

    In conjunction with the staff roundtable on June 10, the Commission is also reopening the comment period for specific elements of Regulation AT. The comment period will be reopened as of June 10, 2016, and will close on June 24, 2016. The additional comment period is intended for public comments solely on the specific items in the agenda for the staff roundtable and that arise during the roundtable. Members of the public may submit comment letters, identified by RIN 3038-AD52, by any of the methods indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Each section of a comment letter should indicate the roundtable agenda item that such section addresses.

    Please submit comments by only one method. All comments should be submitted in English or accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that may be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in 17 CFR 145.9. The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, prescreen, filter, redact, refuse, or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the rulemaking will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under FOIA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 2, 2016, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13385 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Part 571 [BOP-1110-P] RIN 1120-AB10 Compassionate Release AGENCY:

    Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) proposes changes to its regulations on compassionate release, including changing the title to “Reduction in Sentence in Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances”; deleting language which indicates that the Bureau will only allow reductions in sentence for circumstances “which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the court at the time of sentencing”; and modifying and adding language to clarify the ineligibility of certain inmates for reductions in sentence and the eligibility of District of Columbia Code felony inmates (D.C. Code felony inmates) for medical and geriatric release.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street NW., Washington, DC 20534.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Qureshi, Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 353-8248.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Posting of Public Comments

    Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

    If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

    If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment contains so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on www.regulations.gov.

    Personal identifying information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Bureau published a proposed rule revising all of the regulations in 28 CFR Subpart G on December 21, 2006 (71 FR 76619). We also published an interim rule making a technical change to the regulations on February 28, 2013 (78 FR 13478). Subsequently, we published another interim rule on December 5, 2013 (78 FR 73083), which provides that the Bureau's General Counsel will solicit the opinion of the United States Attorney in the district in which the inmate was sentenced when considering an inmate for compassionate release. It also states that the final decision is subject to the general supervision and direction of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.

    We now withdraw the proposed rule published in 2006 and instead propose the following changes to the regulations on compassionate release: (1) Changing the title to “Reduction in Sentence in Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances”; (2) deleting language which indicates that the Bureau will only allow reductions in sentence for circumstances “which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the court at the time of sentencing”; and (3) modifying and adding language to clarify the ineligibility of certain inmates for reductions in sentence and the eligibility of District of Columbia Code felony inmates (D.C. Code felony inmates) for medical and geriatric release.

    Changing the Title to “Reduction in Sentence in Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances.”

    28 CFR part 571, subpart G, is currently entitled “Compassionate Release (Procedures for the Implementation of 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) and 4205(g)).” 28 CFR part 572, subpart E, is likewise entitled “Compassionate Release (Procedures for the Implementation of 4205(g)).” Title 18 of the United States Code, section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which authorizes these regulations, does not use the term “compassionate release.” Instead, the statute states that “the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . if it finds that—(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction . . . .” [Emphasis added.]

    Likewise, 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) also does not use the term “compassionate release,” instead stating that “upon motion of the Bureau of Prisons, the court may reduce any minimum term to the time the defendant has served.” [Emphasis added.] We are therefore proposing to change the title of subpart G to read “Reduction in Sentence in Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances” to more accurately conform to the language of the statutes. We also propose to replace the phrase “compassionate release” with “reduction in sentence” where it appears in § 572.40.

    Deleting Language Indicating That the Bureau Will Only Allow Reductions in Sentence for Circumstances “Which Could Not Reasonably Have Been Foreseen by the Court at the Time of Sentencing”

    Section 571.60 is a statement of purpose and scope of the subpart. It describes that, “[u]nder 18 U.S.C. 4205(g), a sentencing court, on motion of the Bureau of Prisons, may make an inmate with a minimum term sentence immediately eligible for parole by reducing the minimum term of the sentence to time served.” This regulation also states that “[u]nder 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), a sentencing court, on motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, may reduce the term of imprisonment of an inmate sentenced under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984.”

    Currently, the regulation indicates that the Bureau uses these statutes “in particularly extraordinary or compelling circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the court at the time of sentencing.” However, neither the language regarding whether the court could reasonably foresee circumstances nor a reference to such a requirement is present in either statute. The Bureau has found it problematic and untenable to attempt to determine what the court could reasonably have foreseen at the time of sentencing and to apply this restriction in deciding whether to seek a reduction in sentence under this subpart. For that reason, we propose to delete the phrase “which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the court at the time of sentencing” throughout the subpart.

    Clarifying Ineligibility of Certain Inmates for Reductions in Sentence and Eligibility of District of Columbia Code Felony Inmates for Medical and Geriatric Release

    Under section 11201 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Pub. 105-33, 111 Stat. 71 (codified at D.C. Code § 24-101(a),(b)), the Bureau has custodial responsibility for felons sentenced pursuant to the District of Columbia Code. The Bureau also houses certain military prisoners and state prisoners in its facilities. The D.C. Code contains specific provisions that govern parole or suspension of a sentence on the basis of medical or geriatric conditions. See D.C. Code §§ 24-461 to 468. We now propose to make the following changes to clarify for inmates and the public the availability or unavailability of reductions in sentence and other forms of release to the different types of inmates in the Bureau's facilities: (1) Revising § 571.64 to include military prisoners in that section's list of inmates ineligible for reductions in sentence under the U.S. Code; and (2) adding a new paragraph (b) to § 571.60 stating that the Bureau may seek or support medical or geriatric parole or suspension of sentence for D.C. Code inmates in its custody and making it clear that the Bureau will not seek reductions in sentence for D.C. Code inmates under the U.S. Code.

    Currently, § 571.64 reads as follows: “The Bureau of Prisons has no authority to initiate a request under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) or 3582(c)(1)(A) on behalf of state prisoners housed in Bureau of Prisons facilities or D.C. Code offenders confined in federal institutions. The Bureau of Prisons cannot initiate such a motion on behalf of federal offenders who committed their offenses prior to November 1, 1987, and received non-parolable sentences.” The current language does not mention military prisoners, who are also ineligible under these provisions. We propose to revise the language of § 571.64 to add military prisoners to its list of inmates for whom the Bureau will not seek reductions in sentence. The proposed language in § 571.64 would no longer refer to D.C. Code offenders, because we propose to add a new paragraph (b) to § 571.60 that explains separately what forms of early release the Bureau will or will not seek on behalf of D.C. Code inmates.

    By adding a new paragraph (b) to § 571.60, the Bureau would make it clear that D.C. Code inmates who committed their offense on or after August 5, 2000, may be eligible for medical or geriatric suspension of sentence as described in sections 24-467 and 24-468 of the D.C. Code. A D.C. Code inmate in Bureau custody who meets the eligibility criteria of the D.C. Code may request that the Bureau seek such a suspension of sentence for the inmate consistent with sections 24-467 and 24-468 of the D.C. Code. The procedures set out in sections 571.61 through 571.63 will apply to the submission of such requests by inmates, and to their consideration and decision by the Bureau, consistent with the provisions of the D.C. Code.

    Section 571.60(b) also would make it clear that D.C. Code inmates who committed their offense before August 5, 2000, may be eligible for medical or geriatric parole as described in sections 24-461 through 24-465 and 24-467 of the D.C. Code. A D.C. Code inmate in Bureau custody who meets the eligibility criteria of the D.C. Code for such parole may request that the Bureau forward an application and documentation to the United States Parole Commission consistent with sections 24-464 and 24-465 of the D.C. Code.

    Section 571.60(b) would also make it clear that the Bureau will not seek reductions in sentence under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) or 3582(c)(1)(A) on behalf of D.C. Code inmates. The Bureau will consider requests from such inmates only under the conditions described in the D.C. Code for medical or geriatric parole or suspension of sentence.

    Other Minor Changes

    In section 571.62, Approval of request, we indicate that the “Bureau of Prisons makes a motion under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) or 3582(c)(1)(A) only after review of the request by” the Warden, the General Counsel, and either the Medical Director for medical referrals or the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division for non-medical referrals, and with the approval of the Director, Bureau of Prisons. We also indicate that after obtaining the opinion of either the Medical Director (or Acting Medical Director) or the Assistant Director (or Acting Assistant Director), Correctional Programs Division, the Office of General Counsel will determine if the request warrants approval.

    We propose a minor change in this section and in section 571.63 to indicate that when we refer to the General Counsel, we refer to the Office of General Counsel, in order to indicate that multiple staff will be assigned review of the requests. We also make minor changes to indicate that either the Medical Director or the Acting Medical Director and either the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division, or the Acting Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division, may act under this regulation. This will expedite processing of the requests in the event of possible absences of the Medical Director or Assistant Director.

    We also propose to make another minor change to the phrase “particularly extraordinary or compelling” throughout the regulations. Under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the court may, upon motion of the Director, grant a reduction in sentence if it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction . . . .” We therefore propose to change our phrase in these regulations to “extraordinary and compelling” instead of “particularly extraordinary or compelling” to conform to the language of the statute.

    Executive Order 12866

    This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Director, Bureau of Prisons has determined that this regulation is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this regulation has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Executive Order 13132

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This regulation pertains to the correctional management of inmates committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. Its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This regulation will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

    List of Subjects 28 CFR Part 571

    Prisoners.

    28 CFR Part 572

    Prisoners, probation and parole.

    Kathleen M. Kenney, Assistant Director/General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons.

    Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, we propose to amend 28 CFR parts 571 and 572, as follows.

    SUBCHAPTER D—COMMUNITY PROGRAMS AND RELEASE PART 571—RELEASE FROM CUSTODY 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 571 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3565; 3568 and 3569 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 3582, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 4161-4166 and 4201-4218 (Repealed as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984, as to offenses committed after that date), 5031-5042; 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510; U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 2; 28 CFR 1.1-1.10; D.C. Official Code 24-101, 24-461 through 24-468.

    Subpart G—Reduction in Sentence in Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances 2. Revise the heading of subpart G to read as set forth above. 3. In § 571.60, remove the phrase “particularly extraordinary or compelling” in the last sentence and add in its place the phrase “extraordinary and compelling”, remove the phrase “which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the court at the time of sentencing”, redesignate the text as paragraph (a), and add a new paragraph (b), to read as follows:
    § 571.60 Purpose and scope.

    (b) The Bureau may request the sentencing court to suspend a sentence on the basis of medical or geriatric conditions on behalf of offenders in its custody who were sentenced pursuant to the D.C. Code and who are eligible under D.C. Code §§ 24-467 and 24-468. The Bureau may submit an application and accompanying documentation to the United States Parole Commission for medical or geriatric parole on behalf of offenders in its custody who were sentenced pursuant to the D.C. Code and who are eligible under D.C. Code §§ 24-461 to 24-465 and 24-467. The Bureau will not entertain requests from offenders sentenced pursuant to the D.C. Code that the Bureau file motions under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) or 3582(c)(1)(A).

    4. In § 571.61, revise the heading, revise the third sentence of paragraph (a), and remove the phrase “extraordinary or compelling” in paragraph (a)(1) and add in its place “extraordinary and compelling”, and revise the second sentence of paragraph (b). The revisions read as follows:
    § 571.61 Initiation of request—extraordinary and compelling circumstances.

    (a) * * * An inmate may initiate a request for consideration under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) or 3582(c)(1)(A) only when there are extraordinary and compelling circumstances. * * *

    (b) * * * Staff shall refer a request received at the Central Office or at a Regional Office to the Warden of the Institution where the inmate is confined.

    5. In § 571.62, revise paragraph (a), paragraph (a)(2), and the second sentence of paragraph (b), to read as follows:
    § 571.62 Approval of request.

    (a) The Bureau of Prisons makes a motion under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) or 3582(c)(1)(A) only after review of the request by the Warden, the Office of General Counsel, and either the Medical Director (or Acting Medical Director) for medical referrals or the Assistant Director (or Acting Assistant Director), Correctional Programs Division for non-medical referrals, and with the approval of the Director, Bureau of Prisons.

    (2) After obtaining the opinion of either the Medical Director (or Acting Medical Director) or the Assistant Director (or Acting Assistant Director), Correctional Programs Division, the Office of General Counsel will determine if the request warrants approval. The Office of General Counsel will solicit the opinion of the United States Attorney in the district in which the inmate was sentenced. With these opinions, the Office of General Counsel shall forward the entire matter to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, for final decision, subject to the general supervision and direction of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.

    (b) * * * Upon receipt of notice that the sentencing court has entered an order granting the motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), the Warden of the institution where the inmate is confined shall release the inmate either forthwith or as soon as his medical condition permits and transportation can be arranged.

    6. Revise § 571.63(b) and (d), to read as follows:
    § 571.63 Denial of request.

    (b) When an inmate's request is denied by the Office of General Counsel or the Director, the inmate will receive a written notice and a statement of reasons for the denial. This denial constitutes a final administrative decision.

    (d) Because a denial by the Office of General Counsel or Director, Bureau of Prisons, constitutes a final administrative decision, an inmate may not appeal the denial through the Administrative Remedy Procedure.

    7. Revise § 571.64, to read as follows:
    § 571.64 Ineligible offenders.

    The Bureau of Prisons has no authority to initiate a request under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) or 3582(c)(1)(A) on behalf of—

    (a) A state prisoner housed in a Bureau facility;

    (b) A federal offender, serving a non-parolable sentence, who committed his or her offense before November 1, 1987; or

    (c) A military prisoner housed in a Bureau facility.

    PART 572—PAROLE 8. The authority citation for part 572 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 4205, 5015 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95-0.99.

    Subpart E—Reduction In Sentence (Procedures for the Implementation of 18 U.S.C. 4205(g)) 9. Revise the heading of Subpart E to read as set forth above. 10. Revise § 572.40 to read as follows:
    § 572.40 Reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g).

    18 U.S.C. 4205(g) was repealed effective November 1, 1987, but remains the controlling law for inmates whose offenses occurred prior to that date. For inmates whose offenses occurred on or after November 1, 1987, the applicable statute is 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). Procedures for reduction of sentence of an inmate under either provision are contained in 28 CFR part 571, subpart G.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13294 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0347] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks Murrells Inlet, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Murrells Inlet, SC. This safety zone is necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston 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 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0347 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 Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, 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 April 22, 2016, The Marsh Walk Group notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The fireworks are to be launched from the end of the Veterans Fishing Pier in Murrells Inlet, SC. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the pier.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9:15 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the Veterans pier located on the Atlantic Ocean. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:30 to 9:50 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Atlantic Ocean for less than 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. 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 vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (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 1 hour that would prohibit entry within 500 yards of the Veterans Pier. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0347 under the undesignated center heading Seventh Coast Guard District to read as follows:
    § 165.T07-0347 Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks Murrells Inlet, SC.

    (a) This rule establishes a safety zone on all Atlantic Ocean waters within a 500 yard radius of Veterans Pier, from which fireworks will be launched.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced on July 4, 2016 from 9:15 p.m. until 10 p.m.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13323 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0346] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks North Charleston, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Charleston, SC. This safety zone is necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston 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 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0346 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 Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, 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 April 18, 2016, the City of North Charleston notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge along the bank of the Cooper River at River Front Park in North Charleston, SC. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the barge.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the barge located at River Front Park on the Cooper River. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Cooper River for 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. 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 vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (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 1 hour that would prohibit entry within 500 yards of the fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0346 under the undesignated center heading Seventh Coast Guard District to read as follows:
    § 165.T07-0346 Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks North Charleston, SC.

    (a) This rule establishes a safety zone on all Cooper River waters within a 500 yard radius of barge, from which fireworks will be launched.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced on July 4, 2016 from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13322 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0320] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks North Myrtle Beach, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Myrtle Beach, SC. This safety zone is necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston 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 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0320 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 Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, 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 April 14, 2016, the North Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 to 9:55 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The fireworks are to be launched from the end of the Cherry Grove Fishing Pier in Myrtle Beach, SC. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the pier.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9:15 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the Cherry Grove pier located on the Atlantic Ocean. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:30 to 9:55 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Atlantic Ocean for less than 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. 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 vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (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 1 hour that would prohibit entry within 500 yards of the Cherry Grove Pier. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0320 under the undesignated center heading Seventh Coast Guard District to read as follows:
    § 165.T07-0320 Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks North Myrtle Beach, SC.

    (a) This rule establishes a safety zone on all Atlantic Ocean waters within a 500 yard radius of Cherry Grove Pier, from which fireworks will be launched.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced on July 4, 2016 from 9:15 p.m. until 10 p.m.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13326 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0241] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Swim Around Charleston; Charleston, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary moving safety zone during the Swim Around Charleston, a swimming race occurring on the Wando River, the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and the Ashley River, in Charleston, South Carolina scheduled for September 25, 2016. The temporary moving safety zone is necessary to protect swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the event. Persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0241 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 Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, 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 COTP Captain of the Port II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On March 17, 2016, Kathleen Wilson notified the Coast Guard that she will be sponsoring the Swim Around Charleston from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on September 25, 2016. The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's Authority to establish a safety zone: 33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United States during Swim Around Charleston.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Wando River, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and Ashley River, in Charleston, South Carolina during Swim Around Charleston on September 25, 2016. Approximately 120 swimmers are anticipated to participate in the race. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    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.

    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone would be enforced for only seven hours; (2) the safety zone would move with the participant vessels so that once the swimmers clear a portion of the waterway, the safety zone would no longer be enforced in that portion of the waterway; (3) although persons and vessels would not be able to enter or transit through the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels would still be able to enter or transit through the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    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 7 hours that would prohibit entry within 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, 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. 1226, 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0241 under the undesignated center heading Seventh Coast Guard District to read as follows:
    § 100.T07-0241 Safety Zone; Swim Around Charleston, Charleston, SC.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a moving safety zone: All waters 50 yards in front of the lead safety vessel preceding the first race participants, 50 yards behind the safety vessel trailing the last race participants, and at all times extend 100 yards on either side of safety vessels. The Swim Around Charleston swimming race consists of a 12 mile course that starts at Remley's Point on the Wando River in approximate position 32°48′49″ N., 79°54′27″ W., crosses the main shipping channel under the main span of the Ravenel Bridge, and finishes at the I-526 bridge and boat landing on the Ashley River in approximate position 32°50′14″ N., 80°01′23″ W. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) Definition. As used in this section, “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area, except persons and vessels participating in the Swim Around Charleston, or serving as safety vessels.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843)740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced on September 25, 2016 from 8:45 a.m. until 3:45 p.m.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13325 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464; FRL-9947-36-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to disapprove the portion of a Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other states. Disapproval will establish a 2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Louisiana to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states, unless we approve a SIP that meets these requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for Louisiana.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Sherry Fuerst 214-665-6454, [email protected] For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sherry Fuerst 214-665-6454, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable “infrastructure” elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain “good neighbor” provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission from Louisiana for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These sub-elements require that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to prohibit any emissions activity within the State from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” or “interfere with maintenance” of the applicable air quality standard in any other state.

    Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from electric utilities and industrial facilities, motor vehicles, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOCs. Because ground-level ozone formation increases with temperature and sunlight, ozone levels are generally higher during the summer. Increased temperature also increases emissions of VOCs and can indirectly increase NOX emissions.1

    1 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706, 75711 (December 3, 2015).

    We have addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to ozone in several past regulatory actions. The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 1998, addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.2 The rule required 22 states and the District of Columbia to amend their SIPs and limit NOX emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment. The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated in 2005, addressed both the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone standards under the good neighbor provision and required SIP revisions in 28 states and the District of Columbia to limit NOX and SO2 emissions that contribute to nonattainment of those standards.3 CAIR was remanded to us by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176. In response to the remand of CAIR, we promulgated the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern 4 portion of the United States.5 With respect to ozone, CSAPR limited ozone season NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs). CSAPR addressed interstate transport as to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, but did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

    2 NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998).

    3 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005).

    4 When we discuss the eastern United States we mean the contiguous U.S. states excluding the 11 western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

    5 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).

    II. Louisiana SIP Revision Addressing Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    On June 4, 2013, Louisiana provided us with a SIP submittal addressing CAA section 110(a)(2) “infrastructure” requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This action concerns the portion of the SIP submittal pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement to address the interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We proposed approval on other portions of the State's submittal relating to CAA section 110(a)(2) elements A, B, C, D(i)(II), D(ii), E, F, G, H, J, K, L, and M in a separate action signed on May 18, 2016.

    In its SIP submittal, Louisiana provided an “Infrastructure Checklist” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and stated that the submittal substantiates that the State has adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the State that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. The checklist states that the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) submitted and we approved CAIR SIPs for both sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions, citing 72 FR 39741 (July 20, 2007) and 72 FR 55064 (September 28, 2007).6 The checklist also notes that the controls installed to comply with CAIR are required by State law at Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.905 to be “used and diligently maintained.” The checklist also provided narrative on the D.C. Circuit's 2012 decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA which vacated CSAPR and the November 19, 2012, memorandum explaining the continued implementation of CAIR until a replacement rule could be implemented.

    6 CAIR found that sulfur dioxide and NOX emission limits were needed in Louisiana to address interstate transport of air pollution for the 1997 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005).

    Louisiana's SIP submittal included a response to comments document which, among other things, summarized and responded to February 15, 2013, comments from us on what was then the State's proposed SIP revision. In our comments on the proposed SIP revision, we noted that the information LDEQ provided was based upon the old 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements and was therefore not sufficient to support a conclusion that the State's ozone emissions do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In its response, Louisiana disagreed, and accordingly chose not to revise its proposed SIP revision or provide any additional support for its conclusions. Instead, Louisiana contended in its response to comments that, “the information based on the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements is relevant . . . through the CAIR NOX program in that it demonstrates the state's most recent efforts in maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to alleviate transport pollutants.” A copy of the Louisiana SIP submittal, which includes our February 15, 2013, comment letter and the State's response to comments, may be accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464.

    III. The EPA's Evaluation

    As noted above, we informed Louisiana in our February 15, 2013, comment letter that the information provided in the SIP submittal would not itself be sufficient to conclude that the State has adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the State that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. However, the SIP submittal provided by Louisiana cited the State's approved CAIR SIP as support for its conclusion that the State satisfied its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    First, CAIR was invalidated by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (2008). The D.C. Circuit held, among other things, that the CAIR rule did not “achieve[] something measureable toward the goal of prohibiting sources within the State from contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in any other State.” Id. at 908; see also, e.g., id. at 916 (EPA is not exercising its authority to make measureable progress towards the goals of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because the emission budgets were insufficiently related to the statutory mandate). In promulgating CSAPR, we corrected our prior approvals of states' CAIR SIPs, including Louisiana's approved CAIR SIPs, “to rescind any statements that the SIP submissions either satisfy or relieve the state of the obligation to submit a SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone and/or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or any statements that EPA's approval of the SIP submissions either relieve EPA of the obligation to promulgate a FIP or remove EPA's authority to promulgate a FIP.” 76 FR 48208, 48220. In reviewing CSAPR, the D.C. Circuit concluded that our correction of the prior CAIR approvals was appropriate, explaining “when our decision in North Carolina deemed CAIR to be an invalid effort to implement the requirements of the good neighbor provision, that ruling meant that the initial approval of the CAIR SIPs was in error at the time it was done.” EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 133 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Therefore, the D.C. Circuit has clearly concluded that states cannot rely on CAIR or previously approved CAIR SIPs to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    Even if Louisiana could rely on its CAIR SIPs, as we stated in our comment letter, the modeling and rulemaking conducted for both CAIR and CSAPR addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS, not the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS at issue in this action. EPA-approved rules implementing a prior, less stringent NAAQS are not adequate on their own to support a demonstration regarding the impacts of in-state emissions on air quality in other states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.7 Additionally, although we approved the Louisiana abbreviated SIP implementing the CAIR NOX trading program, neither the states nor the EPA are currently implementing the ozone-season NOX trading program promulgated in CAIR, as it has been replaced by CSAPR. Moreover, although the State cites to a State regulation requiring that already-installed controls be “used” and “maintained,” the State does not provide any explanation as to whether the sources are subject to specific emissions limitations or how the use of the controls will impact downwind air quality.

    7 Louisiana's citation to our July 20, 2007 action approving Louisiana's CAIR sulfur dioxide SIP revision is particularly inapplicable. 72 FR 39741. Sulfur dioxide is not a precursor or pollutant that contributes to ozone formation, and therefore, the implementation of any control requirements to address sulfur dioxide emissions is irrelevant to our analysis of the State's control requirements to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    Finally, it is no longer appropriate for Louisiana to rely on the D.C. Circuit decision vacating CSAPR as a basis for concluding that its SIP is adequate. Although the D.C. Circuit initially held that states did not have an obligation to make a SIP submission addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until we first quantified a state's emission reduction obligation, see EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7, on April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). The Supreme Court explained that “nothing in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide specific metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor obligations.” Id. at 1601.

    Because the Louisiana submittal addressed by this action concerns states' interstate transport obligations for a different and more stringent standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), it is not sufficient to merely cite as evidence of compliance that these older programs have been implemented by the states or the EPA.8 The submittal lacks any technical analysis evaluating or demonstrating whether emissions in each state impact air quality in other states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, the submittal does not provide us with a basis to agree with the conclusion that the State already has adequate provisions in the SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, we propose to find that the Louisiana submittal is not adequate as it did not evaluate whether emissions from the State significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.

    8 This is particularly true where, as here, Louisiana has failed to include any analysis of the downwind impacts of emissions originating within their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v. EPA, 608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

    Although the Louisiana submittal contains no data or analysis to support their conclusion with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, we recently shared new technical information with states to facilitate efforts to address interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Such technical information provides further support to our determination that Louisiana is projected to significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We developed this technical information following the same approach used to evaluate interstate transport in CSAPR in order to support the recently proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015) (“CSAPR Update Rule”).

    In CSAPR, we used detailed air quality analyses to determine whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state was not considered “linked” to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was, therefore, not considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.

    In CSAPR, we proposed an air quality screening threshold of one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one percent was appropriate. We evaluated the comments received and ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low threshold because there were important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a higher or lower threshold than one percent, we compiled the contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. Our analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states, while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting downwind receptors would be excluded. In addition, we determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one percent threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone even at low levels. We also determined that a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. We determined that a “0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have a very small impact on those receptors—an indicator that emission controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.”

    In the final CSAPR, we determined that one percent was a reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the previous use of a one percent threshold in CAIR. We used a single “bright line” air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm. The projected contribution from each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled ozone, and then compared to the one percent threshold. We concluded that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm. We have subsequently proposed to use the same threshold for purposes of evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone standard in the CSAPR Update Rule.

    In 2015 we (1) provided notice of data availability (NODA) for the updated ozone transport modeling for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for public review and comment (80 FR 46271, August 4, 2015), and (2) proposed the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015). The proposed CSAPR Update Rule would further restrict ozone season NOX emissions from EGUs in 23 states, including Louisiana, beginning in the 2017 ozone season.

    The modeling data released in this NODA was also used to support the proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The moderate area attainment date for the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, we proposed that 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. We used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting technical support documents have been included in the docket for this SIP action.

    The modeling data released in the NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule are the most up-to-date information we have developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. As discussed in the CSAPR Update Rule proposal, the air quality modeling (1) identified locations in the U.S. where we expect nonattainment or maintenance problems in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance receptors), and (2) quantified the projected contributions of emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at those receptors in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720-30, December 3, 2015). Consistent with CSAPR, we proposed to use a threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per billion) to identify linkages between upwind states and downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors. We proposed that eastern states with contributions to a specific receptor that meet or exceed this screening threshold are considered “linked” to that receptor and were analyzed further to quantify available emissions reductions necessary to address interstate transport to these receptors.

    Table 1 is a summary of the air quality modeling results for Louisiana from Tables V.D-1, V.D-2 and V.D-3 of the proposed CSAPR Update Rule.9 As the State's downwind contribution to proposed nonattainment and maintenance receptors exceeded the threshold, the analysis for the proposal concluded that Louisiana's emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. Louisiana's emissions were linked (1) to eastern nonattainment receptors in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston areas of Texas, and (2) to eastern maintenance receptors in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston areas.

    9 80 FR 75706, 75727-28.

    Table 1—Louisiana's Largest Contribution to Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas [Proposed CSAPR Update Rule] 2008 Ozone NAAQS Air quality threshold Largest downwind contribution to nonattainment Largest downwind contribution to maintenance Downwind nonattainment receptors located in states Downwind
  • maintenance
  • receptors
  • located in states
  • 0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion or ppb) 0.75 ppb 3.09 ppb 4.23 ppb Wisconsin, Texas Texas

    Accordingly, the most recent technical analysis available to us contradicts Louisiana's conclusion that the SIP contains adequate provisions to address interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone standard.

    We are thus proposing to disapprove the portion of the Louisiana SIP submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states—i.e., element (D)(i)(I). As explained above, the Louisiana submittal did not provide an adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, our most recent modeling indicates that emissions from Louisiana are in fact projected to significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.

    IV. Proposed Action

    We propose to disapprove the portion of a June 4, 2013 Louisiana SIP submittal pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), disapproval will establish a 2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Louisiana to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS unless Louisiana submits and we approve a SIP that meets these requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for Louisiana pursuant to CAA section 179 because this action does not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that we have reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    We believe the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13493 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 15 [ET Docket No. 13-49; FCC 16-68] Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document invites interested parties to update and refresh the record on the status of potential sharing solutions between proposed Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices and Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) operations in the 5.850-5.925 GHz (U-NII-4) band. The Commission also solicits the submittal of prototype unlicensed interference-avoiding devices for testing, and seeks comment on a proposed FCC test plan to evaluate electromagnetic compatibility of unlicensed devices and DSRC. The collection of relevant empirical data will assist the FCC, the Department of Transportation, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in their ongoing collaboration to analyze and quantify the interference potential introduced to DSRC receivers from unlicensed transmitters operating simultaneously in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before July 7, 2016, and reply comments are due on or before July 22, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Howard Griboff, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-0657, email: [email protected], or Aole Wilkins, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2406, email: [email protected]; TTY (202) 418-2989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of a document in, ET Docket No. 13-49, FCC 16-68, adopted May 25, 2016, and released June 1, 2016. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).

    Synopsis

    The non-Federal Mobile Service operating on a primary basis in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band is limited to DSRC systems, a component of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) radio service.

    In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in February 2013, the Commission explored the potential for future unlicensed operations in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band, and sought comment on technical requirements and sharing technologies and techniques that could be used by unlicensed users to protect incumbent operations, and specifically DSRC. See Revision of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 13-49, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 1769 (2013) (NPRM); 78 FR 21320, April 10, 2013.

    In comments on the Commission's proposal, the automobile industry and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on behalf the Department of Transportation (DoT) raised potential interference concerns with respect to protecting DSRC from unlicensed users. Subsequently, in August 2013, the Regulatory Standing Committee of IEEE 802.11 formed “the DSRC Coexistence Tiger Team” to investigate potential mitigation techniques that might enable sharing between the proposed unlicensed devices and DSRC equipment. The IEEE Tiger Team completed its work in March 2015, stating that it was unable to reach a consensus, but instead submitted that further analyses and testing could follow.

    The IEEE Tiger Team examined two proposed sharing techniques. The “detect and avoid” approach involves detecting the presence of DSRC signals, and avoiding using the spectrum in this band when DSRC signals are present. Under this sharing proposal, unlicensed devices would monitor the existing 10 megahertz-wide DSRC channels. If an unlicensed device detects any transmitted DSRC signal, it would avoid using the entire DSRC band to assure no interference occurs to DSRC communications. After waiting a certain amount of time the unlicensed device would again sense the DSRC spectrum to determine if any DSRC channels are in use or whether it could safely transmit.

    The “re-channelization” approach involves splitting the DSRC spectrum into two contiguous blocks: The upper part of the band exclusively for safety-related communications, and permitting unlicensed devices to share the lower part of the band with non-safety DSRC communications. This would be accomplished by moving the control channel and the two public safety channels to the top portion of the band, and reconfiguring the remaining four DSRC service channels in the lower end of the band as two 20 megahertz channels rather than maintaining four 10 megahertz channels. Under this approach, sharing between unlicensed devices and non-safety DSRC would occur according to the sharing protocols used by standard 802.11 devices, i.e., the device would listen for an “open” channel in the 5.850-5.895 GHz band and transmit if available. Otherwise the device would wait a very short period of time, and then try again.

    The Commission now seeks comment on the merits of these two approaches. What are the benefits and drawbacks of each approach? Would one approach be better than the other (e.g., minimize the risks of interference to DSRC more effectively while providing a comparable degree of meaningful access to spectrum for unlicensed devices)? For either approach, is it necessary for the Commission to specify all the details of the interference avoidance mechanism in the FCC rules or can this be addressed by relying primarily on industry standards bodies to develop the specific sharing methods? If the former, what specific technical details need to be specified in the FCC rules (e.g., out of bound emissions, noise tolerance, detection threshold, channel vacate time, etc.)? Has industry agreed upon performance indicators for DSRC, and if so, what are these metrics and is there a process to hold products to these performance levels?

    The Commission also seeks comment on how the choice of avoidance protocol affects the deployment and performance of DSRC. Would “re-channelization” require any change in the design of the DSRC electronic components contained in DSRC prototypes or just require a change in the processing of the data? The Commission seeks comment on whether changing the channel plan would require re-testing of DSRC and, if so, precisely what would need to be done, why, and in what timeframe? Commenters responding to this question should provide specific information about why the completed tests are not applicable to re-channelization, how any new tests will differ from those already performed, and the relevant timeframes for completing these specific tasks.

    Further, any testing, studies or analyses that have been performed regarding DSRC capabilities, Wi-Fi performance, interference studies or the potential benefits or drawbacks of sharing, which are relied upon by stakeholders in this proceeding, either in the past or going forward, need to be filed in the record to be considered. Additionally, has any testing been done regarding DSRC self-interference or potential harmful interference with satellite and government co-channel or adjacent users? Any such information filed should include the test plans, results, and underlying data needed to fully evaluate the submission. If there are data or reports that are not public, parties should describe the data and reports and explain why it is necessary to submit this information confidentially.

    The Commission also seeks comment on what DSRC-related use cases should be expected and permitted in this band. Commenters should provide specific information regarding what DSRC applications are anticipated, what are the projected spectrum needs for each application, and how would the commenter classify each (i.e., safety, non-safety, time critical or not)? Should the DSRC offerings provided on a priority or exclusive basis be restricted to safety-of-life or crash avoidance purposes? What are the technical or policy reasons for differentiating between safety-of-life and non-safety-of-life applications? Are there meaningful distinctions between DSRC applications that are safety-related and those that are not, such as applications that are time critical? For parties that advocate for re-channelization, is there a natural bifurcation point if the Commission decides to separate safety-related and non-safety-related DSRC? For instance, while entertainment, social media, maps, and parking applications are not safety-related, what is a good definition for a feature or service to be considered truly a safety-of-life use? How does our current band plan and these sharing approaches match up with international efforts for safety-related DSRC systems?

    To fully evaluate the potential effects of re-channelization, the Commission requests information on the projected timeframe for introduction of DSRC deployments under the current channel plan. What market penetration (e.g., percentage of cars on the road) is needed for DSRC to reliably provide safety-of-life functions or prevent vehicle-to-vehicle collisions? What are the projected timeframes for achieving the penetration levels needed for each safety-of-life or crash avoidance function to be effective? Will these penetration levels be met by equipment that is native to the automobile or through standalone or retrofit devices? Would these timeframes change if re-channelization occurs and by how much? In the meantime, what other spectrum bands, driver-assist technologies, and commercial offerings are providing similar services to those envisioned using DSRC? Is it possible that autonomous car and other technologies could bypass DSRC safety-of-life capabilities prior to reaching a sufficient technology penetration to make this service effective?

    Does the 5.850-5.895 MHz portion of the band potentially offer the most value for unlicensed operations? What are the advantages and disadvantages of combining the non-safety-related channels into larger channels? How should portions of the band not required for safety-of-life applications be shared among DSRC and unlicensed operations? For instance, should non-safety of life DSRC applications share the lower re-channelized band on an equal basis with unlicensed operators or have some priority? If commercial or other non-safety DSRC applications have priority access to the band, is a detect-and-vacate protocol necessary or does the IEEE 802.11 standard or other protocols allow for prioritization of DSRC traffic without the need to vacate non-safety channels for a pre-determined time period?

    In addition, the Commission invites interested parties to suggest other approaches that would facilitate unlicensed use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz band without causing harmful interference to DSRC operations. Would a hybrid approach taking elements from both the “detect and avoid” and the “re-channelization” proposals create benefits for both DSRC and U-NII users? Are there advantages to an approach where unlicensed operators would use technologies such as the standard Wi-Fi protocol to share access to the non-safety-of-life DSRC operations in the lower 45 megahertz of spectrum, while unlicensed devices would use a “detect and avoid” approach to avoid, and thus protect, co-channel safety-of-life DSRC operations in the upper 30 megahertz of spectrum? Is it feasible to develop a “hybrid chip” that would implement a DSRC standard receiver for detection purposes to allow unlicensed use, if the spectrum is clear? Would it be viable to employ an approach based on use of a database to control access to the spectrum similar to that used for the Citizens Broadband Band Radio Service at 3.5 GHz or for White Space devices in the TV and 600 MHz Service bands? The Commission asks parties to propose mitigation techniques with adequate specificity and detail so that the Commission can compare and contrast them with the proposals already being considered. In that regard, the Commission seeks comment on the viability of any new proposal, and benefits and costs of the suggested technique, and on any trade-offs related to the proposal.

    The Commission invites comment on the ramifications of any of the sharing techniques relative to indoor as well as outdoor use. For instance, is re-channelization, detect and avoid, or a hybrid approach more or less likely to allow for unlicensed indoor and outdoor deployments? Do certain sharing techniques permit more or less indoor or outdoor unlicensed use in certain geographic areas? Are there technical parameters that could be put into place to obviate interference concerns and facilitate deployment of unlicensed networks in either indoor or outdoor environments? For example, would it be feasible to tie the use of lower power levels for indoor-only devices to a less rigorous DSRC detection method in those devices, leaving the more sensitive DSRC detection methods to higher power outdoor-only units? Is it reasonable to assume that indoor-only devices are less likely to cause interference to DSRC outdoors, thus allowing for less aggressive detection sensitivity? If so, what technical characteristics would be required? The Commission seeks a full record on this technique and its specification to assess whether it is possible to share the DSRC band in this manner.

    The Commission invites parties to submit 5.9 GHz prototype unlicensed, interference-avoiding devices to the Commission for testing. The Commission also request that parties provide 5.9 GHz DSRC equipment, against which to test the prototype unlicensed, interference avoiding devices. In addition, the Commission requests comment on what date is reasonable for prototype submission, and what constitutes an acceptable prototype (e.g., does the device need to be able to communicate with another device, or is it sufficient for the device to only demonstrate the sharing technique?). The deadline for submission of prototypes shall be July 30, 2016; however, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) is delegated the authority to establish the submission requirements and grant waivers or extensions of the submission deadline or requirements, as necessary. Given the importance of this item, parties should explain in detail in any waiver or extension request why such request should be granted. Parties that would like to submit devices for testing should advise OET as soon as possible and should deliver their device at their earliest opportunity. To arrange delivery of a device, please contact Reza Biazaran at (301) 362-3052 or [email protected]

    The Commission, in coordination with the DoT and NTIA, will test the prototype equipment as follows:

    Phase I: Testing at the FCC Laboratory in Columbia, Maryland to determine the prototypes' technical characteristics and how they are designed to avoid causing harmful interference to DSRC.

    Phase II: Basic field tests with a few vehicles at a DoT facility. The Phase II tests will determine whether the techniques to avoid interference that were evaluated in Phase I's lab tests are effective in the field.

    Phase III: Tests in “real-world” scenarios, with many vehicles, more test devices, and at a suitable facility.

    The Commission seeks comment on the proposed Phase I test plan as set forth below. The Phase I test plan describes an approach and methodology to empirically determine interference tolerance and thresholds associated with the DSRC receive components of the Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communication links relative to the introduction of U-NII emissions into the 5.850-5.925 GHz band, and to evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of any U-NII device interference mitigation capabilities. Since U-NII represents an unlicensed application for which any interference received from the operation of an authorized radio service must be accepted, the test plan does not assess the interference potential from DSRC transmissions to projected U-NII receivers.

    The data resulting from the Commission's tests are intended to inform the Phase II and Phase III analyses in which other relevant factors can be given further consideration, and the analytical results can be validated through limited field tests.

    The three phases of the test plan are interdependent. The Commission anticipates that all three phases of the test plan will be completed before reaching any conclusions as to how unlicensed devices can safely operate in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band. The Commission, however, expects that testing will be concluded and submitted into the record no later than January 15, 2017. Given the importance of this item, parties should explain in detail why any additional time should be allocated. Engineers from the FCC will carefully examine the options and mechanisms for sharing in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band and closely scrutinize the myriad interference prevention approaches.

    The following section describes the Phase I technical characterization effort for evaluating the potential for electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) between U-NII Devices and DSRC operations associated with the ITS under the proposal to share the 5.850-5.925 GHz band.

    Proposed Phase I Test Plan 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Objective

    The objective of this test effort is to collect the data necessary to establish interference thresholds associated with key performance parameters that can then be used in subsequent scenario-based analyses to better assess the interference potential to DSRC operations that might be introduced from sharing the frequency band with unlicensed (U-NII) devices. In addition, any interference mitigation capabilities provided by the U-NII prototype test samples will be evaluated for viability, efficiency, and reliability.

    1.2 Approach

    It is recognized that the EMC concerns introduced by the proposal to share the DSRC frequency band with unlicensed operations are complex, primarily due to the dynamic variabilities associated with each system under consideration. For example, U-NII applications are predominately utilized to establish local area networks (LANs), typically in support of Wi-Fi access and usage, although fixed point-to-point communication links for supporting Internet backhaul applications are also likely. While the access points associated with LAN applications are typically relatively fixed in terms of location, the client devices that communicate with them can be quite mobile. Similarly, the DSRC roadside units (RSUs) are typically sited at fixed locations along roadways, but the on-board units (OBU's) that communicate with the RSU's and with other OBU's are vehicle-mounted and thus can involve high-velocity dynamic mobility. As such, it will be impractical to examine each and every potential interaction involving U-NII transmissions relative to DSRC receivers in either an empirical or analytical effort. Therefore, the approach proposed in this test plan represents an attempt to contain the myriad of variable conditions within a space bounded between “best case” (no interference) and “worst case” (maximum interference) conditions. Subsequent analytical efforts can then introduce appropriate scenario-based considerations, and examine associated subtleties such as the probability of occurrence and the maximum duration of potential interference interactions.

    In an effort to deal with these complexities, the examination of compatibility between proposed U-NII transmitters and DSRC receivers sharing the same frequency band will employ a phased approach, with the various interested agencies (i.e., FCC, NTIA, and DoT) collaborating in each distinct test phase. Each successive phase of the study will progressively consider additional interference interaction variabilities. The first phase of this effort will be performed at the FCC Laboratory in Columbia, Maryland and will involve bench tests in a laboratory environment assuming static conditions (i.e., vehicle dynamics not considered). It is envisioned that the Phase II effort will utilize the Phase I data to support analytical efforts to assess compatibility under scenario-specific conditions and will also include some result verification through limited scenario-based field tests. The final phase (Phase III) of the study is envisioned to utilize the Phase II results, adjusted accordingly based on the verification test observations, to expand the field testing under “real world” conditions such as those proposed in Section 6.0 of the DoT Test Plan.

    This test plan primarily describes the proposed Phase I effort of this study, to be performed by FCC engineers at its laboratory facility in Columbia, MD, with the support of DoT engineers.

    2.0 Phase I Test Proposals 2.1 Potential Interference Mechanisms

    It is anticipated that the likely interference mechanisms associated with sharing the DSRC frequency band are: (1) A potential for degrading the DSRC receiver noise floor, and thus, the link signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) due to additive noise-like interference introduced by proposed U-NII devices; (2) a potential for corruption of received data packets due to introduced interference, resulting in an increased packet error rate (PER) and/or reduced data throughput; (3) a potential for channel access contention, resulting in an increase in the time required for DSRC channel access; and (4) a potential for receiver saturation or overload due to short-range, co-tuned interactions. These represent the potential interference mechanisms and associated metrics that will be examined as a part of this proposed Phase I test effort.

    2.2 Potential Interference Mitigation Techniques

    Several possible techniques and strategies have been proposed for mitigating interference interactions between projected U-NII transmitters and DSRC receivers. The IEEE Tiger Team explored two possible options: (1) The use of the existing DSRC channel plan with a clear channel assessment (CCA) capability specified for U-NII transmissions in the 10-MHz DSRC channels, and (2) the adoption of a modified DSRC channel plan (i.e., bi-furcation of the DSRC frequency band) with a CCA capability specified in 20-MHz channels. The NTIA 5 GHz Report proposed more general mitigation strategies, such as several possible detection methodologies for use in implementing a CCA capability (e.g., energy, matched filter, and signal detection), and a geo-location/database mitigation approach. The NTIA 5 GHz Report also identifies some of the potential inadequacies associated with each of these potential interference mitigation approaches.

    The 802.11 standard under which U-NII operates currently provides for two methods of implementing a CCA capability. The first method, known as Carrier Sensing (CS), involves a determination of channel availability through the detection (reception) and decoding of the preamble of a data packet transmitted by the current channel occupant. Most 802.11 U-NII devices utilize the same basic CS technique, known as Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA). The FCC does not specify nor regulate CS requirements for U-NII devices. The second CCA method specified in the 802.11 standard is known as Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) where a U-NII device must identify an occupied channel through the detection of the channel occupants radio-frequency (RF) energy levels relative to an established threshold value (i.e., Energy Detection (ED)), without regard to signal structure specifics. This technique is required for U-NII devices that share other portions of the 5 GHz spectrum in order to preclude interference to critical Government Radar operations. DFS requirements and compliance tests were developed cooperatively between FCC, NTIA and DoD, and are enforced by the FCC.

    Since U-NII device access to the spectrum is on a non-interference basis (NIB), DSRC must be accorded primacy in any channel access protocol. Such access prioritization will also likely be required for all of the seven 10-MHz channels that are assigned to DSRC. Thus, to ensure DSRC preferential access, a U-NII device must be capable of detecting an access-contending DSRC signal at energy levels that are equal to, or below, the DSRC receiver sensitivity level on each of the seven DSRC channels.

    As a primary element of this Phase I effort, the FCC will perform benchtop measurements of those prototype U-NII devices submitted for testing that implement these, or other not yet proposed, interference mitigation capabilities. The actual tests to be performed will be tailored to the particular mitigation strategy employed, and will be designed to ensure the effectiveness and reliability associated with the detection and recognition of DSRC-occupied channels.

    2.3 General Test Approach

    It is not possible to design a detailed comprehensive plan for testing all of the components identified for examination in the Phase I test program until we have access to U-NII devices designed for operation in the 5.9 GHz frequency band and DSRC RSU and OBU equipment to test against. Therefore, what is proposed below represents a general plan for achieving the identified objectives. This plan will be adapted as necessary once more details of the devices to be tested are made available.

    The first step in the Phase I effort is to solicit the devices necessary to implement the test plan, as the Commission does in this document. The FCC requests that industry provide prototype U-NII devices projected for operation in the 5.9 GHz frequency band, to include interference mitigation capabilities, for test and evaluation. The FCC, working cooperatively with NTIA and DoT, also request that the DSRC equipment necessary to exercise this test plan be provided. In addition, technical support must be made available to assist in configuring the devices for testing and in accessing the requisite device control and resulting data. All of the devices will be required to have appropriate software controls to perform the tests under a controlled environment.

    As devices are submitted to the FCC laboratory as test samples, they will first be technically characterized through the measurement of standard RF parameters such as the occupied bandwidth (OBW), fundamental power, and unwanted emission levels associated with the transmitted signals, and the sensitivity and noise floor levels associated with the receivers. The measured parameters will be compared with appropriate specifications (e.g., IEEE 802.11ac, IEEE 802.11p, ASTM E2213, FCC regulations, and other applicable rules and standards).

    Once the characterization measurements are complete, DSRC links will be established to simulate simple RSU-to-OBU and OBU-to-OBU two-way wireless communication. Upon successful establishment of such communication links, and before any interference signals are introduced, measurements will be performed to establish base-line values for parameters such as SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), PER (packet error rate), network delay and the variance in network delay (also known as jitter).

    After the completion of baseline testing, a single U-NII signal, or simulation thereof (e.g., band-limited additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN)), will be introduced on a co-tuned basis (i.e., with coincident center frequencies) initially at a very low power level. The U-NII power level will then be incremented (1-3 dB steps) while the designated performance parameters are monitored and recorded. The results of this test will provide the data necessary to determine the DSRC tolerance to U-NII interference in a “worst-case” interference interaction (i.e., co-tuned operation). It is recognized that U-NII transmitters, particularly those used to provide Wi-Fi services, can utilize variable OBW's (occupied bandwidths) and are capable of implementing several combinations of data modulation and coding rate (Modulation-Coding Scheme or MCS) on a variable basis, depending on the transmission channel conditions. FCC experience gained from developing and instituting compliance measurement of U-NII transmissions suggest that there are only subtle differences in the relevant signal parameters among these combinations; however, measurements will be performed using different combinations of these variable parameters in an effort to identify a “worst-case” mode and to quantify the differential magnitude of the effect on a DSRC receiver.

    The procedure described above will then be repeated with the U-NII transmit signal re-tuned to the center frequency of each of the two adjacent DSRC channels relative to the DSRC-occupied channel (i.e., upper and lower first adjacent channels). This measurement will produce data that can be used to determine the adjacent-channel rejection capability of a DSRC receiver which in turn can be used to inform an assessment of EMC assuming adjacent-channel operation. Dependent upon the results of this test and time constraints, this process may be repeated with the U-NII device tuned to DSRC channels further removed (in frequency) from the DSRC-occupied channel (i.e., second adjacent channel interaction).

    Once these tests are complete, the potential effects of network loading (LAN and DSRC) and interference aggregation will be examined by the addition of supplementary DSCR links and U-NII devices to the test configuration as the availability of devices permit.

    Similar procedures, with modifications based on the protocols implemented by the prototype U-NII sample devices, will be used to evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of any interference mitigation capabilities (e.g., DSRC signal detection methods, Clear Channel Assessment capability of U-NII devices, and other mitigation methods not yet defined).

    3.0 Summary

    The plan presented herein represents a “high-level” approach to the Phase I testing intended to acquire the empirical data necessary to further an examination of the potential for achieving EMC between U-NII devices and DSRC operations under the FCC proposal to share the 5.9 GHz frequency band. The proposed test procedures and methodologies will be further refined as more information becomes available with respect to the U-NII and DSRC devices anticipated to share this spectrum. The FCC requests relevant technical input in the form of comments from other concerned parties in the interest of enhancing and/or improving this test plan proposal.

    Conclusion

    The FCC, in consultation with the DoT and NTIA, will continue to collaborate, as well as engage with other stakeholders, and may make adjustments to the plan as it evolves. Our goal is to collect the relevant empirical data for use in analyzing and quantifying the interference potential introduced to DSRC receivers from unlicensed transmitters operating simultaneously in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band. The Commission anticipates that the tests conducted to date, combined with the results of the three-phase test plan described above, will provide reliable, real-world data on the performance of unlicensed devices designed to avoid interfering with DSRC operations in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band.

    Procedural Matters Ex Parte Rules

    This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    Filing Requirements

    Comments are due on or before July 7, 2016, and reply comments are due on or before July 22, 2016. All filings must refer to ET Docket No. 13-49.

    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The NPRM included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). That IRFA invited comment “on making available an additional 195 megahertz of spectrum in the 5.35-5.47 GHz and 5.85-5.925 GHz bands for U-NII use.” This document seeks further comment on some of the proposals initially raised in the NPRM and alternative proposals submitted into the record of this proceeding. We request supplemental comments on the IRFA in light of the details and issues raised in this document. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this document as set forth on the first page of this document and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

    Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    The NPRM included a separate request for comment from the general public and the Office of Management and Budget on the information collection requirements contained therein, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. As noted above, this document seeks further comment on some proposals and alternatives initially raised in the NPRM. We invite supplemental comment on these requirements in light of the details and issues raised in this document.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13510 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 202, 205, 212, 237, and 252 [Docket DARS-2015-0055] RIN 0750-AI78 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Food Services for Dining Facilities on Military Installations (DFARS Case 2015-D012) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide policy and procedures for soliciting offers, evaluating proposals, and awarding contracts for the operation of a military dining facility pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act; the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007; the Joint Report and Policy Statement issued pursuant to the NDAA for FY 2006; and the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled statute.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before August 8, 2016, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS case 2015-D012 by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “DFARS Case 2015-D012” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2015-D012.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2015-D012” on your attached document.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 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:

    Ms. Amy Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In order to clarify the application of the Randolph-Shepard Act (R-S Act) (20 U.S.C. 107, et seq.) and the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (CFP) statute (41 U.S.C. 8501, et seq.) formerly known as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act, to the operation and management of military dining facilities, DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS to implement the provisions of the Joint Report and Policy Statement (Joint Policy Statement) issued by DoD, the Department of Education (DoED), and the CFP pursuant to section 848 of the NDAA for FY 2006.

    The Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany the NDAA for FY 2015 requested that DoD prescribe implementing regulations for the application of the R-S Act and the CFP statute to contracts awarded for the operation of military dining facilities, and that the regulations address DoD contracts not covered by section 856 of the NDAA for FY 2007.

    Pursuant to the Joint Policy Statement, the R-S Act applies to contracts for the operation of a military dining facility, also known as full food services, while the CFP statute applies to contracts and subcontracts for dining support services (including mess attendant services).

    The CFP statute, implemented in FAR subpart 8.7, requires Federal agencies to acquire from participating nonprofit agencies all supplies or services on the Procurement List established by the CFP. The purpose of the CFP statute is to provide employment opportunities for people who are blind or have other severe disabilities. If a product or service is on the Procurement List, 41 U.S.C. 8504(a)requires the procuring agency to procure that product or service either from a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or a qualified nonprofit agency for the severely disabled in accordance with CFP regulations. However, 41 U.S.C. 8504(b) provides an exception to section 8504(a) for a product that is available from an industry established under 18 U.S.C. 307 (Federal Prison Industries) and shall be procured from that industry pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4124.

    Section 107(b) of the R-S Act establishes a priority authorizing blind persons, licensed by a State licensing agency (SLA) to operate one or more vending facilities, wherever feasible, on Federal properties. Section 107d-3(e) of the R-S Act requires the Secretary of Education (the Secretary) to promulgate regulations (see 34 CFR 395.33) establishing a priority for the operation of cafeterias when the Secretary determines on an individual basis and after consultation with the head of the appropriate installation, that such operation can be provided at a reasonable cost with food of high quality comparable to that currently provided employees.

    Pursuant to 34 CFR 395.33(a), the priority is afforded to the SLA when the Secretary determines, in consultation with the contracting officer, that the operation can be provided at a reasonable cost, with food of a high quality that is comparable to the food currently provided to employees. 34 CFR 395.33(b) requires Federal contracting officers to consult with the Secretary (see 395.33(a)) when the contracting officer has determined that an SLA's response to a solicitation for the operation of a cafeteria is within a competitive range and has been ranked among those proposals which have a reasonable chance of being selected for final award. The evaluation criteria established in a solicitation may include sanitation practices, personnel, staffing, menu pricing, and portion sizes, menu variety, budget, and accounting practices.

    During the 1990s, confusion arose as to whether contracts for food services at military dining facilities should be subject to the CFP statute or the R-S Act. There was also confusion as to whether the SLA must be awarded a contract if its proposal is within the competitive range. In order for an SLA's proposal to be selected, the proposal must not only be in the competitive range, but also be ranked among those proposals which have a reasonable chance of being selected for final award. Placement in the competitive range alone does not mean an offer has been found competitive, comparable, acceptable, or reasonable for final award.

    In order to resolve the confusion, section 848 of the NDAA for FY 2006 required DoD, DoED, and the CFP to issue the Joint Policy Statement, discussed below in section II.A. Since issuance of the Joint Policy Statement in 2006, the definition of “operation of a military dining facility” has been interpreted inconsistently. This rule proposes to implement the Joint Policy Statement which defines “operation of a military dining facility” to mean “the exercise of management responsibility and day-to-day decision-making authority by a contractor for the overall functioning of a military dining facility, including responsibility for its staff and subcontractors, where the DoD role is generally limited to contract administration functions described in FAR part 42.” We invite comments on the interpretation of this definition.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    The rule proposes to locate the DFARS guidance for food services in DFARS part 237, Service Contracting, along with the current guidance for contracting for various types of services such as educational services, laundry and dry cleaning, and mortuary services. Because the food services policy emphasizes the R-S Act requirement for competition and potentially affects more than one category of contract source, the new guidance is more appropriately placed in the section on services. The proposed rule amends the DFARS to clarify the application of the R-S Act and the CFP statute to contracts for the operation and management of military dining facilities.

    A. Joint Policy Statement

    Paragraph 1 of the Joint Policy Statement provides that defense appropriations shall be used to accomplish the defense mission. This mission shall be carried out by providing value and accountability to the taxpayers as well as supporting socioeconomic programs to the maximum extent practicable under the law. DoD has a military mission to maintain some level of in-house food service and military dining facility managerial capabilities to enable forward deployment operations, training, rotation, and career progression for military members. Contract services must enable DoD to feed the troops high quality food at a cost effective price.

    Paragraph 2 states that “the Secretaries of the Military Departments concerned, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(9), shall have the discretion to define requirements (e.g., contract statements of work, assignment of tasks and functions among workers in a facility) and make procurement decisions concerning contracting for military dining support services and the operation of a military dining facility and shall ensure that procurement decisions support the readiness of the Armed Forces.”

    Paragraph 3 recommends the enactment of legislation to create a “no-poaching” provision that would maintain contract opportunities current at that time. Section 856 of the NDAA for FY 2007 established the recommended “no-poaching” rule for contracts in effect at the date of enactment of section 856 (October 16, 2006).

    Paragraph 4 establishes rules for new contract awards that were not covered by the “no-poaching” rule. Pursuant to subparagraph 4.a., new contracts will be competed under the R-S Act when “the [DoD] solicits a contractor to exercise management responsibility and day-to-day decision making for the overall functioning of a military dining facility, including responsibility for its staff and subcontractors, where the DoD role is generally limited to contract administration functions described in FAR part 42.”

    Subparagraph 4.b. provides that “[i]n all other cases, the contracts will be set aside for JWOD performance (or small businesses if there is no JWOD nonprofit agency capable or interested) when [DoD] needs dining support services (e.g., food preparation services, food serving, ordering and inventory of food, meal planning, cashiers, mess attendants, or other services that support the operation of a dining facility) where [DoD] food service specialists exercise management responsibility over and above those contract administration functions described in FAR part 42.”

    Subparagraph 4.c. provides that “[t]he presence of military personnel performing dining facility functions does not necessarily establish the inference that the Government is exercising management responsibility over that particular dining facility.”

    Paragraph 5 provides that “[i]n accordance with FAR part 8, if dining support services are on or will be placed on the Procurement List, any State licensing agency that is awarded a contract for operation of that military dining facility under the [R-S Act] shall award a subcontract for those services.” DoD has implemented this requirement consistent with FAR clause 52.208-9, Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply or Services.

    Paragraph 6 provides that “[i]n order to promote economic opportunities for blind vendors and to increase the number of blind persons who are self-supporting, the [R-S Act] requires that State licensing agencies provide blind persons with education, training, equipment and initial inventory suitable for carrying out their licenses to operate vending facilities in Federal buildings. Accordingly, through its rule-making procedures, [DoED] will encourage State licensing agencies who assert the [R-S Act] `priority' for a multi-facility contract for operation of military dining facilities to assign at least one blind person per military dining facility in a management role.”

    Paragraph 7 provides that “[t]he DOD shall continue to be able to use the ‘Marine Corps model' for regional contracts for operation of military dining facilities at several installations or across State lines. In this model, the DoD may designate individual dining facilities for subcontract opportunities under the Small Business Act, the CFP statute, or other preferential procurement programs, and may designate some facilities in which military food service specialists may train or perform cooking or other dining support services in conjunction with contractor functions. State licensing agencies are eligible under the [R-S Act] to bid on contracts based upon this model.”

    Paragraph 8 provides guidance for affording the R-S Act priority. DoD contracts for operation of a military dining facility shall be awarded as the result of full and open competition, unless there is a basis for a non-competitive award to a single source and resulting direct negotiations with that source. When competing such contracts, DoD contracting officers shall give SLAs priority when: (1) The SLA has demonstrated it can provide such operation with food of high quality and at a fair and reasonable price and with food of high quality comparable to that available from other providers of cafeteria services and comparable to the quality and price of food currently provided to military service members; and (2) the SLAs final proposal revision, or initial proposal if award is made without discussions, is among the highly ranked final proposal revisions with a reasonable chance of being selected for award.

    Paragraph 8 also provides that “[t]he term `fair and reasonable price' means that the State licensing agency's final proposal revision does not exceed the offer that represents the best value (as determined by the contracting officer after applying the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation) by more than five percent of that offer, or one million dollars, whichever is less, over all of the performance periods required by the solicitation.” For the reasons explained in section II.B. below, this dollar limitation is not included in the DFARS.

    Paragraph 9 provides that “[t]he contracting officer may award to other than the State licensing agency when the head of the contracting activity determines that award to the State licensing agency would adversely affect the interests of the United States, and the Secretary of Education approves the determination in accordance with the [R-S Act].” DoED has implemented this policy in its regulations (see 34 CFR 395.30).

    Paragraph 10 committed the signatory parties to implementing the Joint Policy Statement in complementary regulations.

    B. Proposed Changes to DFARS.

    The proposed rule proposes to amend DFARS 205.207(a) to require that the advertisement of a solicitation for the operation of a military dining facility in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands shall state that the solicitation is subject to the R-S Act.

    The rule proposes to amend DFARS 212.301 to add a new paragraph (c)(ii) to state that when issuing a solicitation for the operation of a military dining facility, as defined in 202.101, include in the evaluation criteria, factors or subfactors for determining if the SLA proposal is comparable to the quality and price available from other providers.

    The proposed rule adds a new DFARS subpart 237.7X to address contracts for services that support military dining facility operation and contracts for the operation of military dining facilities. The “scope” statement in DFARS 237.7X00 explains that subpart 237.7X provides policy and procedures for soliciting and awarding contracts consistent with the R-S Act, the CFP statute, section 856 of the NDAA for FY 2007, and the Joint Policy Statement.

    The definitions in DFARS 202.101 implement the Joint Policy Statement paragraphs 4.a. and 4.b., which identified when a contract is for the operation of a military dining facility as distinguished from “dining support services.” “Mess attendant services” (also known as “dining facility attendant services”) are a subset of “dining support services.” Specifically, the definition of “military dining facility” that was enacted in section 856 of the NDAA for FY 2007 and the definition of “State licensing agency” described in the R-S Act regulations at 34 CFR 395.1(v) are incorporated in the DFARS at 202.101 and 237.7X01, respectively. The proposed rule also defines “operation of a military dining facility,” which is added to DFARS 202.101.

    DFARS 237.7X02(a) implements paragraph 4.a. of the Joint Policy Statement by stating that all contracts for the operation of a military dining facility in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands are subject to the R-S Act. By use of the word “all,” DFARS 237.7X02(a) means these contracts are subject to the R-S Act even if the State licensing agency does not submit a proposal. DFARS 237.7X02(a) also implements paragraph 8 of the Joint Policy Statement and states the contracts for operation of a military dining facility shall be awarded using full and open competition (see 10 U.S.C. 2305). DFARS 237.7X02(b) states that contracts for dining support services are subject to the CFP statute, which is exempt from the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), and provides a cross reference to the implementing procedures at FAR subpart 8.7.

    DFARS 237.7X03 provides guidelines for developing evaluation criteria for determining if the State licensing agency proposal is comparable to the quality and price available from other providers.

    DFARS 237.7X04 adds a prescription for the proposed solicitation provision at DFARS 252.237-70XX, Operation of a Military Dining Facility. The prescription states that the provision will apply to solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures, for the acquisition of commercial items for operation of a military dining facility within the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    The solicitation provision at DFARS 252.237-70XX, Operation of a Military Dining Facility, notifies offerors when a solicitation is subject to the R-S Act. The solicitation provision defines “operation of a military dining facility” and other terms necessary for notifying offerors about the applicability of the R-S Act to the solicitation. A State licensing agency will be given priority for award of the contract if it submits an offer that: (1) Demonstrates it can provide the operation with food of high quality and at a fair and reasonable price comparable to that available from other providers, and (2) has been judged to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award pursuant to the evaluation criteria in the solicitation.

    In order for a SLA to receive the priority for operation of a cafeteria, 34 CFR 395.33(b) requires that: (1) The SLA's proposal must be within the “competitive range,” and (2) must be ranked among those proposals that have a reasonable chance of being selected for final award.

    Under FAR 15.306(c), the “competitive range” is established for the purpose of identifying those offerors with whom the procuring agency will open discussions. If discussions are to be conducted, CICA (see 10 U.S.C. 2305) requires that the procuring agency shall conduct discussions with all responsible offerors who submitted proposals determined to be in the competitive range, but as previously stated, inclusion in the competitive range is not sufficient to trigger the R-S Act priority for an SLA proposal. The SLA's proposal must also have a reasonable chance of selection for final award.

    As a result, and as required by CICA and 34 CFR 395.33, each DoD solicitation for operation of a military dining facility must state its own evaluation criteria and basis for award independently derived for that individual location and acquisition. The solicitation will specify the means by which the statutory priority will be afforded to the SLA's proposal, if it satisfies the evaluation criteria, the statement of work, and the requirements of the solicitation. Because each solicitation must be developed independently, the DFARS will not arbitrarily establish a price limitation that would apply to all solicitations.

    III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule proposes to create a new provision, DFARS 252.237-70XX, Operation of a Military Dining Facility, to notify offerors when a solicitation is subject to the R-S Act. The R-S Act is not a covered law under 41 U.S.C. 1905-1907, because it was enacted prior to October 13, 1994. Therefore, 41 U.S.C. 1905-1907 do not exempt solicitations and contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold and for the acquisition of commercial items from the provisions of the R-S Act.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

    The proposed rule will provide policy and procedures for soliciting and awarding contracts for the operation of a dining facility on a military installation pursuant to: (1) The Randolph-Sheppard Act (R-S Act); (2) the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007; (3) the Joint Report and Policy Statement issued pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006; and (4) the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (CFP) statute (41 U.S.C. 8501, et seq.).

    The objective of the proposed rule is to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify the application of the R-S Act and the CFP statute, formerly known as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act, to the operation and management of military dining facilities.

    The R-S Act and the CFP statute have priority over the Small Business Act; therefore, the proposed rule has the potential to impact small businesses that provide these services. A review of contract awards and purchase orders in the Federal Procurement Data System for the period fiscal year 2011 through June 1, 2015, revealed that DoD made five new awards, including one purchase order, for dining services to five unique vendors. Of those awards, one award was made to a small business concern. Therefore, this proposed rule is not anticipated to impact a significant number of small entities.

    The proposed rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other information collection requirements. The proposed rule is consistent with the DoED regulations that implement the R-S Act (see 34 CFR 395.1, et seq.).

    Concerning dining support services (including mess attendant services), contracting officers shall follow the standard Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.7 and DFARS subpart 208.7 procedures for procuring dining support services pursuant to the CFP statute and, if applicable, the FAR part 19 and DFARS part 219 rules for small business set-asides.

    Concerning the R-S Act priority for operation of a military dining facility, the proposed rule requires full and open competition. Competition is the best alternative for minimizing the impact on small entities.

    DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2015-D012), in correspondence.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202, 205, 212, 237, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 202, 205, 212, 237, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for parts 202, 205, 212, 237, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 202—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 2. Amend section 202.101 by adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions of “Military dining facility” and “Operation of a military dining facility” to read as follows:
    202.101 Definitions.

    Military dining facility means a facility owned, operated, leased, or wholly controlled by DoD and used to provide dining services to members of the Armed Forces, including a cafeteria, military mess hall, military troop dining facility, or similar dining facility operated with appropriated funds for the purpose of providing meals to members of the Armed Forces.

    Operation of a military dining facility means the exercise of management responsibility and day-to-day decision-making authority by a contractor for the overall functioning of a military dining facility, including responsibility for its staff and subcontractors, where the DoD role is generally limited to contract administration functions described in FAR part 42.

    PART 205—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS 3. Amend section 205.207 by adding paragraph (a)(ii) to read as follows:
    205.207 Preparation and transmittal of synopses.

    (a) * * *

    (ii) When advertising for the operation of a military dining facility, as defined in 202.101, within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, the synopsis shall state that the solicitation is subject to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107, et seq.) (see 237.7X03).

    PART 212—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS 4. Amend section 212.301 by— a. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (c)(i); b. Adding paragraph (c)(ii); c. Adding paragraph (f)(xv)(C).

    The additions read as follows:

    212.301 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for acquisition of commercial items.

    (c)(i) * * *

    (ii) When issuing a solicitation for the operation of a military dining facility, as defined in 202.101, include in the evaluation criteria factors or subfactors for determining if the State licensing agency proposal is comparable to the quality and price available from other providers (see 237.7X03).

    (f) * * *

    (xv) * * *

    (C) Use the provision at 252.237-70XX, Operation of a Military Dining Facility, as prescribed in 237.7X04.

    PART 237—SERVICE CONTRACTING 5. Add subpart 237.7X to read as follows: Subpart 237.7X—Services for Military Dining Facilities Sec. 237.7X00 Scope. 237.7X01 Definitions. 237.7X02 Policy. 237.7X03 Procedures for Randolph-Sheppard Act contracts. 237.7X04 Solicitation provision. Subpart 237.7X—Services for Military Dining Facilities
    237.7X00 Scope.

    This subpart provides policy and procedures for soliciting and awarding contracts pursuant to—

    (a) The Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107, et seq.);

    (b) The Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled statute (41 U.S.C. 8501, et seq.);

    (c) Section 856 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364); and

    (d) The Joint Report and Policy Statement to Congress issued pursuant to section 848 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163).

    237.7X01 Definitions.

    As used in this subpart—

    Dining support services means food preparation services, food serving, ordering and inventory of food, meal planning, cashiers, mess attendant services, or any and all other services that are encompassed by, are included in, or otherwise support the operation of a military dining facility, other than the exercise of management responsibility and day-to-day decision-making authority by a contractor for the overall functioning of a military dining facility.

    Mess attendant services (or “dining facility attendant services”) means those activities required to perform food line support such as setting up the serving lines, serving food and tearing down the serving line, preserving food for subsequent meals, and performing janitorial and custodial duties within dining facilities, including sweeping, mopping, scrubbing, trash removal, pot and pan cleaning, dishwashing, waxing, stripping, buffing, window washing, and other sanitation-related functions.

    State licensing agency means the State agency designated by the Secretary of Education under 34 CFR part 395 to issue licenses to blind persons for the operation of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

    237.7X02 Policy.

    (a) Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et seq. ). (1) All contracts for the “operation of military dining facilities” (as defined at 202.101) within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands are subject to the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, follow the procedures at 237.7X03.

    (2) The procedures at 237.7X03 do not apply to any food services or related services that are identified on the Procurement List maintained by the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    (b) Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled statute (41 U.S.C. 8501 et seq. ). Contracts for dining support services (including mess attendant services) in a military dining facility where DoD food services specialists exercise management responsibility over and above those contract administration functions described in FAR part 42 are subject to the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled statute. See FAR subpart 8.7.

    237.7X03 Procedures for Randolph-Sheppard Act contracts.

    (a) When issuing a solicitation for the operation of a military dining facility, include in the evaluation criteria factors or subfactors for determining if the State licensing agency proposal is comparable to the quality and price available from other providers.

    (b) A State licensing agency shall be afforded priority for award of the contract if the State licensing agency has submitted a proposal that—

    (1) Demonstrates that the operation of the military dining facility can be provided with food of a high quality and at a fair and reasonable price comparable to that available from other providers; and

    (2) Has a reasonable chance of being selected for award as determined by the contracting officer after applying the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation.

    237.7X04 Solicitation provision.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, use the provision at 252.237-70XX, Operation of a Military Dining Facility, in all solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that are for operation of a military dining facility within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    (b) Do not use the provision at 252.237-70XX in solicitations for any food services or related services that are identified on the Procurement List maintained by the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 6. Add section 252.237-70XX to read as follows:
    252.237-70XX Operation of a Military Dining Facility.

    As prescribed in 237.7X04, use the following provision:

    OPERATION OF A MILITARY DINING FACILITY (DATE)

    This solicitation is for the operation of a military dining facility.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this provision—

    Military dining facility means a facility owned, operated, leased, or wholly controlled by DoD and used to provide dining services to members of the Armed Forces, including a cafeteria, military mess hall, military troop dining facility, or similar dining facility operated with appropriated funds for the purpose of providing meals to members of the Armed Forces.

    Operation of a military dining facility means the exercise of management responsibility and day-to-day decision-making authority by a contractor for the overall functioning of a military dining facility, including responsibility for its staff and subcontractors, where the DoD role is generally limited to contract administration functions described in FAR part 42.

    State licensing agency means the State agency designated by the Secretary of Education under 34 CFR part 395 to issue licenses to blind persons for the operation of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

    (b) A State licensing agency will be afforded priority for award of the contract if the State licensing agency has submitted a proposal that—

    (1) Demonstrates the operation of the military dining facility can be provided with food of a high quality and at a fair and reasonable price comparable to that available from other providers; and

    (2) Is judged to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award as determined by the contracting officer after applying the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation.

    (End of provision)
    [FR Doc. 2016-13257 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-ep-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 160412328-6446-01] RIN 0648-BF97 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; North and South Atlantic 2016 Commercial Swordfish Quotas AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In this rule, NMFS proposes to adjust the 2016 fishing season quotas for North and South Atlantic swordfish based upon 2015 commercial quota underharvests and international quota transfers consistent with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Recommendations 13-02 and 13-03. The rule also discusses our intent to simplify the annual North and South Atlantic quota adjustment process when the adjustment simply applies a previously-adopted formula or measure. Finally, the proposed rule would remove extraneous regulatory text about the percentage of the annual baseline quota allocation that may be carried over in a given year. This proposed rule could affect commercial and recreational fishing for swordfish in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. This action implements ICCAT recommendations, consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and furthers domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by July 7, 2016. An operator-assisted, public conference call and webinar will be held on June 29, 2016, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The conference call information is phone number 1 (888) 469-1171; participant passcode 6508132. Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in fifteen minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show a brief presentation via webinar followed by public comment. To join the webinar go to: https://noaa-meets.webex.com/noaa-meets/j.php?MTID=mc0c72c596c13e8dde4e1d2edf8d8ebd2, event password: swGMiC3d. Participants that have not used WebEx before will be prompted to download and run a plug-in program that will enable them to view the webinar.

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0051, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0051, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Margo Schulze-Haugen, NMFS/SF1, 1315 East-West Highway, National Marine Fisheries Service, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Presentation materials and copies of the supporting documents—including the 2012 Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for North Atlantic swordfish; the 2007 EA, RIR, and FRFA for South Atlantic swordfish; and the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan and associated documents—are available from the HMS Management Division Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ or by contacting Steve Durkee by phone at 202-670-6637.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Durkee by phone at 202-670-6637 or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations.

    North Atlantic Swordfish Quota

    At the 2013 ICCAT annual meeting, Recommendation 13-02 was adopted, maintaining the North Atlantic swordfish total allowable catch (TAC) of 10,301 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (13,700 mt whole weight (ww)) through 2016. Of this TAC, the United States' baseline quota is 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907 mt ww) per year. ICCAT Recommendation 13-02 also includes an 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) annual quota transfer from the United States to Mauritania and limits underharvest carryover to 15 percent of a contracting party's baseline quota. Therefore, the United States may carry over a maximum of 440.6 mt dw (586.0 mt ww) of underharvest from 2015 to 2016. This proposed rule would establish the U.S. adjusted quota for the 2016 fishing year to account for the annual quota transfer to Mauritania and the 2015 underharvest.

    The preliminary estimate of North Atlantic swordfish underharvest for 2015 was 2,181.6 mt dw as of December 31, 2015; therefore, NMFS is proposing to carry forward 440.6 mt dw, the maximum carryover allowed under Recommendation 13-02. The 2,937.6 mt dw baseline quota would be reduced by the 18.8 mt dw annual quota transfer to Mauritania and increased by the underharvest carryover of 440.6 mt dw, resulting in a proposed adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota for the 2016 fishing year of 3,359.4 mt dw (2,937.6−18.8 + 440.6 = 3,359.4 mt dw). From that proposed adjusted quota, 50 mt dw would be allocated to the reserve category for inseason adjustments and research, and 300 mt dw would be allocated to the incidental category, which includes recreational landings and landings by incidental swordfish permit holders, in accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(c)(1)(i). This would result in an allocation of 3,009.4 mt dw (3,359.4−50−300 = 3,009.4 mt dw) for the directed category, which would be split equally between two seasons in 2016 (January through June, and July through December) (Table 1).

    The preliminary landings used to calculate the proposed adjusted quota for North Atlantic swordfish are based on commercial dealer reports and reports by anglers in the HMS Non-Tournament Recreational Swordfish and Billfish Landings Database and the Recreational Billfish Survey received as of December 31, 2015, and do not include dead discards or late landings reports. The estimates are preliminary and have not yet undergone quality control and assurance procedures. NMFS will adjust the quotas in the final rule based on updated data, including dead discard data, if available. Note that the United States has carried over the full amount of underharvest allowed under ICCAT recommendations for the past several years and NMFS does not expect fishing activity to vary significantly from these past years. For the final adjusted quota to deviate from the proposed quota, the sum of updated landings data (from late reports) and dead discard estimates would need to reach or exceed 1,741.0 mt dw, which is the difference between the current estimate of the 2015 underharvest (2,181.6 mt dw) and the maximum carryover cap of 440.6 mt dw (2,181.6−440.6 = 1,741.0 mt dw). In 2013 (the most recent year of dead discard data), dead discards were estimated to equal 90.2 mt dw and late reports equaled 143.0 mt dw. Consequently, NMFS does not believe updated data and dead discard estimates would alter the proposed adjusted quota. Thus, while the 2016 proposed North Atlantic swordfish quota is subject to further adjustments and this rule notifies the public of that potential change, NMFS does not expect the final quota to change from the proposed quota on this basis.

    For clarity, the proposed rule would remove extraneous regulatory text about the percentage of the annual baseline quota allocation that may be carried over in a given year. Under prior ICCAT recommendations, 25 percent of the unused annual baseline could be carried over to the subsequent year. ICCAT Recommendation 13-02 changed the allowable carryover to 15 percent from 2015 on. The proposed change would simplify the regulatory text by removing the reference to the 25 percent carryover allowance.

    South Atlantic Swordfish Quota

    In 2013, ICCAT Recommendation 13-03 established the South Atlantic swordfish TAC at 11,278.2 mt dw (15,000 mt ww) for 2014, 2015, and 2016. Of this, the United States receives 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww). Recommendation 13-03 limits the amount of South Atlantic swordfish underharvest that can be carried forward, and the United States may carry forward up to 100 percent of its baseline quota (75.2 mt dw). Recommendation 13-03 also included a total of 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww) of quota transfers from the United States to other countries. These transfers were 37.6 mt dw (50 mt ww) to Namibia, 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Côte d'Ivoire, and 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Belize.

    In 2015, U.S. fishermen landed no South Atlantic swordfish according to data available as of December 31, 2015. The adjusted 2015 South Atlantic swordfish quota was 75.1 mt dw due to nominal landings in previous years. Therefore, 75.1 mt dw of underharvest is available to carry over to 2016. NMFS is proposing to carry forward 75.1 mt dw to be added to the 75.2 mt dw baseline quota. The quota would then be reduced by the 75.2 mt dw of annual international quota transfers outlined above, resulting in an adjusted South Atlantic swordfish quota of 75.1 mt dw for the 2016 fishing year.

    As with the landings and proposed quota for North Atlantic swordfish, the South Atlantic swordfish landings and proposed quota are based on dealer reports received as of December 31, 2015, do not include dead discards or late landings reports, and are preliminary landings estimates that have not yet undergone quality control and assurance procedures. NMFS will adjust the quotas in the final rule based on any updated data, including dead discard data, if available. Thus, the 2016 proposed South Atlantic swordfish quota is subject to further adjustments. However, the United States has only landed South Atlantic swordfish twice in the past several years (0.2 mt dw in April 2010 and 0.1 mt dw in April 2013) and therefore does not anticipate additional landings or discard data that would change the final quota from the proposed quota.

    Table 1—2016 North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quotas 2015 2016 North Atlantic Swordfish quota (mt dw) Baseline Quota 2,937.6 2,937.6. International Quota Transfer (−)18.8 (to Mauritania) (−)18.8 (to Mauritania). Total Underharvest from Previous Year + 1,337.4 2,181.6. Underharvest Carryover from Previous Year + (+) 440.6 (+) 440.6. Adjusted Quota 3,359.4 3,359.4. Quota Allocation Directed Category 3,009.4 3,009.4. Incidental Category 300 300. Reserve Category 50 50. South Atlantic Swordfish quota (mt dw) Baseline Quota 75.2 75.2. International Quota Transfers * (−)75.2 (−)75.2. Total Underharvest from Previous Year + 75.1 75.1. Underharvest Carryover from Previous Year + 75.1 75.1. Adjusted quota 75.1 75.1. + Allowable underharvest carryover is now capped at 15 percent of the baseline quota allocation for the North Atlantic and 75.2 dw (100 mt ww) for the South Atlantic. The available 2014 and 2015 underharvests are based on data current as of December 31, 2015; they do not include dead discards, late reports, or changes to the data as a result of quality control adjustments. * Under Recommendation 13-03, the United States transfers 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww) annually to Namibia (37.6 mt dw, 50 mt ww), Côte d'Ivoire (18.8 mt dw, 25 mt ww), and Belize (18.8 mt dw, 25 mt ww). Modification of the Annual Quota Adjustment Public Notification Process

    In the past, NMFS annually has published proposed swordfish quota specifications, allowed for a public comment period, and then issued a final rule. We have done this whether we are adopting new quotas/otherwise altering conservation and management measures pursuant to an ICCAT recommendation or simply adjusting the swordfish quotas based on formulas or measures codified in regulations adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking (see, e.g., regulatory text at 50 CFR 635.27(c)). Where NMFS is simply administering a pre-established formula that is already embodied in regulations, it has limited discretion over implementation. Inviting public notice and comment on these actions may have unnecessarily confused the regulated community, who has not understood the scope of these actions and our limited discretion to make changes to the quota in these situations. Thus, past public comments have included requests that go well beyond the scope of these actions, including suggestions to carry over underharvests in an amount exceeding the carryover limit, which would be inconsistent with ICCAT recommendations; requests not to carry over any underharvests, which would be inconsistent with the established regulatory formulas; and requests to shut down the commercial swordfish fishery.

    To address public confusion and streamline the regulatory process, NMFS notifies the public that it intends to annually adjust the North and South Atlantic swordfish quotas through a final rule without an opportunity for public comment, as appropriate, when such adjustments simply apply a previously-adopted formula and are administrative in nature. NMFS would take such action consistent with requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

    Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts

    The proposed North Atlantic swordfish quota adjustments would result in an adjusted quota for 2016 substantially similar to that analyzed in the 2012 EA, RIR, and FRFA and implemented in 2013 and 2014, and is the same as the adjusted quota implemented in 2015. The quota analyzed in the 2012 EA, RIR, and FRFA was 3,559.2 mt dw and the proposed 2016 adjusted quota is 3,359.4 mt dw; a decrease of 199.8 mt dw. The 2016 North Atlantic swordfish proposed quota is not expected to increase fishing effort, protected species interactions, or environmental effects in a manner not considered in the 2012 EA and would, in fact, cap the quota at a level slightly lower than that analyzed in the 2012 EA and thus likely have fewer environmental effects or protected species interactions.

    The 2016 proposed quota differs slightly from that quota analyzed in the 2012 EA for two reasons. First, Recommendation 13-02 reduces the underharvest carryover limit beginning in 2015 from 25 percent of the base quota to 15 percent. In the 2012 EA, the analysis took into account North Atlantic Swordfish underharvest carryovers of up to 25 percent. Since the lower underharvest carryover limit is within this range (i.e., it is less than 25 percent), the quota that would be implemented consistent with the reduced carryover provision has been previously analyzed. Furthermore, once effective, the reduced underharvest carryover limit would result in a lower overall North Atlantic swordfish adjusted quota.

    The second reason the 2012 quota is different than the 2016 proposed adjusted quota is Recommendation 13-02's elimination of the 112.8 mt dw quota transfer to Morocco and the introduction of a lower 18.8 mt dw quota transfer to Mauritania. No additional NEPA analysis is needed for the change in international quota transfers because—in concert with the reduction in the underharvest carryover limit—these changes are not expected to increase fishing effort, affect protected species interactions, or environmental effects beyond those considered in the existing NEPA analyses. Thus, NMFS has determined that the North Atlantic swordfish quota portion of the specifications and impacts to the human environment as a result of the proposed quota adjustments do not require additional NEPA analysis beyond that discussed in the 2012 EA.

    Similarly, NMFS analyzed—in the EA, RIR, and FRFA that were prepared for the 2007 Swordfish Quota Specification Final Rule (October 5, 2007; 72 FR 56929)—the impacts of harvesting the same amount of annual baseline quota being proposed here in the 2016 South Atlantic swordfish specifications. The proposed South Atlantic swordfish quota adjustments would not change overall quotas and are not expected to increase fishing effort, protected species interactions, or environmental effects beyond those analyzed in the 2007 EA. While ICCAT SCRS conducted a stock assessment for South Atlantic swordfish in 2013, that assessment did not alter the stock status or TAC from when 2007 EA analyses were conducted and no additional information about the environment has become available that would alter the analyses. Therefore, because there would be no changes to the South Atlantic swordfish management measures in this proposed rule, and no changes to the affected environment or any environmental effects that have not been previously analyzed, NMFS has determined that the South Atlantic swordfish quota portion of the specifications and impacts to the human environment as a result of the proposed quota adjustments do not require additional NEPA analysis beyond that analyzed in the 2007 EA.

    Request for Comments

    NMFS is requesting comments on any of the measures or analyses described in this proposed rule. During the comment period, NMFS will hold one conference call and webinar for this proposed rule. The conference call and webinar will be held on June 29, 2016, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. EST. Please see the DATES and ADDRESSES headings for more information.

    The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants on phone conferences to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the conference call, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., all comments are to be directed to the agency on the proposed action; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; attendees may not interrupt one another; etc.). NMFS representative(s) will structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and those that do not may be removed from the conference call.

    Classification

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tuna Convention Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Previously, NMFS determined that proposed rules to implement the North Atlantic swordfish quota framework (77 FR 25669, May 1, 2012) and South Atlantic swordfish quota framework (75 FR 35432, June 22, 2010) were consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of coastal states on the Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.41(a), NMFS provided the Coastal Zone Management Program of each coastal state a 60-day period to review the consistency determination and to advise the Agency of their concurrence. NMFS received concurrence with the consistency determinations from several states and inferred consistency from those states that did not respond within the 60-day time period. This proposed action to establish the 2016 North and South Atlantic swordfish quotas does not change the framework previously consulted upon; therefore, no additional consultation is required.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the proposed quota adjustments are largely the same as in previous years and the United States is not expected to catch its entire quota in 2016.

    As described above, this proposed rule would adjust the 2016 baseline quota for North Atlantic swordfish (January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016) to account for 2015 underharvests, as allowable, and international quota transfers per § 635.27(c)(1)(i) and (c)(3)(ii) based on ICCAT Recommendation 13-02. The United States can carry over 2015 underharvest at a level not to exceed 15 percent of its baseline quota. Additionally, ICCAT Recommendation 13-02 stipulates that the United States transfer 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) of quota to Mauritania.

    In 2015, U.S. fishermen landed 1,177.8 mt dw of North Atlantic swordfish as of December 31, 2015, leaving 2,181.6 mt dw of quota underharvest. This underharvest amount exceeds the maximum underharvest carryover of 440.6 mt dw; therefore, only the maximum amount of 440.6 mt dw of 2015 underharvest would be carried over and added to the 2016 baseline quota. The quota transfer of 18.8 mt dw to Mauritania would be deducted, leaving a proposed 2016 North Atlantic swordfish adjusted quota of 3,359.4 mt dw (Table 1).

    This proposed rule would also adjust the 2016 baseline quota for South Atlantic swordfish (January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016) to account for 2015 underharvests and international quota transfers per § 635.27(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(3)(ii) based on ICCAT Recommendation 13-03. The United States can carry over 2015 underharvest at a level not to exceed 100 percent of the baseline quota. Additionally, ICCAT Recommendation 13-03 stipulates that the United States transfer the following quota amounts to other countries: 37.6 mt dw (50 mt ww) to Namibia; 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Côte d'Ivoire; and 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Belize.

    In 2015, U.S. fishermen landed no South Atlantic swordfish according to data available as of December 31, 2015. The adjusted 2015 South Atlantic swordfish quota was 75.1 mt dw due to nominal landings in previous years. Therefore, 75.1 mt dw of underharvest is available to carry over to 2016. NMFS is proposing to carry forward 75.1 mt dw to be added to the 75.2 mt dw baseline quota. The quota would then be reduced by the 75.2 mt dw of annual international quota transfers outlined above, resulting in an adjusted South Atlantic swordfish quota of 75.1 mt dw for the 2016 fishing year. (Table 1).

    The commercial swordfish fishery is comprised of fishermen who hold one of three swordfish limited access permits (LAPs) (i.e., directed, incidental, or handgear), fishermen who hold a swordfish general commercial permit, fishermen who hold an HMS incidental squid trawl permit, fishermen who hold a commercial Caribbean small boat permit, and the related industries, including processors, bait houses, and equipment suppliers. As of October 2015, there were approximately 188 vessels with a directed swordfish LAP, 72 vessels with an incidental swordfish LAP, 83 vessels with a handgear LAP for swordfish, and 651 vessels that held a swordfish general commercial permit. Additionally, there were approximately 66 HMS incidental squid trawl permit holders, which allow vessels in the Illex squid fishery to retain up to 15 incidentally-caught swordfish while trawling for squid. A total of 20 Caribbean small boat permits were issued in 2015 as of October 2015; however, 14 of these were held by vessels in Florida where the permit is not valid. NMFS considers all participants in the commercial swordfish fishery to be small entities, based on the relevant North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and size standards set by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a “small business” if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts (revenue) not in excess of $20.5 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. NAICS is the North American Industry Classification System, a standard system used by business and government to classify business establishments into industries, according to their economic activity. The United States government developed NAICS to collect, analyze, and publish data about the economy. In addition, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined a small charter/party boat entity (NAICS code 487210, for-hire) as one with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $7.5 million.

    On December 29, 2015, NMFS published a final rule (80 FR 81194; December 29, 2015) to establish a single small business size standard for commercial fishing businesses (NAICS 11411) of $11 million for RFA compliance purposes only. NMFS has chosen to delay the effective date of the rule to establish a small business size until July 1, 2016. Given the length of the regulatory development process, NMFS is considering this size standard for small entities for this proposed rule given that the final rule may occur after the July 1, 2016 effective date. The new size standards do not affect analyses prepared for this action.

    This action is not expected to result in a significant economic impact on the small entities subject to the quota limits. Based on the 2015 average price for swordfish of $4.07/lb (based on 2015 electronic dealer data), the 2016 North and South Atlantic swordfish baseline quotas could result in gross revenues of $26,358,268 (2,937.6 mt dw (6,476,233 lbs dw) * $4.07/lb) and $674,749 (75.2 mt dw (165,786 lbs dw) * $4.07/lb), respectively, if the quotas were fully utilized. Under the adjusted quotas of 3,359.4 mt dw (7,406,133 lbs dw) for North Atlantic swordfish and 75.1 mt dw (165,565 lbs dw) for South Atlantic swordfish, the gross revenues could be $30,142,961 and $673,850, respectively, for fully utilized quotas.

    Potential revenues per vessel resulting from full utilization of the adjusted quotas could be $27,910 for the North Atlantic swordfish fishery and $3,584 for the South Atlantic swordfish fishery, considering a total of 1,080 swordfish permit holders in the North Atlantic and 188 directed permit holders that can harvest South Atlantic swordfish (only limited access directed swordfish permit holders may retain South Atlantic swordfish). The North Atlantic estimate, however, represents an average across all permit types, despite permit differences in retention limits, target species, and geographical range. For North Atlantic swordfish, directed swordfish permit holders would likely experience higher than average per-vessel ex-vessel revenues due to the use of pelagic longline gear and the lack of a per-trip retention limit, although trip expenses are likely to be relatively high. HMS incidental squid trawl permit holders would likely experience per vessel ex-vessel revenues well below those received by pelagic longline vessels due to the low retention limit per trip (15 swordfish) and because these vessels do not target swordfish and only catch them incidentally. Swordfish general commercial permit holders would likely experience lower than average per-vessel ex-vessel revenues, despite higher ex-vessel prices and lower fishing expenses. Although the proposed 2016 North Atlantic swordfish adjusted quota is 199.8 mt dw lower than the quota analyzed in the 2012 EA, U.S. fishermen in recent years have not harvested the full North Atlantic swordfish quota. Thus, the 199.8 mt dw change in the total adjusted quota is unlikely to cause any economic impacts since that portion of the quota will likely be unutilized. In the future, if the North Atlantic swordfish fishery achieves full quota utilization, economic impacts will need to be reanalyzed. For South Atlantic swordfish, only directed swordfish permit holders can land these fish; therefore, potential revenue per vessel is higher than the average for these directed swordfish permit holders since the other permit types may not land swordfish. However, U.S. fishermen rarely catch South Atlantic swordfish. Over the past 6 years, 0.3 mt dw of South Atlantic swordfish catch has been reported. The proposed 2016 South Atlantic swordfish adjusted quota is unchanged from that analyzed in the 2007 EA, thus, no new economic impacts are expected.

    Because the United States' commercial swordfish fishery is not expected to catch its entire quota in 2016, the adjustments to the quota and management measures proposed in this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 635.27, revise paragraphs (c)(3) to read as follows:
    § 635.27 Quotas.

    (c) * * *

    (3) Annual adjustments. NMFS will file with the Office of the Federal Register for publication notice of the following adjustments to or apportionments of the annual quota:

    (i) Adjustments to the quota necessary to meet the objectives of the Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan consistent with the quota provisions of paragraph (c)(1).

    (ii) If consistent with applicable ICCAT recommendations, total landings above or below the specific North Atlantic or South Atlantic swordfish annual quota will be subtracted from, or added to, the following year's quota for that area. As necessary to meet management objectives, such adjustments may be apportioned to fishing categories and/or to the reserve. Carryover adjustments for the North Atlantic shall be limited to 15 percent of the annual baseline quota allocation. Carryover adjustments for the South Atlantic shall be limited to 100 mt ww (75.2 mt dw). Any adjustments to the 12-month directed fishery quota will be apportioned equally between the two semiannual fishing seasons.

    (iii) The dressed weight equivalent of the amount by which dead discards exceed the allowance specified at paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section will be subtracted from the landings quota in the following fishing year or from the reserve category.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13367 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 109 Tuesday, June 7, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet in Wenatchee, Washington. The committee is authorized pursuant to the implementation of E-19 of the Record of Decision and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to promote a better integration of forest management activities between Federal and non-Federal entities to ensure that such activities are complementary. PAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/okawen/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesday, June 29, 2016.

    All PAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (NF) Headquarters Office, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington.

    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 Okanogan-Wenatchee NF Headquarters Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robin DeMario, PAC Coordinator, by phone at 509-664-9292 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Provide updates to members on Travel Management Planning, and

    2. Forest Plan monitoring interaction and advice from PAC members.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 22, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Robin DeMario, PAC Coordinator, 216 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 98801; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 509-664-9286.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Jason Kuiken, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13375 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota—Rushmore Connector Trail Project AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), Black Hills National Forest, proposes to issue authorizations for the construction, operation and maintenance of a non-motorized trail connecting the existing George S. Mickelson (Mickelson) Trail near Hill City, South Dakota, to the Blackberry Trailhead at Mount Rushmore National Memorial (the Memorial). New trail construction would extend approximately 14 miles across National Forest System (NFS) land and approximately 1.4 miles across National Park Service (NPS) lands within the Memorial. The trail would be a combination of compacted tread and elevated walkway, with a trail tread of about eight feet and corridor of about twenty feet. The proposed Rushmore Connector Trail would be constructed, operated and maintained by the proponent, State of South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP).

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be postmarked no later than 30 (thirty) days from date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The draft environmental impact statement is expected November 2017, and the final environmental impact statement is expected March 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest, ATTN: Rushmore Connector Trail, 1019 N. 5th Street, Custer, SD 57730. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected], with “Rushmore Connector Trail” in the subject line. Electronic comments must be submitted in Word (.doc), Rich Text (.rtf), or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format. Open-house-style public meetings are planned, one each in Hill City and Rapid City, South Dakota, on Tuesday, June 14, and Thursday, June 16. Times and exact locations of these meetings will be announced on the Black Hills National Forest project Web site, http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44935.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anne Apodaca, Forest Recreation and Trails Program Manager, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 N. 5th Street, Custer, SD 57730, phone (605) 673-9200. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of this proposal is to respond to the application submitted by the State of South Dakota. The need is to evaluate the State's application to construct, operate and maintain a non-motorized recreation trail and associated corridor across NFS lands managed by the Black Hills National Forest, in order to determine effects as well as consistency with law, regulation, policy and guidance in the 1997 Revised Forest Plan for the Black Hills National Forest, as Amended (Forest Plan). This proposal would respond to Forest Plan Goal 4 (Provide for scenic quality, recreational opportunities and protection of heritage resources); Goal 7 (Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations, and other agencies in coordinating planning and implementing projects); and Goal 8 (Promote rural development opportunities).

    Proposed Action

    The proposed Rushmore Connector Trail, would be constructed, operated and maintained for non-motorized use. The proposal is based on the special use permit application and the George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Trail Feasibility Study, completed previously and provided by the SDGFP to the Forest Service. New trail construction would extend approximately 14 miles across NFS land and approximately 1.4 miles within the Memorial. The new trail is anticipated to be a combination of compacted tread and elevated walkway, with a trail tread width of approximately eight feet within a corridor approximately twenty feet wide. The trail would be designed to follow the Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines and have grades no greater than 8-14 percent, depending on the resting interval. A right-of-way across private property would be required for a small segment of trail, approximately 0.1 mile. The proponent would secure this right-of-way at their expense, in the name of the U.S. Government.

    The Rushmore Connector Trail would connect the existing Forest Service developed recreation facilities along the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway (SD Highway 244), which it would cross at least three times. The Big Pine Trailhead would be relocated to the south side of the highway to improve trail user safety, and would provide the point for divergence of user groups. Equestrian users would be required to follow the existing Centennial National Recreation Trail (Trail 89) south for approximately 4.8 miles, of which 4.1 miles is located in the Black Elk Wilderness managed by the Forest Service. Existing management direction including party size limits would apply. Within the Memorial 0.72 miles of the existing Blackberry Trail would be utilized. Bicyclists would travel from Big Pine Trailhead on the proposed designated route, through the Horsethief Lake and Wrinkled Rock areas into the Memorial. Hikers could use either route. A Forest Plan amendment is proposed, to address several possible inconsistencies of the proposal with existing guidance regarding expansion of the recreational trail system and outfitter-guide permits in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, and party size limits in the Black Elk Wilderness.

    If an action alternative were selected, the land beneath the trail would remain NFS land managed by the Black Hills National Forest. The trail facility itself would be constructed, operated and maintained by the State of South Dakota, under a special use permit issued by the Forest Service under authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The special use permit would allow the State to charge for use of the trail, as part of the general use fee for the Mickelson Trail. Any other fees proposed by the State to be implemented for portions of the proposed trail would require prior Forest Service approval with public involvement. Individual special events proposed on the trail would each require Forest Service approval with public involvement, and authorization under a special use permit.

    Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    Under terms of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Forest Service is the lead agency for analysis of this proposal. The National Park Service, Mount Rushmore National Memorial, is a cooperating agency on this project. The NPS has special expertise and jurisdiction by law and would make a decision on whether to implement that portion of the proposed trail route on NPS lands. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is also a cooperating agency on this project. FHWA may have a decision to make regarding funding of project work.

    Responsible Officials

    The Forest Service Responsible Official for this project is the Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest, 1019 N. 5th Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730. Depending on the nature of the permit(s) that might be issued to implement an action alternative, the Regional Forester of the U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region may also issue a decision on this project. The National Park Service Responsible Official for this project is the Superintendent of Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Some decisions may be required to be made by the NPS Regional Director, or through additional mandated rulemaking procedures.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Based on the environmental analysis the Forest Supervisor of the Black Hills National Forest will make the following decisions:

    • Whether to authorize construction, operation and maintenance of approximately 14 miles of non-motorized trail connecting the George S. Mickelson Trail to Mount Rushmore National Memorial near Hill City, South Dakota, as proposed, in some other manner and/or along an alternate route, or not at all;

    • What if any design criteria, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements should be required;

    • Whether to amend existing Black Hills National Forest Plan direction to allow implementation of the selected alternative;

    • Whether to authorize construction of a new campground in Section 33 or thereabouts, of Township 1 South, Range 5 East, Black Hills Meridian, to accommodate trail users and other Forest visitors;

    • Whether to authorize reconstruction of the Highway 244 underpass near Willow Creek Campground and Palmer Gulch Campground, to facilitate use of the Rushmore Connector Trail with the existing Black Elk Wilderness and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve trail system;

    • Whether to authorize construction of additional trailhead facilities north and west of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve to provide additional access points to the Rushmore Connector Trail;

    • Whether to reconstruct portions of the Centennial Trail, including sections in the Black Elk Wilderness, to address and mitigate use impacts;

    • Whether to approve, in principle only, future special events within the capacity analyzed;

    • Whether use limits should be imposed on trail use for segments outside of the Black Elk Wilderness;

    • Whether to authorize additional outfitter-guide permits;

    • Whether to authorize the implementation of use fees;

    • Whether to authorize phased construction of the Rushmore Connector Trail on NFS lands prior to potential final rulemaking procedures for actions within Mount Rushmore National Memorial.

    Some of these decisions may be reserved to the Regional Forester of the Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service. The level of individual decisions will be determined by the actions outlined through the NEPA process. If any action alternative is selected, project implementation could begin in the year 2018. The initial focus would be to issue authorizations and engineering design and layout.

    Permits or Licenses Required

    A special use permit issued by the Forest Service under FLPMA would be required before any action alternative could be implemented.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.

    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, anonymous comments may not allow the Agency to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.

    Dated: May 25, 2016. Jim Zornes, Acting Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13373 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Meeting AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE) will hold a public meeting on Thursday, June 16, 2016, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) and Friday, June 17, 2016, from 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. ET. During this time, members will continue to work on various Council initiatives which include innovation, entrepreneurship, and talent development.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 16, 2016, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) and on Friday, June 17, 2016, from 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. ET. Pre-clearance is required to attend the Friday portion of the meeting in person. If you wish to attend this portion of the meeting, you must notify Julie Lenzer (see contact information below) no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on Monday, June 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Thursday portion of the meeting will be held at the Herbert Clark Hoover Building, Room 1894, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Friday portion of the meeting will be held at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Room 210/212, 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20504.

    Teleconference

    June 16-17, 2016.

    Dial-In: +1 877 950 4778 or +1 517 244 5888.

    Passcode: 4423486.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Lenzer, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Room 78018, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; email: [email protected]; telephone: +1 202 482 8001; fax: +1 202 273 4781. Please reference “NACIE June 2016 Meeting” in the subject line of your correspondence.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council was chartered on November 10, 2009, to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters related to innovation and entrepreneurship in the United States. NACIE's overarching focus is recommending transformational policies to the Secretary that will help U.S. communities, businesses, and the workforce become more globally competitive. The Council operates as an independent entity within the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OIE), which is housed within the U.S. Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration. NACIE members are a diverse and dynamic group of successful entrepreneurs, innovators, and investors, as well as leaders from nonprofit organizations and academia.

    The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Council's planned work initiatives in three focus areas: Workforce/talent, entrepreneurship, and innovation. The final agenda will be posted on the NACIE Web site at http://www.eda.gov/oie/nacie/ prior to the meeting. Any member of the public may submit pertinent questions and comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the contact information below. Those unable to attend the meetings in person but wishing to listen to the proceedings can do so through a conference call line accessible via +1 877 950 4778 or +1 517 244 5888 with passcode 4423486. Copies of the meeting minutes will be available by request within 90 days of the meeting date.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Julie Lenzer, Director, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13412 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on July 26, 2016, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.

    Agenda

    Public Session:

    1. Welcome and Introductions.

    2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.

    3. Industry Presentations.

    4. New Business.

    Closed Session:

    5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than July 19, 2016.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on November 5, 2015 pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d), that the portion of this meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13402 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA) will meet on June 22, 2016, 9:15 a.m. (Pacific Daylight Time), at Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100, Seattle, WA 98104. The PECSEA provides advice on matters pertinent to those portions of the Export Administration Act, as amended, that deal with United States policies of encouraging trade with all countries with which the United States has diplomatic or trading relations and of controlling trade for national security and foreign policy reasons.

    Agenda Open Session 1. Opening remarks by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. 2. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public. 3. Export Control Reform Update via Video Teleconferencing. 4. Status of and Commentary on Proposed Rules via Video Teleconferencing. 5. Update on the Single Form via Video Teleconferencing. 6. Subcommittee Updates. Closed Session 7. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first served basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than June 15, 2016.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 9, 2016, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13398 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-900] Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Reinstatement of Order, in Part AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 11, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (“the Court”) issued final judgment in Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13-00168,1 sustaining the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) voluntary final remand results concerning the Implemented PRC Section 129 Determination. 2 In the Final Section 129 Remand, the Department determined that it was appropriate to reinstate the partially revoked antidumping duty order (“the order”) on diamond sawblades and parts thereof (“diamond sawblades”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) with respect to Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. (“AT&M”) 3 where the basis for the Implemented PRC Section 129 Determination was no longer valid.4

    1See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturer's Coalition v. United States, Consol. Court No. 13-00168, Slip Op. 16-48 (CIT May 11, 2016) (“DSMC”).

    2See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United States, Consol. Court No. 13-00168, Slip Op. 15-92 (CIT August 20, 2015), dated December 1, 2015, (“Final Section 129 Remand”) available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/; Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 78 FR 18958 (March 28, 2013) (“Implemented PRC Section 129 Determination”).

    3 Collectively with Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd., a single entity. See Implemented PRC Section 129 Determination, 78 FR 18958, 18959 at n. 10.

    4See Final Section 129 Remand.

    Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Timken”), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Diamond Sawblades”), the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's implemented final determination in a proceeding conducted under section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Section 129). Furthermore, the Department is reinstating the order with respect to AT&M.5

    5 Who, was stated in the Implemented PRC Section 129 Determination was, collectively with Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd., a single entity.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 21, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Devine, AD/CVD Operations Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0238.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation, the Department determined that mandatory respondent AT&M was eligible for a separate rate, and calculated a separate estimated weighted-average dumping margin for it.6 Petitioner, the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition (“DSMC”), challenged the Department's separate-rate determination in court.7 Concurrently, the PRC challenged the Department's use of its “zeroing” methodology in calculating dumping margins in certain LTFV investigations before the World Trade Organization's (“WTO”) Dispute Settlement Body.8 Effective March 22, 2013, in response to the dispute settlement panel's findings and instructions by the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) to implement the Department's determination under Section 129 of the URAA, the Department recalculated AT&M's weighted-average dumping margin from the LTFV investigation without the use of zeroing.9 Removing the zeroing methodology resulted in AT&M receiving a calculated dumping margin of zero.10 Consequently, the Department partially revoked the order with respect to AT&M. The DSMC challenged this determination before the Court. Additionally, in the ongoing litigation relating to the Department's separate-rate determination in the LTFV investigation, the Department reconsidered AT&M's separate rate eligibility and determined that AT&M had not rebutted the presumption of state control, and thus, was not eligible for a separate rate.11 The rate applicable to the PRC-wide entity in the LTFV investigation was based on information in the petition and did not involve zeroing.12 On October 11, 2013, the Court sustained the Department's redetermination that AT&M failed to rebut the presumption of state control, and therefore, was not eligible for a separate rate.13 On October 24, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Court's decision.14

    6See Implemented PRC Section 129 Determination at 29306.

    7See Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States, 938 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (CIT 2013).

    8See WTO Panel Report, United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China, WT/DS422/R (June 8, 2012).

    9See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 78 FR 18958, 18960 (March 28, 2013).

    10Id.

    11See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand Order Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, Advanced Tech. & Material Co. v. United States, CIT Ct. No. 09-511 (May 6, 2013) (“Advanced Tech. Remand”) available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/12-147.pdf.

    12See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77129 (December 29, 2005) unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).

    13See Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States, 938 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (CIT 2013).

    14See Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States, 581 Fed. Appx. 900 (CAFC 2014) (Rule 36).

    In light of AT&M's ineligibility for a separate rate in the LTFV investigation, and the inapplicability of the separate-rate applied to AT&M in the LTFV investigation which served as the basis of the Department's Implemented PRC Section 129 determination, in the litigation concerning the Implemented PRC Section 129 determination, the United States moved for a voluntary remand to reconsider its partial revocation of the dumping order. The Court granted the United States' motion.15

    15See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13-00168, Slip op. 15-92 (August 20, 2015).

    On December 1, 2015, the Department issued the final results of redetermination in this section 129 remand and filed this remand with the Court.16 On May 11, 2016, the Court entered judgment sustaining the remand results.17

    16See Final Section 129 Remand.

    17See Final Sustained Remand.

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The Court's May 11, 2016, judgment sustaining the Final Section 129 Remand constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Implemented PRC Section 129 Determination. 18 This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken.

    18See DSMC.

    Reinstatement of the Order

    In the Final Section 129 Remand, sustained by the Court,19 the Department determined that reinstatement of the order with regard to AT&M was appropriate.20 Accordingly, consistent with the Final Section 129 Remand and the decision by the Court sustaining that redetermination, the Department hereby reinstates the order as it applies to AT&M. Consistent with the Department's stated intention in the Final Section 129 Remand, this reinstatement of the order with regard to AT&M is effective as of March 22, 2013, which was the effective date of the partial revocation.21

    19See DSMC at 5-6.

    20See Final Section 129 Remand; see also DSMC.

    21See Final Section 129 Remand, at 6.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require cash deposits at 82.05 percent, the current rate established for the PRC-wide entity.22 Pursuant to the Court's finding that the Department should have issued those instructions upon filing the redetermination with the Court, those instructions will be effective as of December 1, 2015, the date the remand redetermination was filed with the Court.

    22See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 32344, 32345 (June 8, 2015).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 129(c)(2)(A) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13534 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Rip Current Visualization Survey and Focus Groups AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    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 take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 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 the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Nicole Kurkowski, National Weather Service, ((301) 427-9104), [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This is a request for a new collection of information. The objective of the survey and focus groups is to collect information on the current use and knowledge of NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) products and perceptions of various rip current products. The focus groups will ask participants to explain their responses. This information will help create better rip current products used by the National Weather Service (NWS) to protect lives and prevent injury from rip currents.

    II. Method of Collection

    The primary data collection vehicles will be an internet-based, public survey and face to face focus groups. The focus groups will target lifeguards and decision makers. Telephone and personal interviews may be employed to supplement and verify survey responses.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (request for a new information collection).

    Affected Public: Members of the public.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 500 for the survey and 80 for the focus groups.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes for the survey and 1.5 hours for the focus groups.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 250 hours for the survey and 120 hours for the focus groups.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    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 shall 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: June 2, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13368 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE663 Marine Mammals; File No. 18769 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Sea World, LLC., 9205 South Park Center Loop, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32819 [Christopher Dold, D.V.M., Responsible Party], has applied in due form for a permit to continue enhancement activities on three currently held non-releasable Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus townsendi) with the option of holding up to six non-releasable furs seals at any given time.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before July 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 18769 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. 18769 in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Skidmore and Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

    The applicant requests authorization for the continued maintenance of three non-releasable Guadalupe fur seals at Sea World of California (and other Sea World facilities if relocation is necessary) for enhancement purposes. These animals were taken into captivity by the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Network and were deemed non-releasable. Thus, release of these animals would not be in the best interest of their individual welfare and that of the wild population. These animals are currently held by Sea World of California under Permit No. 14186-01. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to provide additional space for future non-releasable Guadalupe fur seals, if necessary (up to 6 total animals at any given time). These animals would be provided with daily husbandry care and treatment for current medical conditions, routine veterinary care, and would be made available for opportunistic research. The applicant has requested a five-year permit.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13351 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 16-C0004] Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the Federal Register in accordance with the terms of the Consumer Product Safety Commission's regulations. Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions containing a civil penalty in the amount of four million, five hundred thousand dollars ($4,500,000) within thirty (30) days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Settlement Agreement.

    DATES:

    Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by June 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 16-C0004, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 820, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexander W. Dennis, Attorney, Division of Enforcement and Information, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7817.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The text of the Agreement and Order 1 appears below.

    1 The Commission voted (3-2) to provisionally accept the Settlement Agreement and Order regarding Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions. Chairman Kaye, Commissioner Adler, Commissioner Robinson voted to provisionally accept the Settlement Agreement and Order. Commissioner Buerkle and Commissioner Mohorovic voted to reject the Settlement Agreement and Order.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary.

    Commissioner Mohorovic filed a statement regarding this matter. The statement is available at the Office of the Secretary or the CPSC Web site, www.cpsc.gov.

    United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission

    In the Matter of:

    Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions

    CPSC Docket No.: 16-C0004
    SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

    1. In accordance with the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089 (“CPSA”) and 16 CFR 1118.20, Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions (“the Firm”), and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”), through its staff, hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement, and the incorporated attached Order, resolve staff's charges set forth below.

    THE PARTIES

    2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency, established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089. By executing the Agreement, staff is acting on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to 16 CFR 1118.20(b). The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA.

    3. Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions is a Delaware corporation with its principal corporate offices in Boca Raton, FL.

    STAFF CHARGES

    4. From 2010 to 2012 the Firm manufactured, imported, distributed, and sold about 520,000 Mr. Coffee Single Cup Brewing System BVMC-KG1 series coffee makers (“Coffee Makers” or “Subject Products”).

    5. The Coffee Makers are “consumer products” “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined or used in section 3(a)(5) and (8) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5) and (8). The Firm is a “manufacturer” of the Subject Products, as such term is defined in section 3(a)(11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11).

    6. The Firm had information reasonably supporting the conclusion that the Coffee Makers are defective or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death in that a build-up of steam pressure can force the brewing chamber open and expel hot water and hot coffee grounds towards consumers, creating a burn risk to consumers.

    7. Between 2011 and 2012 the Firm received numerous complaints of the Subject Products' chamber opening and expelling hot water and hot coffee grounds towards consumers. The complaints included reports of at least 32 consumers being burned by the Subject Products.

    8. Despite having information reasonably supporting the conclusion that the Coffee Makers contain a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, the Firm did not immediately notify the Commission, as required by section 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4).

    9. In failing to inform the Commission immediately about the Coffee Makers, the Firm knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).

    10. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, the Firm is subject to civil penalties for its knowing violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).

    RESPONSE OF SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC. D/B/A JARDEN CONSUMER SOLUTIONS

    11. The Firm's settlement of this matter does not constitute an admission that it had reportable information as set forth in paragraphs 4 through 10.

    12. The Firm conducted an investigation about consumer complaints relating to the Subject Products' brewing chamber opening to try to determine the cause of these events. After an extensive investigation, the Firm eventually determined that these incidents were related to circumstances that it had not anticipated, i.e., a buildup of steam within the Subject Products' hot water tank, which the Firm believes was caused by brewing a second cup of coffee with four ounces or less of water added to the hot water tank immediately after an initial eight ounce brew, without changing the coffee pod. The Subject Products' instructions provided that coffee be brewed by filling the brewing chamber to its fill line (i.e. eight ounces of water). When filled to the fill line, the Subject Products did not create steam and thus did not result in the chamber opening. After its investigation, the Firm voluntarily filed a report under Section 15(b) of the CPSA with the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 2064(b).

    13. The Firm has agreed to pay this civil penalty because the CPSA defines a “knowing” violation of section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d), to include a party that is “presumed [to] have[] knowledge deemed to be possessed by a reasonable man who acts in the circumstances . . .” and has agreed to the terms in paragraphs 20 and 21 to enhance the Firm's continued and future compliance with the CPSA.

    AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES

    14. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over the matter involving the Subject Products described herein and over the Firm.

    15. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by the Firm or a determination by the Commission that the Firm violated the CPSA's reporting requirements.

    16. In settlement of staff's charges, and to avoid the cost, distraction, delay, uncertainty, and inconvenience of protracted litigation or other proceedings, the Firm shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of four million, five hundred thousand dollars ($4,500,000) within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the Commission via: http://www.pay.gov.

    17. After staff receives this Agreement executed on behalf of the Firm, staff shall promptly submit the Agreement to the Commission for provisional acceptance. Promptly following provisional acceptance of the Agreement by the Commission, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the Federal Register, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen (15) calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the 16th calendar day after the date the Agreement is published in the Federal Register, in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f).

    18. This Agreement is conditioned upon, and subject to, the Commission's final acceptance, as set forth above, and it is subject to the provisions of 16 CFR 1118.20(h). Upon the later of: (i) The Commission's final acceptance of this Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon the Firm, and (ii) the date of issuance of the final Order, this Agreement shall be in full force and effect and shall be binding upon the parties.

    19. Effective upon the later of: (i) The Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon the Firm, and (ii) and the date of issuance of the final Order, for good and valuable consideration, the Firm hereby expressly and irrevocably waives and agrees not to assert any past, present, or future rights to the following, in connection with the matter described in this Agreement: (i) An administrative or judicial hearing; (ii) judicial review or other challenge or contest of the Commission's actions; (iii) a determination by the Commission of whether the Firm failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations; (iv) a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (v) any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

    20. The Firm shall maintain a compliance program designed to ensure compliance with the CPSA with respect to any consumer product imported, manufactured, distributed or sold by the Firm, and which shall contain the following elements:

    (i) written standards, policies and procedures, including those designed to ensure that information that may relate to or impact CPSA compliance (including information obtained by quality control personnel) is conveyed effectively to personnel responsible for CPSA compliance;

    (ii) a mechanism for confidential employee reporting of compliance-related questions or concerns to either a compliance officer or to another senior manager with authority to act as necessary;

    (iii) effective communication of company compliance-related policies and procedures regarding the CPSA to all applicable employees through training programs or otherwise;

    (iv) the Firm's senior management responsibility for, and general board oversight of, CPSA compliance; and

    (v) retention of all CPSA compliance-related records for at least five (5) years, and availability of such records to staff upon reasonable request.

    21. The Firm has, and shall maintain and enforce, a system of internal controls and procedures designed to ensure that, with respect to all consumer products imported, manufactured, distributed or sold by the Firm: (i) Information required to be disclosed by the Firm to the Commission is recorded, processed and reported in accordance with applicable law; (ii) all reporting made to the Commission is timely, truthful, complete, accurate and in accordance with applicable law; and (iii) prompt disclosure is made to the Firm's management of any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of such internal controls that are reasonably likely to affect adversely, in any material respect, the Firm's ability to record, process and report to the Commission in accordance with applicable law.

    22. Upon reasonable request of staff, the Firm shall provide written documentation of its internal controls and procedures, including, but not limited to, the effective dates of the procedures and improvements thereto. The Firm shall cooperate fully and truthfully with staff and shall make available all non-privileged information and materials, and personnel deemed necessary by staff to evaluate the Firm's compliance with the terms of the Agreement.

    23. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order.

    24. The Firm represents that the Agreement: (i) Is entered into freely and voluntarily, without any degree of duress or compulsion whatsoever; (ii) has been duly authorized; and (iii) constitutes the valid and binding obligation of the Firm, enforceable against the Firm in accordance with its terms. The Firm will not directly or indirectly receive any reimbursement, indemnification, insurance-related payment, or other payment in connection with the civil penalty to be paid by the Firm pursuant to the Agreement and Order. The individuals signing the Agreement on behalf of the Firm represent and warrant that they are duly authorized by the Firm to execute the Agreement.

    25. The Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States.

    26. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, the Firm and each of its successors, transferees, and assigns, and a violation of the Agreement or Order may subject the Firm, and each of its successors, transferees and assigns, to appropriate legal action.

    27. The Agreement and the Order constitute the complete agreement between the parties regarding the Firm's obligation to file a report about the Subject Products under sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4).

    28. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. For purposes of construction, the Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by both of the parties and shall not, therefore, be construed against any party for that reason in any subsequent dispute.

    29. The Agreement may not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, except as in accordance with the provisions of 16 CFR 1118.20(h). The Agreement may be executed in counterparts.

    30. If any provision of the Agreement or the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and the Firm agree in writing that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order.

    SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC. D/B/A JARDEN CONSUMER SOLUTIONS By: Date: May 25, 2016 Kyle E. Kaiser Senior Vice President Operations Sunbeam Products, Inc., d/b/a/ Jarden Consumer Solutions 2381 NW Executive Center Drive Boca Raton, FL 33431 By: Date: May 25, 2016 David P. Callet, Esq. CalletLaw, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW., Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION By: Mary T. Boyle Acting General Counsel Melissa V. Hampshire Assistant General Counsel By: Date: May 25, 2016 Alexander W. Dennis Attorney Division of Enforcement and Information Office of the General Counsel United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission

    In the Matter of:

    Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions

    CPSC Docket No.: 16-C0004
    ORDER

    Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions (the “Firm”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”), and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the Firm, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is:

    ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement be, and is, hereby, accepted; and it is

    FURTHER ORDERED that Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of four million, five hundred thousand dollars ($4,500,000) within thirty (30) days after service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Settlement Agreement. The payment shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the Commission via: http://www.pay.gov. Upon the failure of the Firm to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by the Firm at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). If the Firm fails to make such payment or to comply in full with any other provision of the Settlement Agreement, such conduct will be considered a violation of the Settlement Agreement and Order.

    Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 2nd day of June, 2016.

    BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION: Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
    [FR Doc. 2016-13362 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery Honor and Remember Subcommittees Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open subcommittee meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meetings of the Honor and Remember Subcommittees of the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (ACANC). The meetings are open to the public. For more information about the Committee and the Subcommittees, please visit http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/AboutUs/FocusAreas.aspx.

    DATES:

    The Subcommittees will meet on 6 July, 2016. The Remember Subcommittee will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and the Honor Subcommittee will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on, 6 July, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Arlington National Cemetery Welcome Center, Conference Room, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Renea Yates; Designated Federal Officer for the Committee and the Subcommittees, in writing at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington VA 22211, or by email at [email protected], or by phone at 1-877-907-8585.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    These subcommittee meetings are being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 102-3.150).

    Purpose of the Meeting: The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of the Army independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to, cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the committee's advice and recommendations. The Subcommittees are directed to provide independent recommendations of methods to address the long-term future of Arlington National Cemetery, including how best to extend the active burials and on what ANC should focus once all available space has been used, the placement of commemorative monuments and the manner in which to ensure the living history of the cemetery is preserved.

    Proposed Agenda: The Subcommittees will discuss cemetery master planning, current eligibility and interment trends, the proposed placement of commemorative monuments and the World War I commemoration displays.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. The Arlington National Cemetery conference room is fully handicapped accessible. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Ms. Renea Yates, the subcommittee's Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the subcommittee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the subcommittee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Ms. Renea Yates, the subcommittee's Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the subcommittee. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the subcommittee Chairperson, and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the subcommittee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the subcommittee until its next meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow the public to speak; however, interested persons may submit a written statement or a request to speak for consideration by the subcommittee. After reviewing any written statements or requests submitted, the subcommittee Chairperson and the Designated Federal Officer may choose to invite certain submitters to present their comments verbally during the open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer in consultation with the subcommittee Chairperson, may allot a specific amount of time for submitters to present their comments verbally.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13253 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Training Land Expansion at Fort Benning, Georgia and Alabama, Withdrawal of Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Intent; Withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is announcing withdrawal of its Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Fort Benning Training Land Expansion as well as the subsequent Draft EIS. The original NOI was published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31770). The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2011 (76 FR 28005). The Army has determined that the proposed land acquisition will no longer be pursued due to a reduction in requirements. This was the result of a combination of force structure realignment decisions affecting Fort Benning and actions taken to relocate maneuver training for Fort Benning's Army Reconnaissance Course (ARC). This ends the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for this action.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Monica Manganaro, Fort Benning Public Affairs Office: at (706) 545-3438, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. E.S.T.; by email to [email protected]; or postal service mail to PAO, Ste 141-W McGinnis-Wickam Hall, 1 Karker Street, Fort Benning, GA 31905.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Fort Benning, home to the Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE), is the Army's premier basic training installation, training Infantry, Armor, and Cavalry Soldiers in basic and advanced combat skills, as well as Airborne Soldiers and Rangers.

    Training Land Expansion at Fort Benning met two requirements. The first was to secure additional maneuver area consistent with doctrinal training requirements. The second purpose was a time-sensitive 2009 Biological Opinion (BO) that required movement of ARC heavy maneuver training to an area outside the current Fort Benning without Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers (a listed species under the Endangered Species Act).

    The Army published a Draft EIS on May 13, 2011 to study the potential environmental impacts of acquisition and use of up to approximately 82,800 acres of additional land. The study area for land acquisition consisted of areas neighboring Fort Benning capable of supporting military training. The Army held public meetings and received numerous comments on the Draft EIS.

    In July, 2015, Fort Benning completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) for Enhanced Training, which considered converting the Armor Brigade Combat Team (BCT) to an Infantry BCT; and relocating the ARC heavy mechanized training to the Good Hope Maneuver Training Area (GHMTA), an area on the current Fort Benning without Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers. These changes would allow the Infantry BCT and the ARC to train without the need to acquire additional training land. In July 2015, the Army announced the decision to convert the Armor BCT to an Infantry Battalion Task Force (a smaller unit than a BCT). In October 2015, the Army signed a Finding of No Significant Impact based on the July EA, selecting the conversion and ARC relocation alternative. In December 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a BO finding that the relocation of the ARC heavy mechanized training to the GHMTA was the “equivalent” of moving the training off Fort Benning, as called for by the 2009 BO. Since an Infantry BCT (and the smaller task force) can train on the current Fort Benning, and there is no longer a need to find land off the installation to comply with the BO, the requirement for additional training land has been greatly reduced. Therefore Army is withdrawing the NOI and the Draft EIS for the proposed training land expansion. This ends the NEPA process for this action. The Army's most recent Fiscal Year 2017 budget submission and associated future years defense program for the next five fiscal years (thru Fiscal Year 2021) does not include any programmed funds to acquire land at Fort Benning. If land acquisition at Fort Benning were ever to be pursued in the future, a new NOI would be published.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaisons Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13389 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0068] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to add a new System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to add a new system of records, DSCA 05, entitled “Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM) Information System Mission (DISM).” The DISAM Information Mission System is a web based portal designed to hold several applications for the purposes of efficient administration of students, and the effective management of DISAM personnel and guest lecturers. The portal also provides DISAM personnel the ability to submit travel requests and travel arrangements. Finally, the web based portal uses a relational database to record, manage and report information about students, personnel, and travel, including reports of annual training. Records are also used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting to Congress, evaluating program effectiveness, and conducting research.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before July 7, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPD2), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at http://dpcld.defense.gov/. The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on May 18, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DSCA 05 System name:

    Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM) Information System Mission (DISM)

    System location:

    Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM), 2475 K. Street, Bldg. 52, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7641.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    DoD civilian, military, and contractor personnel, U.S. Federal agency employees, students, and guest speakers.

    Categories of records in the system:

    DISAM Personnel data including: Full name, DoD Identification Number (DoD ID) number, gender, date of birth, home address, personal cell phone and work numbers, work domain name, work email address, arrival and departure dates, duty hours, emergency name and contact information, position title, funding source, directorate and office names, employment status, academic rank and degree, salary, job series, civilian grade, military Joint Manpower Program rank and number, date of rank, service branch, occupational specialty code and description, military evaluation dates, tour completion date, recall order, DoD billet manning document number, height and weight, arrival date, security clearance type, issue and expiration dates, investigation type and date, IT level, supervisor name, list of DoD annual training requirements, training completion dates and year required, faculty member, function and program type.

    DISAM Personnel Travel data including: Traveler's name, government point of contact information, request number, agency directorate, priority and requirement types, purpose of travel, group and class type, order and voucher numbers, voucher check and Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request (MIPR) dates, funding source, source organization, departure and arrival information, travel location cost information, DoD status of travel request, administrative notes and comments.

    Student data including: Full name, student and DoD ID Number, gender, date of birth, nationality, organization and mailing addresses, work number, position title, hotel confirmation number, country name, combatant command, student type, area of expertise and duty type, civilian grade, service branch, military rank, diploma, test scores, supervisor name, email address, and work number, course type, registration date, level and status, certificates, student and registrar comments, administrative notes and emergency point of contact information.

    Guest Speaker data including: Full name, position title, gender, social security number (SSN), DoD ID Number, home, cell phone, and work numbers, fax number, email and mailing address, employment status, security clearance type, military rank, civilian grade, course information, honorarium, DISAM host name, and funding information.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    10 U.S.C. 134, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; DoD Directive 5105.65, Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA); DSCA Security Assistance Management Manual, Chapter 10, International Training; DoD Directive 5132.03, DoD Policy and Responsibilities Relating to Security Cooperation; Army Regulation 12-15, SECNAVINST 4950.4B, AFI 16-105, Joint Security Cooperation Education and Training ; Public Law 97-195, Foreign Assistance and Arms Export Act of 1961, as amended; E.O. 9397, (SSN), as amended.

    Purpose(s):

    The DISAM Information Mission System is a web based portal designed to hold several applications for the purposes of efficient administration of students, and the effective management of DISAM personnel and guest lecturers. The portal also provides DISAM personnel the ability to submit travel requests and travel arrangements. Finally, the web based portal uses a relational database to record, manage and report information about students, personnel, and travel, including reports of annual training. Records are also used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting to Congress, evaluating program effectiveness, and conducting research.

    Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories of Users and the Purposes of Such Uses:

    In addition to disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as follows to:

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosures Required by International Agreements Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to foreign law enforcement, security, investigatory, or administrative authorities to comply with requirements imposed by, or to claim rights conferred in, international agreements and arrangements including those regulating the stationing and status in foreign countries of DoD military and civilian personnel.

    Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff (OSD/JS) Privacy Office's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.

    Policies and Practices for Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining, and Disposing of Records in the System: Storage:

    Paper records and electronic storage media.

    Retrievability:

    By name of individual, DoD ID number, student ID, or SSN.

    Safeguards:

    Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, and is accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to records is also limited to person(s) responsible for servicing the record in performance of their official duties and who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. Access to electronic data is restricted by centralized access control to include the use of Common Access Cards (CACs), passwords (which are changed periodically), file permissions, and audit logs.

    Retention and Disposal:

    Records are cut off annually, destroy when 25 years old.

    System Manager(s) and Address:

    DISM System Administrator; Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management, 2475 K. Street, Bldg. 52, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7641.

    Notification Procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management, ATTN: Director of Academic Support, 2475 K Street, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7641.

    Signed, written requests should include the full name, SSN (last four digits) or DoD ID number, current address and telephone number, and the number of this system of records notice.

    Record Access Procedures:

    Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff, Freedom of Information Act Requester Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests should include the full name, SSN (last four digits) or DoD ID number, current address and telephone number, and the number of the system of records notice.

    Contesting Record Procedures:

    The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.

    Record Source Categories:

    From the individual.

    Exemptions Claimed for the System:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13379 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0038] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (DL) Regulations 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 7, 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-0038. 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 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: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (DL) Regulations.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0021.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 8,698,789.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 709,521.

    Abstract: The William D. Ford Direct Loan Program regulations cover areas of program administration. These regulations are in place to minimize administrative burden for program participants, to determine eligibility for and provide program benefits to borrower, and to prevent fraud and abuse of program funds to protect the taxpayers' interests. This request is for a revision of the current OMB approval of reporting and record-keeping related to the administrative requirements of the Direct Loan program.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13399 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0037] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program Regs 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 7, 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-0037. 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 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: Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program Regs.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0125.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 144,930.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 26,409.

    Abstract: The Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program regulatory requirements for reporting, record-keeping and notification are approved under OMB 1845-0125 after the transfer from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the U.S. Department of Education in 2014. The HEAL program provided federally insured loans to students for certain health programs. No new loans have been made since 1998. However, loans are still outstanding and being collected, therefore the regulatory requirements for reporting, record-keeping and notification continue to be needed to administer the program. These regulations work to ensure that participants in the program follow sound management procedures in the administration of the federal loan program.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13380 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0040] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NCES System Clearance for Cognitive, Pilot, and Field Test Studies AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 7, 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-0040. 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 Kashka Kubzdela at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: NCES System Clearance for Cognitive, Pilot, and Field Test Studies.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0803.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 600,000.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 240,000.

    Abstract: This is a request for a 3-year renewal of the generic clearance to allow the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to continue to develop, test, and improve its survey and assessment instruments and methodologies. The procedures utilized to this effect include but are not limited to experiments with levels of incentives for various types of survey operations, focus groups, cognitive laboratory activities, pilot testing, exploratory interviews, experiments with questionnaire design, and usability testing of electronic data collection instruments.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13291 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CD16-12-000] Alta Ski Area; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On May 16, 2016, as supplemented on May 20, 2016, Alta Ski Area filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Alta Micro-Hydro Project would have an installed capacity of 75 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along an existing pipeline adjacent to the existing Wildcat Pump House. The project would be located in Alta, Salt Lake County, Utah.

    Applicant Contact: Lindsay George, P.O. Box 1144, Salida, CO 81201, Phone No. (970) 456-2414.

    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No. (202) 502-6778, email: [email protected]

    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse, approximately 20 feet by 12 feet, along an existing 6-inch-diameter water supply pipeline; (2) one turbine/generating unit with an installed capacity of 75 kW; (3) a new approximately 20-foot-long, 6-inch-diameter intake pipe; (4) a new approximately 20-foot-long, 12-inch-diameter discharge pipe; and (5) appurtenant facilities.

    The proposed project would have a total installed capacity of 75 kW.

    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

    Table 1—Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Statutory provision Description Satisfies
  • (Y/N)
  • FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA Y

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed addition of the hydroelectric project along the existing water supply pipeline will not alter its primary consumptive purpose. Therefore, based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.

    Comments and Motions To Intervene: Deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the “COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.

    1 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2015).

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (i.e., CD16-12) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13422 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 184-252] El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Application to amend license to remove project facilities.

    b. Project No.: 184-252.

    c. Date Filed: April 15, 2016.

    d. Applicant: El Dorado Irrigation District.

    e. Name of Project: El Dorado Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the South Fork American River and several tributaries in Alpine, Amador, and El Dorado counties, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brian Deason, Hydroelectric Compliance Analyst, 2890 Mosquito Road, Placerville, CA 95667, (530) 642-4064.

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Steven Sachs, (202) 502-8666, or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the date of issuance of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-184-252) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: The applicant requests that the Commission authorize the removal of the Carpenter Creek and Mill Creek diversion structures from the project. The applicant states that it has already physically removed the Carpenter Creek facilities and intends to demolish the Mill Creek diversion structure in 2017.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading, the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13423 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13563-003-Alaska] Juneau Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)(18 CFR part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license for the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13563) and prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project.

    The proposed project would be located on Sweetheart Lake and Sweetheart Creek in the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska. The proposed project, if licensed, would occupy 2,058.24 acres of federal lands within the Tongass National Forest, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

    The final EIS contains staff's analysis of the applicant's proposal and the alternatives for licensing the Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project. The final EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Commission staff.

    A copy of the final EIS is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “e-Library” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    For further information, contact John Matkowski at (202) 502-8576 or at [email protected]

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13355 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202)502-8659.

    Prohibited:

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester 1. CP16-21-000 5-12-2016 Diana Carroll. 2. CP16-21-000 5-16-2016 Mass Mailing.1 3. OR13-25-001; OR13-26-001 5-17-2016 FERC Staff.2 4. CP16-21-000 5-18-2016 Mass Mailing.3 5. CP16-21-000 5-18-2016 Mass Mailing.4 6. CP16-21-000 5-18-2016 Wildred Wollheim. 7. CP16-21-000 5-20-2016 Mary Tyler. 8. CP15-554-000 5-23-2016 Jessica E. Pitkin. 9. CP15-500-000 5-23-2016 Luc Novovitch. 10. CP16-21-000 5-23-2016 Maria Niswonler. 11. CP16-21-000 5-23-2016 John Puffer. 12. CP16-21-000 5-18-2016 Mass Mailing.5

    1 Two letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number.

    2 Memorandum dated May 6, 2016 reporting communication with Richard Powers of Venable LLP, David Berg and Rob Myrben of Airlines of America, and Jeffrey Petrash of National Propane Gas Association.

    3 Two letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number.

    4 Two letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number.

    5 Four letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number.

    Exempt:

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester 1. P-1256-000 5-13-2016 FERC Staff.6 2. CP16-21-000 5-13-2016 Town of Knox, NY. 3. CP13-483-000; CP13-492-000 5-13-2016 U.S. House Representative Sam Graves. 4. CP13-492-000; CP13-493-000 5-13-2016 Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians. 5. CP16-21-000 5-18-2016 State of New Hampshire House Representative Jack Flanagan. 6. P-2232-522 5-20-2016 U.S. Congress.7 7. CP16-21-000 5-20-2016 Town of Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire Board of Selectmen. 8. P-13015-001 5-20-2016 U.S. House Representative William R. Keating. 9. CP13-483-001; CP13-492-001 5-20-2016 Jackson County, Oregon Board of Commissioners. 10. ER15-2563-002; EL15-95-002 5-23-2016 U.S. Congress.8 11. CP14-96-000; PF16-1-000; PF15-12-000 5-23-2016 Town of Freetown, Massachusetts Board of Selectmen. 12. EL15-2563-002; EL15-95-002 5-24-2016 State of Delaware Governor Jack A. Markell. 13. CP14-517-000 5-24-2016 FERC Staff.9 14. CP13-483-000 5-27-2016 FERC Staff.10

    6 Email dated April 15, 2016 with Neal Suess of Loup Power District.

    7 Senators Lindset Graham, Tim Scott, Richard Burr, and Thom Tillis. House Representatives James Clyburn, Joe Wilson, Patrick McHenry, Jeff Duncan, Trey Gowdy, Richard Hudson, Robert Pittenger, David Rouzer, Walter B. Jones, Virginia Foxx, Mick Mulvaney, Renee Ellmers, George Holding, Mark Meadows, Tom Rice, and Mark Walker.

    8 Senators Thomas R. Carper and Christopher Coons. House Representative John Carney.

    9 Meeting Summary from May 18, 2016 meeting with representatives for the Gold Pass LNG Export Project.

    10 Memo forwarding letter dated May 24, 2016 from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to Jordan Cove and letter dated May 24, 2016 from COE to the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13409 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-463-000] Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on May 20, 2016 Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern Natural), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.213(b) and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Northern Natural seeks authorization to convert an existing observation well to a withdrawal well. Northern Natural will also install related surface facilities within its existing Redfield Storage Field located in Dallas County, Iowa. Northern Natural proposes to perform these activities under its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-401-000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificate and External Affairs for Northern, 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, at (402) 398-7103; FAX (402) 398-7592; email [email protected]

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with he Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link. Persons unable to file electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13405 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Joint Electric System Planning Working Group and Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee Meeting June 7, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2016-06-07.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Management Committee Meeting June 14, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2016-06-14.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Business Issues Committee Meeting June 15, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2016-06-15.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Operating Committee Meeting June 16, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2016-06-16.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Joint Electric System Planning Working Group and Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee Meeting June 22, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2016-06-22.

    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059.

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-120.

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-1942.

    New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572.

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-966.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or [email protected]

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13411 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2203-015-AL] Alabama Power Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Alabama Power Company's application for a new license for the 46.9-megawatt (MW) Holt Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2203). The project is located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Holt Lock and Dam on the Black Warrior River near the City of Tuscaloosa, in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. The project occupies 36.81 acres of federal land administered by the Corps.

    Staff has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes the potential environmental effects of continued project operation. Based on staff's analysis with appropriate environmental protective measures, relicensing the project would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659.

    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659. In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include Holt Hydroelectric Project No. 2203-015.

    For further information, contact Jeanne Edwards by telephone at 202-502-6181 or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13354 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Windham Solar LLC, Allco Finance Limited; Notice of Petition for Enforcement Docket Nos. EL16-69-000 QF16-375-001 QF16-362-001 QF16-376-001 QF16-363-001 QF16-377-001 QF16-364-001 QF16-378-001 QF16-365-001 QF16-379-001 QF16-366-001 QF16-380-001 QF16-367-001 QF16-381-001 QF16-368-001 QF16-382-001 QF16-369-001 QF16-383-001 QF16-370-001 QF16-384-001 QF16-371-001 QF16-385-001 QF16-372-001 QF16-386-001 QF16-373-001 QF16-387-001 QF16-374-001

    Take notice that on May 25, 2016, pursuant to section 210(h)(2)(B) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. 824a-3(h), Windham Solar LLC and Allco Finance Limited filed amendment to its May 19, 2016 filing of Petition for Enforcement requesting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) exercise its authority and initiate enforcement action against the Connecticut Public

    Utilities Regulatory Authority to remedy its implementation of PURPA, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file

    electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 15, 2016.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13421 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM):

    PJM Planning Committee June 9, 2016, 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (EST) PJM Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee June 9, 2016, 11:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meetings will be held at: PJM Conference and Training Center, PJM Interconnection 2750 Monroe Boulevard Audubon, PA 19403.

    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders. Further information may be found at www.pjm.com.

    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket No. ER16-453, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Northeast Transmission Development, LLC Docket No. ER16-736, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-972, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER14-1485, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER13-1944, et al., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al. Docket No. ER15-1344, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER15-1387, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Potomac Electric Power Company Docket No. ER15-2562, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER15-2563, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-18, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-41, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, et. al. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER15-2114, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Transource West Virginia, LLC Docket No. EL15-79, TransSource, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL15-95, Delaware Public Service Commission, et. al., v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et. al. Docket No. EL15-67, Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER13-198, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER16-1335, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER16-1232, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER16-1499, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    For more information, contact the following: Jonathan Fernandez, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (202) 502-6604 [email protected]; Alina Halay, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (202) 502-6474, [email protected].

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13407 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. EL16-74-000; QF99-56-004] North Hartland, LLC; Notice of Petition for Enforcement

    Take notice that on May 31, 2016, pursuant to section 210(h)(2)(B) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. 824a-3(h), North Hartland, LLC filed a Petition for Enforcement requesting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) exercise its authority and initiate enforcement action against the Vermont Public Service Board to remedy its implementation of PURPA, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 21, 2016.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13406 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No 848-037] Wells Rural Electric Company; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: New License.

    b. Project No.: P-848-037.

    c. Date filed: May 18, 2016.

    d. Applicant: Wells Rural Electric Company.

    e. Name of Project: Trout Creek Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On Trout Creek, near the Town of Wells, Elko County, Nevada. The project's intake structure, pipeline, debris collection box, surge tank and approximately 1,500 feet of penstock are located on federal land managed by the United States Forest Service.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Lonnie Abbott, Manager of Loss Control and Risk Services, Wells Rural Electric Company, P.O. Box 365, Wells, Nevada 89835, (775) 752-1516 or [email protected]

    FERC Contact: Joseph Hassell, 202-502-8079 or [email protected]

    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001).

    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.

    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status: July 18, 2016.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-848-037.

    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    n. The existing Trout Creek project consists of: (1) An intake structure on a spring feeding Trout Creek; (2) a 14-inch-diameter, 715-foot-long steel pipe; (3) a debris collection box; (4) a 15-inch-diameter, 1900-foot-long PVC pipe; (4) an 8-foot-diameter, 20-foot high surge tank; (5) a 16-inch-diameter, 2,125-foot-long penstock; (6) a powerhouse with a 125-kilowatt turbine-generator unit (7) a 5 to 7-foot-wide, 30-foot-long tailrace; (8) a 4,412-foot-long, 24.9-kV transmission line; and, (9) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to generate an average of 325,000 kilowatt-hours annually.

    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

    Issue Notice of Acceptance May 2016. Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments June 2016. Comments on Scoping Document 1 July 2016. Issue Scoping Document 2 October 2016. Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis October 2016. Commission issues EA, draft EA, or draft EIS April 2017. Comments on EA or draft EA or draft EIS May 2017. Commission issues final EA of final EIS July 2017.

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13424 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-462-000] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on May 20, 2016 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002 filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208(c), 157.213(b) and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Columbia seeks authorization to abandon and modify certain storage facilities in the Majorsville-Heard Storage Complex (Storage Complex) in Marshall County, West Virginia. The authorizations proposed in this proceeding do not relate to mining activities, thus as Columbia's blanket authorization issued in Docket No. CP95-61-000 is limited to those activities related to coal mining activities in the Storage Complex, Columbia is seeking abandonment authority under its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Matthew J. Agen, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 5151 San Felipe Suite 2400, Houston, Texas 77056; telephone (713) 386-3619; or by email [email protected] .

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with he Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link. Persons unable to file electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13410 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 3127-023] Ware River Power, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Application to amend 5 MW exemption from licensing.

    b. Project No.: 3127-023.

    c. Date Filed: January 27, 2016.

    d. Applicant: Ware River Power, Inc.

    e. Name of Project: Ware River Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Ware River in Hampshire County, Massachusetts.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Lucus Wright, Ware River Power, Inc., 48 Allen Drive, P.O. Box 512, Barre, MA 01005 (508) 355-4575.

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Mark Pawlowski, (202) 502-6052, or [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is July 1, 2016. This notice extends the due date of the notice issued on May 24, 2016. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-3127-023) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: The Ware River Project consists of an Upper and Lower development. The applicant proposes to replace the lower development's single 250-kilowatt (kW) turbine with a 280-kW turbine and install a new 110-kW minimum flow turbine. The lower development's installed capacity would increase by 140 kW and the hydraulic capacity would increase by 94 cubic feet per second. In addition, the applicant proposes replace the lower development's existing 30-foot-wide by 10-foot-deep trashrack structure with a new 50-foot-wide by 10-foot deep trashrack structure. The new trashrack would maintain the current 1.5-inch spacing between the trashrack bars. To facilitate the trashrack replacement the applicant proposes to draw down the 10-acre lower development's impoundment from May 2016 through September 2016.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading, the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13408 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9944-30 OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Arizona AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Arizona's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective July 7, 2016 for the State of Arizona's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency, and on June 7, 2016 for the State of Arizona's other authorized programs.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On February 12, 2016, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted an application titled myDEQ for revisions/modifications to its EPA-approved programs under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed ADEQ's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Arizona's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 50-52, 61-65, 70, 122, 124, 141, 240-259, 260-270, 272-279, 262, 280, 403-471, 501, and 503 is being published in the Federal Register:

    Part 52—Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Part 62—Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Part 63—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Part 70—State Operating Permit Programs; Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation; Part 239—Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of Adequacy; Part 271—Requirements for Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Programs; Part 281—Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks; Part 403—General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution Reporting; and Part 501—State Sludge Management Program Regulations. ADEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of Arizona's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should include the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request; (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order either affirming today's determination or rescinding such determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and granted, EPA's approval of the State of Arizona's request to revise its part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Collection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13269 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board; Regular Meeting AGENCY:

    Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board).

    DATES:

    Date and Time: The meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on June 9, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. Submit attendance requests via email to [email protected] See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about attendance requests.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to [email protected] at least 24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: Name, postal address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

    Closed Session • FCSIC Report on System Performance and Liquidity Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • March 10, 2016—Regular Meeting B. Business Reports • FCSIC Financial Report • Report on Insured Obligations • Quarterly Report on Annual Performance Plan C. New Business • Mid-Year Review of Insurance Premium Rates Dated: June 2, 2016. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13479 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6710-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination, 10227, Champion Bank, Creve Coeur, Missouri

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10227, Champion Bank, Creve Coeur, Missouri (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Champion Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective June 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13297 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10118, Brickwell Community Bank, Woodbury, MN

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Brickwell Community Bank, Woodbury, Minnesota (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Brickwell Community Bank on September 11, 2009. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13296 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory AGENCY:

    Federal Maritime Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of release of the Federal Maritime Commission's FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory.

    SUMMARY:

    Acting in compliance with Sec. 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of its FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory. The FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory includes the Service Contract Inventory Analysis (Executive Summary) and the Service Contract Inventory (Inventory Detail, Inventory Summary, Special Interest Functions and Total Service Contract Obligations).

    This inventory was developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010, December 19, 2011, November 25, 2014, and September 8, 2015, by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Procurement Policy (OFPP). The Federal Maritime Commission has posted its FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory and FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory Analysis at the following links: http://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/Page/ServiceContractInventory2015FINAL.pdf and http://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/Page/ServiceContractInventorySummaryFY15.pdf.

    DATES:

    The inventory is available on the Commission's Web site as of May 5, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristian Jovanovic, Director, Office of Management Services, 202-523-5900, [email protected]

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13337 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-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 July 1, 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. Sequatchie Valley Bancshares, Inc., Dunlap, Tennessee; to acquire 100 percent of the outstanding shares of Franklin County United Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Franklin County United Bank, both of Decherd, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 2, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13400 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-XXXX; Docket 2016-0001; Sequence 9] Information Collection; Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, GSA Form 3702 AGENCY:

    Office of Civil Rights, General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments regarding a new request for an 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 new information collection requirement regarding OMB Control No: 3090-XXXX; Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, GSA 3702. This information is needed to facilitate nondiscrimination in GSA's Federal Financial Assistance Programs, consistent with Federal civil rights laws and regulations that apply to recipients of Federal financial assistance.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before: August 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Evelyn Britton, Director, External Programs Division, Office of Civil Rights, at telephone 202-603-1645 or via email to [email protected]

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-XXXX, Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, GSA 3702, 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 3090-XXXX, Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, GSA 3702”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-XXXX, Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, GSA 3702” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-0228, Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, GSA 3702.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-XXXX, Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, GSA 3702, 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).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    GSA has mission responsibilities related to monitoring and enforcing compliance with Federal civil rights laws and regulations that apply to Federal financial assistance programs administered by GSA. Specifically, those laws provide that no person on the ground of race, color, national origin, disability, sex or age shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program in connection with which Federal financial assistance is extended under laws administered in whole, or in part, by GSA.

    These mission responsibilities generate the requirement to request and obtain certain data from recipients of Federal surplus property for the purpose of determining compliance, such as the number of individuals, based on race and ethnic origin, of the recipient's eligible and actual serviced population; race and national origin of those denied participation in the recipient's program(s); non-English languages encountered by the recipient's program(s) and how the recipient is addressing meaningful access for individuals that are Limited English Proficient; whether there has been complaints or lawsuits filed against the recipient based on prohibited discrimination and whether there has been any findings; and whether the recipient's facilities are accessible to qualified individuals with disabilities.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 1200.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Total Responses: 1200.

    Hours per Response: 2.

    Total Burden Hours: 2400.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information 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. 3090-XXXX, Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial Assistance Programs, GSA 3702, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. David A. Shive, Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13396 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
    GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL [Docket No.: 106072016-1111-03] Proposed Amendment to Initial Funded Priorities List AGENCY:

    Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.

    ACTION:

    Proposed amendment to Initial Funded Priorities List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) seeks public and Tribal comment on a proposal to amend its Initial Funded Priorities List (FPL) to approve implementation funding for the Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration project in Florida (Project). The Council is proposing to approve $3,978,000 in implementation funding for this Project. The Council is also proposing to reallocate $702,000 from project planning to project implementation, after any remaining planning expenses have been met. The total amount available for implementation of the Project would thus be $4,680,000. These funds would be used to restore approximately 251 acres of oyster beds, which is an increase from the 219 acres originally proposed in the FPL.

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws, the Council is proposing to adopt an existing Environmental Assessment (EA) that addresses the activities in the Project. In so doing, the Council would expedite project implementation, reduce planning costs and increase the ecological benefits of this Project by using savings in planning funds to expand the Project by approximately 32 acres. The Council looks forward to public and Tribal comment on this proposal.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposed amendment are due July 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this proposed amendment may be submitted as follows:

    By Email: Submit comments by email to [email protected] Email submission of comments ensures timely receipt and enables the Council to make them available to the public. In general, the Council will make such comments available for public inspection and copying on its Web site, www.restorethegulf.gov, without change, including any business or personal information provided, such as names, addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers. All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, will be part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should only submit information that you wish to make publicly available.

    By Mail: Send comments to Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, 500 Poydras Street, Suite 1117, New Orleans, LA 70130.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please send questions by email to [email protected] or contact Will Spoon at (504) 239-9814.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Deepwater Horizon oil spill led to passage of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE Act), which dedicates 80 percent of all Clean Water Act administrative and civil penalties related to the oil spill to the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund). The RESTORE Act also created the Council, an independent Federal entity comprised of the five Gulf Coast states and six Federal agencies. Among other responsibilities, the Council administers a portion of the Trust Fund known as the Council-Selected Restoration Component in order to “undertake projects and programs, using the best available science, which would restore and protect the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal wetlands, and economy of the Gulf Coast.” Additional information on the Council can be found here: https://www.restorethegulf.gov.

    On December 9, 2015, the Council published the FPL, which includes projects and programs approved for funding under the Council-Selected Restoration Component, along with activities that the Council identified as priorities for potential future funding. Activities approved for funding in the FPL are included in “Category 1”; the priorities for potential future funding are in “Category 2.” In the FPL the Council approved approximately $156.6 million in Category 1 restoration and planning activities, and prioritized twelve Category 2 activities for possible funding in the future, subject to environmental compliance and further Council and public review. The Council included planning activities for the Project in Category 1 and implementation activities for the Project in Category 2 of the FPL.

    The Council reserved approximately $26.6 million for implementing priority activities in the future. These reserved funds may be used to support some, all or none of the activities included in Category 2 of the FPL and/or to support other activities not currently under consideration by the Council. As appropriate, the Council intends to review each activity in Category 2 in order to determine whether to: (1) Move the activity to Category 1 and approve it for funding, (2) remove it from Category 2 and any further consideration, or (3) continue to include it in Category 2. A Council decision to amend the FPL to move an activity from Category 2 into Category 1 must be approved by a Council vote after consideration of public and Tribal comments.

    II. Environmental Compliance

    Prior to approving an activity for funding in FPL Category 1, the Council must comply with NEPA and other Federal environmental laws. At the time of approval of the FPL, the Council had not complied with NEPA and other applicable laws with respect to implementation of the Project. The Council did, however, recognize the potential ecological value of the Project, based on review conducted as part of the FPL process. For this reason, the Council approved $702,000 in planning funds for this Project, a portion of which would be used to complete any needed environmental compliance activities. As noted above, the Council placed the implementation portion of this Project into FPL Category 2, pending the outcome of this environmental compliance work and further Council review. The estimated cost of the Project's implementation component was listed at $3,978,000, which would fund the restoration of approximately 219 acres of oyster beds in Apalachicola Bay. Inclusion of the Project's implementation activities into Category 2 did not in any way commit the Council to subsequently approve those implementation activities for funding.

    Since approval of the FPL, Florida has collaborated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to identify an existing EA that could be used to support Council approval of implementation funding for this Project. This EA was prepared by USACE in association with a Clean Water Act Section 404 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 programmatic general permit (PGP) that authorizes the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to conduct aquaculture of live rock and marine bivalves in navigable waters of the U.S. which are within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, provided that such activities comply with the terms and conditions of the PGP.

    The Council has reviewed this EA and associated documents, including an August 13, 2015, letter from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition to ESA, the EA addresses compliance with other Federal environmental laws, including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and more. Based on this review, the Council is proposing to adopt this EA to support the proposed approval of implementation funds for the Project, provided that the Project is implemented in accordance with the terms and conditions of the PGP and the design criteria set forth in the associated ESA programmatic consultation. This EA and the associated ESA documentation can be found here: https://www.restorethegulf.gov/funded-priorities-list. (See Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration Project—Implementation.)

    Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration Project

    If approved for implementation funding, this Project would include the placement of approximately 50,258 cubic yards of suitable oyster reef substrate through the use of barges and high-pressure water. Areas to be restored would be marked with buoys or clearly marked stakes. Following the completion of the planting, oyster density sampling would be conducted and analyzed at a minimum of six months, one year and two years after clutching at each restoration site.

    Ecological benefits associated with the Project would be realized through an array of ecological services in the form of increased fishery and wildlife habitat; increased biodiversity and trophic dynamics; increased filtering capacity to improve water quality and recycle nutrients; increased structural stability to reduce coastal erosion and to protect near shore resources; protection of water quality; and the protection of healthy, diverse and sustainable living coastal marine resources. Beyond the fact that oysters and oyster reef communities represent important food sources for many species of commercially important fish and invertebrates, functioning oyster reefs are also recognized as critical structural and community components which stabilize and sustain a broad array of ecological relationships. Additional outcomes include economic benefits through harvesting, processing, and marketing fishery products locally and regionally by all who enjoy high-quality seafood.

    Additional information on this Project, including metrics of success, response to science reviews and more is available in an activity-specific appendix to the FPL, which can be found here: https://www.restorethegulf.gov. (Please see the table on page 24 of the FPL and click on Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration, Implementation.)

    Justin R. Ehrenwerth, Executive Director, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13356 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC) and Request for Suggested Meeting Topics for CLIAC

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is soliciting nominations for membership on CLIAC and soliciting suggestions for topics to be considered for future Committee deliberation. CLIAC provides scientific and technical advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Assistant Secretary for Health, HHS; the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and the Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The advice and guidance pertain to general issues related to improvement in clinical laboratory quality and laboratory medicine. In addition, the Committee provides advice and guidance on specific questions related to possible revision of the CLIA standards. Examples include providing guidance on studies designed to improve safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness of laboratory services; revisions to the standards under which clinical laboratories are regulated; the impact of proposed revisions to the standards on medical and laboratory practice; and the modification of the standards and provision of non-regulatory guidelines to accommodate technological advances, such as new test methods, the electronic transmission of laboratory information, and mechanisms to improve the integration of public health and clinical laboratory practices.

    CLIAC consists of 20 members including the Chair, and represents a diverse membership across laboratory specialties, professional roles (laboratory management, technical specialists, physicians, nurses) and practice settings (academic, clinical, public health), and includes a consumer representative. In addition, the Committee includes three ex officio members (or designees), including the Director, CDC; the Administrator, CMS; and the Commissioner, FDA. A nonvoting representative from the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) serves as the industry liaison. The Designated Federal Officer (DFO) or their designee and the Executive Secretary are present at all meetings to ensure meetings are within applicable statutory, regulatory and HHS General Administration manual directives.

    Request for Candidates: Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to accomplishing CLIAC's objectives. Nominees will be selected by the HHS Secretary or designee from authorities knowledgeable across the fields of microbiology (including bacteriology, mycobacteriology, mycology, parasitology, and virology), immunology (including histocompatibility), chemistry, hematology, pathology (including histopathology and cytology), or genetic testing (including cytogenetics); representatives from the fields of medical technology, public health, and clinical practice; and consumer representatives. Members may be invited to serve for terms of up to four years.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that Committee membership be balanced in terms of professional training and background, points of view represented, and the committee's function. Consideration is given on the basis of geographic, ethnic and gender representation. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for CLIAC membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in July, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise and individuals to maintain the appropriate demographic balance varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year.

    Candidates should submit the following items to be considered for nomination. The deadline for receipt of materials for the 2017 term is August 1, 2016:

    • Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone number, email address).

    • Letter(s) of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Request for Suggested Meeting Topics: Consideration of topics for meeting agendas begins approximately four months prior to each meeting. The agendas are developed by CDC in collaboration with CMS, FDA, and the CLIAC Chair. Topics within the scope of the Committee's charge are selected and questions for CLIAC deliberation are developed to align with the agenda. The agenda is published in the Federal Register not less than 15 days before the meeting date and is posted on the CLIAC Web site (http://wwwn.cdc.gov/cliac/default.aspx). Suggested meeting topics are invited at any time for consideration at future meetings.

    Submission of Candidate Information or Suggestions for Meeting Topics: Candidate suggestions and potential meeting topics may be submitted by:

    • Email in care of the CLIAC Secretariat at [email protected]

    • U.S. Postal Service: Attention: CLIAC Secretariat, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop F-11, Atlanta, GA 30329.

    Contact Person for Additional Information: Nancy Anderson, Chief, Laboratory Practice Standards Branch, Division of Laboratory Systems, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Scientific Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop F-11, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4018; telephone (404) 498-2741; or via email at [email protected] The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13438 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS)

    In accordance with Presidential Executive Order No. 13175, November 6, 2000, and the Presidential Memorandum of November 5, 2009, and September 23, 2004, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), announces the following meeting and Tribal Consultation Session:

    Name: Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting and 15th Biannual Tribal Consultation Session.

    Times and Dates:

    8:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m., August 2, 2016, (TAC Meeting) 8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., PDT, August 3, 2016, PDT (TAC Meeting & 15th Biannual Tribal Consultation Session)

    Place: The TAC Meeting and Tribal Consultation Session will be held at Rincon's Harrah, 77 Harrah's Rincon Way, Valley Center, California 92082, telephone (760) 362-8990.

    Status: The meetings are being hosted by CDC/ATSDR in-person only and are open to the public. Attendees must pre-register for the event by Wednesday, July 13, 2016, at the following link: http://www.cdc.gov/tribal/meetings.html.

    Purpose: The purpose of these recurring meetings is to advance CDC and ATSDR support for and collaboration with American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) tribes, and to improve the health of AI/AN tribes by pursuing goals that include assisting in eliminating the health disparities faced by AI/AN tribes; ensuring that access to critical health and human services and public health services is maximized to advance or enhance the social, physical, and economic status of AI/ANs; and promoting health equity for all Indian people and communities. To advance these goals, CDC and ATSDR conducts government-to-government consultations with elected tribal officials or their authorized representatives. Consultation is an enhanced form of communication that emphasizes trust, respect, and shared responsibility. It is an open and free exchange of information and opinion among parties that leads to mutual understanding and comprehension.

    Matters for Discussion: The Summer 2016 TAC Meeting and Biannual Tribal Consultation Session will provide opportunities for tribal leaders to speak openly about the public health issues affecting their tribes. These meetings will include, but are not limited to, discussions about building tribal public health capacity, intimate partner violence, and reducing opioid dependence and overdose in Indian country.

    Tribes will also have an opportunity to present testimony about tribal health issues. All Tribal leaders are encouraged to submit written testimony by 5:00 p.m., EDT, Wednesday, July 13, 2016, to LCDR Jessica Damon, Public Health Advisor for the Tribal Support Unit, OSTLTS, via mail to 4770 Buford Highway NE., MS E-70, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717 or email to [email protected]

    Based on the number of tribal leaders giving testimony and the time available, it may be necessary to limit the time for each presenter.

    The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate. Information about the TAC, CDC/ATSDR's Tribal Consultation Policy, and previous meetings can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/tribal.

    Contact person for more information: LCDR Jessica Damon, Public Health Advisor, CDC/OSTLTS, 4770 Buford Highway NE., MS E-70, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717; email: [email protected] or telephone (404) 498-0563.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13439 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-0770; Docket No. CDC-2016-0047] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) system. CDC is requesting a 3-year approval for revision to the previously approved project to continue collecting standardized HIV-related behavioral data from persons at risk for HIV systematically selected from 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) throughout the United States.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0047 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS)—(0920-0770, Expiration 03/31/2017)—Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The purpose of this data collection is to monitor behaviors of persons at high risk for infection that are related to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) transmission and prevention in the United States. The primary objectives of the NHBS system are to obtain data from samples of persons at risk to: (a) Describe the prevalence and trends in risk behaviors; (b) describe the prevalence of and trends in HIV testing and HIV infection; (c) describe the prevalence of and trends in use of HIV prevention services; (d) identify met and unmet needs for HIV prevention services in order to inform health departments, community based organizations, community planning groups and other stakeholders.

    By describing and monitoring the HIV risk behaviors, HIV seroprevalence and incidence, and HIV prevention experiences of persons at highest risk for HIV infection, NHBS provides an important data source for evaluating progress towards national public health goals, such as reducing new infections, increasing the use of condoms, and targeting high risk groups.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requests approval for a 3-year extension of this information collection. Data are collected through anonymous, in-person interviews conducted with persons systematically selected from 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) throughout the United States; these 25 MSAs were chosen based on having high HIV prevalence. Persons at risk for HIV infection to be interviewed for NHBS include men who have sex with men (MSM), injecting drug users (IDU), and heterosexuals at increased risk of HIV (HET). A brief screening interview will be used to determine eligibility for participation in the behavioral assessment.

    The data from the behavioral assessment will provide estimates of (1) behavior related to the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, (2) prior testing for HIV, (3) and use of HIV prevention services.

    All persons interviewed will also be offered an HIV test, and will participate in a pre-test counseling session. No other federal agency systematically collects this type of information from persons at risk for HIV infection. These data have substantial impact on prevention program development and monitoring at the local, state, and national levels.

    CDC estimates that NHBS will involve, per year in each of the 25 MSAs, eligibility screening for 50 to 200 persons and eligibility screening plus the behavioral assessment with 500 eligible respondents, resulting in a total of 37,500 eligible survey respondents and 7,500 ineligible screened persons during a 3-year period. Data collection will rotate such that interviews will be conducted among one group per year: MSM in year 1, IDU in year 2, and HET in year 3. The type of data collected for each group will vary slightly due to different sampling methods and risk characteristics of the group.

    Participation of respondents is voluntary and there is no cost to the respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of
  • respondent
  • Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Persons Screened Eligibility Screener 15,000 1 5/60 1,250 Eligible Participants Behavioral Assessment MSM 4,167 1 30/60 2,084 Eligible Participants Behavioral Assessment IDU 4,167 1 54/60 3,750 Eligible Participant Behavioral Assessment HET 4,167 1 39/60 2,709 Peer Recruiters Recruiter Debriefing 4,167 1 2/60 139 Total Annualized Burden 9,932
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13293 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), PAR 16-098 Cooperative Research Agreements to the World Trade Center Health Program (U01).

    Times and Dates: 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, June 28, 2016 (Closed); 8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., EDT, June 29, 2016 (Closed).

    Place: Atlanta Marriott Century Center, 2000 Century Boulevard NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30345, Telephone: (404) 325-0000.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Cooperative Research Agreements to the World Trade Center Health Program (U01)”, PAR 16-098.

    Contact Person for More Information: Nina Turner, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC/NIOSH, 1095 Willowdale Road, Mailstop G905, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, Telephone: (304) 285-5975.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13442 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), RFA-CE-16-005, Evaluating Practice-based Sexual Violence Primary Prevention Approaches from CDC's Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) Program.

    Times and Dates: 08:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, June 28-29, 2016 (Closed).

    Place: The Georgian Terrace, 659 Peachtree St. NE., Atlanta, GA 30308.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Evaluating Practice-based Sexual Violence Primary Prevention Approaches from CDC's Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) Program”, RFA-CE-16-005.

    Contact Person for More Information: M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-3585, [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13440 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Notice of Charter Renewal

    This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through May 21, 2018.

    For information, contact William Cibulas, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Department of Health and Human Services, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop F61, Chamblee, Georgia 30341, telephone (770) 488-0662 or fax (770) 488-3385.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13436 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), RFA OH16-001, Extension of the World Trade Center Health Registry (U50).

    Time and Date: 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m., EDT, June 29, 2016 (Closed).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Extension of the World Trade Center Health Registry (U50) Request For Application”, RFA OH16-001.

    Contact Person for More Information: Nina Turner, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC/NIOSH, 1095 Willowdale Road, Mailstop G905, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, Telephone: (304) 285-5975.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13441 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16AMV; Docket No. CDC-2016-0048] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project entitled “Survey of Musculoskeletal Disorders Prevention Tools/Methods: 10-year Follow-Up”. The purpose of this study is to administer a survey of ergonomics practitioners (those holding professional certification) to gather information on the basic tools, direct and observational measurement techniques, and software used at work sites to assess risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0048 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Survey of Musculoskeletal Disorders Prevention Tools/Methods: 10-year Follow-Up—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. Under Public Law 91- 596, sections 20 and 22 (Section 20-22, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970), NIOSH has the responsibility to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. In this capacity, NIOSH proposes to administer a survey of ergonomics professionals as a 10-year follow-up to a survey conducted of U.S. Certified Professional Ergonomists (CPEs) by Dempsey et al. and published in 2005 (A survey of tools and methods used by certified professional ergonomists. Applied Ergonomics, 36, 489-503). NIOSH is requesting a one year approval period for this data collection.

    The project is planned to extend the original survey in two ways: (1) The sample will be broadened to include international ergonomics practitioners (in Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia), and, (2) the queried tools and methods have been updated to reflect new and emerging technologies not included in the original survey. The purpose of the survey will be unchanged—to gather information on the types of basic tools, direct and observational measurement techniques, and software used in the field by ergonomics practitioners to assess workplace risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders and to evaluate workplace interventions.

    The motivation for the original 2005 survey was to better understand the types of tools and methods practitioners use, their opinions of these tools, and to potentially gain an understanding of the constraints or preferences that influence this selection. At the time of the 2005 survey, there were many tools reported in the literature, but little information on the extent to which these different tools were used by practitioners. Similarly, there was little published information on users' experiences with these different tools. There has been considerable interest in the findings and the Dempsey et al (2005) publication has been widely cited. The program anticipates that a follow-up effort will result in even greater interest as changes in the practice of ergonomics and prevention of soft tissue MSDs can be inferred from comparisons between the two surveys time points.

    Since publication of the initial survey findings there has been a proliferation of smart phone/smart device-embedded inertial and acceleration sensors and related “apps” for human motion and activity logging. Little is known about the extent to which ergonomics practitioners are using these newer technologies towards assessing workplace physical activity (and now, workplace inactivity and “sedentarism”) and other job demands. Thus, the survey will provide a contemporary perspective on the scope of use of assessment tools and methods by these professionals. This project will involve the collection of non-sensitive data via web-based survey questionnaire methods. Survey data relate only to respondents' professional practice within the OS&H discipline of ergonomics and prevention of musculoskeletal disorders.

    Only certified ergonomics professionals from five countries with specific certification credentials will be eligible and invited to participate. Their participation will be voluntary. The program has assumed an optimistic 80% response rate to estimate the number of respondents at 938 in the estimation of annualized burden hours.

    In summary, this study will update information collected and published in 2005 on the methods and tools used by practicing ergonomists. NIOSH expects to complete data collection in 2017. The total estimated burden hours is 469. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name No. of
  • respondents
  • No. of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total
  • burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • Certified Ergonomics professionals Practicing Ergonomist Survey of Tools and Methods 938 1 30/60 469 Total 469
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13292 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

    Times and Dates: 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., EDT, June 28, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m., EDT, June 29, 2016.

    Place: CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, Georgia 30341.

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 60 people.

    Purpose: The Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by delegation, the Director, CDC and Administrator, NCEH/ATSDR, are authorized under Section 301 (42 U.S.C. 241) and Section 311 (42 U.S.C. 243) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, to: (1) Conduct, encourage, cooperate with, and assist other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the conduct of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental diseases and other impairments; (2) assist states and their political subdivisions in the prevention of infectious diseases and other preventable conditions and in the promotion of health and wellbeing; and (3) train state and local personnel in health work. The BSC, NCEH/ATSDR provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, HHS; the Director, CDC and Administrator, ATSDR; and the Director, NCEH/ATSDR, regarding program goals, objectives, strategies, and priorities in fulfillment of the agency's mission to protect and promote people's health. The board provides advice and guidance that will assist NCEH/ATSDR in ensuring scientific quality, timeliness, utility, and dissemination of results. The board also provides guidance to help NCEH/ATSDR work more efficiently and effectively with its various constituents and to fulfill its mission in protecting America's health.

    Matters for Discussion: The agenda items for the BSC Meeting will include NCEH/ATSDR Office of the Director updates; update on Climate and Health; NCEH/ATSDR Program Responses to BSC Guidance and Action Items; NCEH/ATSDR Support for the Public Health Emergency in Flint; Rethinking the Strategy for the NCEH Lead Surveillance Program; CDC's Blood Reference Value for Lead; NCEH/ATSDR's Strategy for PFCs in the Environment; NCEH/ATSDR's Safe Drinking Water Program: Developing a Public Health Strategy; updates from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the US Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Supplemental Information: The public comment period is scheduled on Tuesday, June 28, 2016 from 3:15 p.m. until 3:30 p.m., and on Wednesday, June 29, 2016 from 10:30 a.m. until 10:45 a.m.

    Contact Person for More Information: Sandra Malcom, Committee Management Specialist, NCEH/ATSDR, 4770 Buford Highway, Mail Stop F-45, Atlanta, Georgia 30341; Telephone 770/488-0575 or 770/488-0577, Fax: 770/488-3377; Email: [email protected] The deadline for notification of attendance is June 21, 2016.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13437 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [CFDA Number: 93.092] Announcement of a Single-Source Award to Healthy Families San Angelo, San Angelo, TX AGENCY:

    Family and Youth Services Bureau, ACYF, ACF, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of award of a Single-Source Award under the Competitive Personal Responsibility Education Program (Competitive PREP) to Healthy Families of San Angelo (HFSA) in San Angelo, Texas to support continued participation in the federal PREP impact evaluation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), announces a single-source award in the amount of $750,000 to HFSA in San Angelo, TX for the purpose of continued participation in the federal impact evaluation. The award allows sufficient time to complete evaluation related activities of the Steps to Success program. Steps to Success is a comprehensive, culturally appropriate intervention that seeks to postpone subsequent pregnancies and increase safe sex behaviors for high-risk pregnant and parenting teens.

    DATES:

    The period of support under this single-source award is February 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LeBretia White, Manager, Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program, Division of Adolescent Development and Support, Family and Youth Services Bureau, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 202-205-9605; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    HFSA was selected as a site for the PREP federal impact evaluation as a result of a strong program design. The impact evaluation addresses significant gaps in the teen pregnancy prevention evidence base. Currently, there is little rigorous evidence on strategies effective in reducing repeat pregnancies among adolescent mothers. HFSA's program will help fill that gap due to its focus on reducing subsequent pregnancies and long acting reversible contraception. If impacts are found, the HFSA program can be added to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services teen pregnancy evidence review list. This award allows time for evaluation activities to be completed including the collection and analysis of data.

    Statutory Authority:

    Section 2953 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-148, added Section 513 to Title V of the Social Security Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 713, authorizing the Personal Responsibility Education Program.

    Christopher Beach, Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Division of Grants Policy, Office of Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13415 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-37-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Refugee Microenterprise and Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Development.

    OMB No.: New.

    Description: New data collection tool for refugee microenterprise and Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Program.

    Respondents: Refugee Microenterprise Development Grantees and Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Development.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    Refugee Microenterprise Development 22 8 4 704 Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Development 23 7 4 644 Total Burden 1340

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: (1340 hours x $30 per hour) $40,440 per year.

    Explanation The Refugee Microenterprise Development Program

    • Currently, there are twenty two grantees (respondents) in the program and the semi-annual progress, which includes the data and information required, is submitted twice per year.

    • The request covers one form (Form I. attached) which includes eight data points. Based on experience (the information was provided by technical assistance service provider in the past), it takes about two hours per respondent per six months (i.e., four hours per year per grantee (respondent) or 88 hours per year for all respondents) to complete the form.

    • No survey will be undertaken since the collection of this data (information) is part of the implementation process of the project and its collection and reporting does not constitute a separate and additional cost to the grantees (respondents). The cost is covered by the grant the grantee receives. The grantees have Down Home database which captures and stores the data required for reporting. The grantee uploads the semi-annual report in Grant Solution where it is stored. ORR derives the data it requires for reporting and management decision from Grant Solution.

    The Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Development Group

    • Currently, there are twenty three grantees (respondents) in the program and the semi-annual progress.

    • The request covers one form (Form II. attached) which includes seven data points. It takes about two hours per respondent per six months (i.e., four hours per year grantee (respondent) or 92 hours per year for all respondents) to complete the form.

    • The collection of this data (information) is part of the process and its collection and reporting does not include separate and additional cost to the grantees (respondents). The cost is covered by the grant the grantee receives. The grantees have database which captures and stores the data required for reporting. The grantee uploads the data required in Grant Solution where it is stored. ORR derives the data it requires for reporting and management decision from Grant Solution.

    Additional Information

    Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment

    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13401 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0579] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Biological Products: Reporting of Biological Product Deviations and Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Deviations in Manufacturing; Forms FDA 3486 and 3486A AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection requirements relating to the reporting of biological product deviations in manufacturing and human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based product (HCT/P) deviations, and Forms FDA 3486 and 3486A.

    DATES:

    Submit electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0579 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Biological Products: Reporting of Biological Product Deviations and Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Deviations in Manufacturing; Forms FDA 3486 and 3486A.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Biological Products: Reporting of Biological Product Deviations and Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Product Deviations in Manufacturing; Forms FDA 3486 and 3486A OMB Control Number 0910-0458—Extension

    Under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262), all biological products, including human blood and blood components, offered for sale in interstate commerce must be licensed and meet standards, including those prescribed in the FDA regulations, designed to ensure the continued safety, purity, and potency of such products. In addition under section 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264), FDA may issue and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases between the States or possessions or from foreign countries into the States or possessions. Further, section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 351) provides that drugs and devices (including human blood and blood components) are adulterated if they do not conform with current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) assuring that they meet the requirements of the FD&C Act. Establishments manufacturing biological products, including human blood and blood components, must comply with the applicable CGMP regulations (parts 211, 606, and 820 (21 CFR parts 211, 606, and 820)) and current good tissue practice (CGTP) regulations (part 1271 (21 CFR part 1271)) as appropriate. FDA regards biological product deviation (BPD) reporting and HCT/P deviation reporting to be an essential tool in its directive to protect public health by establishing and maintaining surveillance programs that provide timely and useful information.

    Section 600.14 (21 CFR 600.14), in brief, requires the manufacturer who holds the biological product license, for other than human blood and blood components, and who had control over a distributed product when the deviation occurred, to report to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) or to the Center for Drugs Evaluation and Research (CDER) as soon as possible but at a date not to exceed 45 calendar days after acquiring information reasonably suggesting that a reportable event has occurred. Section 606.171, in brief, requires licensed manufacturers of human blood and blood components, including Source Plasma, unlicensed registered blood establishments, and transfusion services, who had control over a distributed product when the deviation occurred, to report to CBER as soon as possible but at a date not to exceed 45 calendar days after acquiring information reasonably suggesting that a reportable event has occurred. Similarly, § 1271.350(b), in brief, requires HCT/P establishments that manufacture non-reproductive HCT/Ps described in § 1271.10 to investigate and report to CBER all HCT/P deviations relating to a distributed HCT/P that relates to the core CGTP requirements, if the deviation occurred in the establishment's facility or in a facility that performed a manufacturing step for the establishment under contract, agreement, or other arrangement. Form FDA 3486 is used to submit BPD reports and HCT/P deviation reports.

    Respondents to this collection of information are: (1) Licensed manufacturers of biological products other than human blood and blood components, (2) licensed manufacturers of blood and blood components including Source Plasma, (3) unlicensed registered blood establishments, (4) transfusion services, and (5) establishments that manufacture non-reproductive HCT/Ps regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act as described in § 1271.10. The number of respondents and total annual responses are based on the BPD reports and HCT/P deviation reports FDA received in fiscal year 2015. The number of licensed manufacturers and total annual responses under § 600.14 include the estimates for BPD reports submitted to both CBER and CDER. Based on the information from industry, the estimated average time to complete a deviation report is 2 hours, which includes a minimal one-time burden to create a user account for those reports submitted electronically. The availability of the standardized report form, Form FDA 3486, and the ability to submit this report electronically to CBER (CDER does not currently accept electronic filings) further streamlines the report submission process.

    CBER has developed a Web-based addendum to Form FDA 3486 (Form FDA 3486A) to provide additional information when a BPD report has been reviewed by FDA and evaluated as a possible recall. The additional information requested includes information not contained in the Form FDA 3486 such as: (1) Distribution pattern; (2) method of consignee notification; (3) consignee(s) of products for further manufacture; (4) additional product information; (5) updated product disposition; and (6) industry recall contacts. This information is requested by CBER through email notification to the submitter of the BPD report. This information is used by CBER for recall classification purposes. At this time, Form FDA 3486A is being used only for those BPD reports submitted under § 606.171. CBER estimates that 5 percent of the total BPD reports submitted to CBER under § 606.171 would need additional information submitted in Form FDA 3486A. CBER further estimates that it would take between 10 to 20 minutes to complete Form FDA 3486A. For calculation purposes, CBER is using 15 minutes.

    Activities such as investigating, changing standard operating procedures or processes, and followup are currently required under parts 211 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0139), part 606 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0116), part 820 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0073), and part 1271 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0543) and, therefore, are not included in the burden calculation for the separate requirement of submitting a deviation report to FDA.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR section FDA
  • form No.
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden
  • per response
  • Total
  • hours
  • 600.14 3486 102 5.99 611 2 1,222 606.171 3486 1,738 26.34 45,774 2 91,548 1271.350(b) 3486 97 2.64 256 2 512 Web-based Addendum 2 3486A 87 26.31 2,289 .25 (15 minutes) 572 Total 93,854 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Five percent of the number of respondents (1,738 × 0.05 = 87) and total annual responses to CBER (45,774 × 0.05 = 2,289).
    Dated: May 26, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13366 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; 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 Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel Pilot Effectiveness Trials for Treatment, Preventive and Services Interventions (R34)

    Date: June 24, 2016.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Karen Gavin-Evans, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6153, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2356, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, Fellowship and Dissertation Grants Review Meeting.

    Date: June 30, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Marcy Ellen Burstein, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6143, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-9699, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, Mental Health Services Conflicts (Teleconference).

    Date: June 30, 2016.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Karen Gavin-Evans, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6153, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2356, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 1, 2016. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13310 Filed 6-6-16; 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, U.S. Nuclear Medicine Technologists Study (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 28, 2016 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, 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*: Michele M. Doody, Radiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7E566, Rockville, MD 20850, or call non-toll-free number 301-414-0308. Or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: U.S. Nuclear Medicine Technologists Study, 0925-0656, Expiration Date 04/30/2015—REINSTATEMENT WITH CHANGE, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: We propose to collect from U.S. nuclear medicine technologists (USNMT) certified after 1980 historical information about nuclear medicine procedures performed, radioisotopes used, related work and safety practices, and places of employment. The primary objectives of the current feasibility effort are: (a) To identify a cohort of nuclear medicine technologists certified after 1980 by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) and/or the Nuclear Medicine Technologist Certification Board (NMTCB); and (b) to characterize individual organ-specific occupational radiation doses from radioisotope procedures. More recently certified technologists, who specialized in nuclear medicine, are expected to have greater exposures to radioisotopes than the general radiologic technologists in the U.S. Radiologic Technologist (USRT) cohort owing to performing such procedures with greater frequency. The proposed USNMT study would be a direct follow-on to the USRT Study to assess health risks associated with occupational exposure to these much higher-energy radiopharmaceuticals.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 125.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average time per response
  • (hours)
  • Annual hour burden
    Nuclear Medicine Technologists Nuclear Medicine Questionnaire 250 1 30/60 125 Total 250 250 125
    Dated: May 31, 2016. Karla Bailey, Project Clearance Liaison, National Cancer Institute, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13308 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Amended; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, June 23, 2016, 08:00 a.m. to June 24, 2016, 06:00 p.m., Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2016, 81 FR 30318.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the Committee name from National Cancer Institute, Special Emphasis Panel; NCI Omnibus R03 SEP-1 to National Cancer Institute, Special Emphasis Panel; NCI R03 SEP-2. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13309 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) National Advisory Council will meet on June 13, 2016, 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m., via teleconference.

    The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of grant applications reviewed by the Initial Review Group, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, these meetings will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Administrator, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (c)(6); and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).

    Committee Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Administration Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council.

    Date/Time/Type: June 13, 2016, 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. (CLOSED).

    Place: SAMHSA Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

    Contact: Matthew J. Aumen, Designated Federal Officer, SAMHSA/CSAP National Advisory Council, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Email: [email protected].

    Summer King, Statistician, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13369 Filed 6-6-16; 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: Protection and Advocacy for Individuals With Mental Illness (PAIMI) Final Rule, 42 CFR Part 51 (OMB No. 0930-0172)—Extension

    These regulations meet the directive under 42 U.S.C. 10826(b) requiring the Secretary to promulgate final regulations to carry out the PAIMI Act. The regulations contain information collection requirements. The Act authorizes funds to support activities on behalf of individuals with significant (severe) mental illness (adults) or significant (severe) emotional impairment (children/youth) as defined by 42 U.S.C. 10802(4) and 10804(d). Only entities designated by the governor of each State, including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the tribal councils for the American Indian Consortium (the Hopi and Navajo Nations in the Four Corners region of the Southwest), to protect and advocate the rights of persons with developmental disabilities are eligible to receive PAIMI Program grants [the Act at 42 U.S.C. at 10802(2)]. These grants are based on a formula prescribed by the Secretary [42 U.S.C. at 10822(a)(1)(A)].

    On January 1, each eligible state protection and advocacy (P&A) system is required to prepare a report that describes its activities, accomplishments, and expenditures to protect the rights of individuals with mental illness supported with payments from PAIMI Program allotments during the most recently completed fiscal year. The PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 10824(a) requires that each P&A system transmit a copy of its annual report to the Secretary (via SAMHSA/CMHS) and to the State Mental Health Agency where the system is located. These annual PAIMI Program Performance Reports (PPR) to the Secretary must include the following information:

    • The number of (PAIMI-eligible) individuals with mental illness served;

    • A description of the types of activities undertaken;

    • A description of the types of facilities providing care or treatment to which such activities are undertaken;

    • A description of the manner in which the activities are initiated;

    • A description of the accomplishments resulting from such activities;

    • A description of systems to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness supported with payments from PAIMI Program allotments;

    • A description of activities conducted by States to protect and advocate such rights;

    • A description of mechanisms established by residential facilities for individuals with mental illness to protect such rights; and,

    • A description of the coordination among such systems, activities and mechanisms;

    • Specification of the number of public and nonprofit P&A systems established with PAIMI Program allotments;

    • Recommendations for activities and services to improve the protection and advocacy of the rights of individuals with mental illness and a description of the need for such activities and services that were not met by the State P&A systems established under the PAIMI Act due to resource or annual program priority limitations.

    The PAIMI Rules [42 CFR part 51] mandate that each State P&A system may place restrictions on either its case or client acceptance criteria developed as part of its annual PAIMI priorities. Each P&A system is required to inform prospective clients of any such restrictions when they request a service [42 CFR 51.32(b)].

    The PAIMI PPR summary must include a separate section, prepared by the PAIMI Advisory Council (PAC), that describes the council's activities and its assessment of the State P&A system's operations [PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 10805(7)].

    The burden estimate for the annual State P&A system reporting requirements for these regulations is as follows.

    42 CFR citation Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Burden per
  • response
  • (hrs.)
  • Total annual burden
    51.8(a)(2) Program Performance Report 57 1 26.0 1 1,482 51.8(a)(8) Advisory Council Report 57 1 10.0 1 570 51.10 Remedial Actions: Corrective Action Plans 7 1 8.0 56 Implementation Status Report 7 3 2.0 42 51.23(c) Reports, materials and fiscal data provided to the PAC 57 1 1.0 57 51.25(b)(2) Grievance Procedures 57 1 .5 29 Total 126 8 47.5 184 1 Burden hours associated with these reports are approved under OMB Control No. 0930-0169.

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by July 7, 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. 2016-13382 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration Intent To Request Extension From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Aviation Security Customer Satisfaction Performance Measurement Passenger Survey AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0013, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for an extension in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves surveying travelers to measure customer satisfaction of aviation security in an effort to manage airport performance more efficiently.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be emailed to [email protected] or delivered to the TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;

    (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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Information Collection Requirement

    OMB Control Number 1652-0013; Aviation Security Customer Satisfaction Performance Measurement Passenger Survey. TSA, with OMB's approval, has conducted surveys of passengers at airports nationwide and now seeks approval to continue this effort. The surveys are administered using an intercept methodology. The intercept methodology uses TSA personnel who are not in uniform to hand deliver business card style forms to passengers immediately following the passenger's experience with the TSA's checkpoint security functions. Passengers are invited, though not required, to complete and return the survey using either an online portal or by responding in writing to the survey questions on the customer satisfaction card and depositing the card in a drop-box at the airport or using U.S. mail; prior to each survey collection at an airport, TSA personnel select the method by which all passengers surveyed on that particular occasion will be asked to complete and return the survey. TSA uses the intercept methodology to randomly select passengers to complete the survey in an effort to gain survey data representative of all passenger demographics—including passengers who—

    • Travel on weekdays or weekends;

    • Travel in the morning, mid-day, or evening;

    • Pass through each of the different security screening locations in the airport;

    • Are subject to more intensive screening of their baggage or person; and

    • Experience different volume conditions and wait times as they proceed through the security checkpoints.

    Each survey includes 10 to 15 questions, and each question promotes a quality response so that TSA can identify areas in need of improvement. All questions concern aspects of the passenger's security screening experience.

    TSA collects this information in order to continue to assess customer satisfaction in an effort to manage TSA employee performance more efficiently. OMB has previously approved 82 questions. TSA is requesting an extension of the approval for the information collection.

    TSA personnel have the capability to conduct this survey at 25 airports each year. Based on prior survey data and research, TSA estimates 384 responses from the passengers at each airport. The average number of respondents is estimated to be 9,600 per year (384 passengers × 25 airports). TSA estimates that the time it takes to complete the survey either online or by writing on the form ranges from 3 to 7 minutes, an average of 5 minutes (0.083 hrs.) per respondent. Therefore, the annual burden is 800 hours (9,600 responses × 0.083 hours).

    June 2, 2016. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13416 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0013] Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Travel Document, Form I-131; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved 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 (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved 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 August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0013 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0045. 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-2007-0045;

    (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-2007-0045 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: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-131; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Certain aliens, principally permanent or conditional residents, refugees or asylees, applicants for adjustment of status, aliens in Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and aliens abroad seeking humanitarian parole, in need to apply for a travel document to lawfully enter or reenter the United States; eligible recipients of deferred action under childhood arrivals (DACA) may now request an advance parole documents based on humanitarian, educational and employment reasons. Lawful permanent residents may now file requests for travel permits (transportation letter or boarding foil).

    (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 I-131 is 519,090 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.9 hours; 71,665 respondents providing biometrics at 1.17 hours; and 317,773 respondents providing passport-style photographs at .50 hours.

    (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 1,228,986 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 $155,789,790.

    Dated: June 2, 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. 2016-13386 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5936-N-01] Notice of National Disaster Resilience Competition Grant Requirements AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists the awardees of Phase 2 of the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC). The NDRC was conducted in accordance with Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) FR-5800-N-29A2, published on grants.gov (Primary CFDA Number 14.272, last modified June 25, 2015). Awardees have been allocated $999,108,000 made available pursuant to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, Public Law 113-2 (Appropriations Act). This notice also updates and republishes Appendix A to the NOFA, which states the requirements applicable to NDRC grant recipients, including applicable waivers and alternative requirements. HUD is publishing the post-award requirements of Appendix A in the Federal Register because the Appropriations Act requires HUD to publish waivers and alternative requirements in the Federal Register no later than 5 days before their effective date. The requirements of Appendix A will also be incorporated into the grant agreement between the Grantees and HUD. The updates to Appendix A included in this notice reflect necessary revisions to citations and requirements that have changed since the NOFA's publication, as a result of the Department's implementation of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) final guidance, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, through amendments to 24 CFR parts 84, 85, and 570.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stanley Gimont, Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-3587 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Fax inquiries may be sent to Mr. Gimont at 202-401-2044.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents Section 1: Program Background and Purpose Section 2: List of Awards Section 3: CDBG-NDR Program Requirements I. Use of Funds A. General B. Action Plan, Amendments, and Benefit Cost Analysis C. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Requirements II. Timely Expenditure of Funds, and Prevention of Fraud, Abuse, and Duplication of Benefits A. Statutory Expenditure Deadline B. Secretary's Certifications and Grantee Submissions C. Duplication of Benefits Requirements III. Authority to Grant Waivers IV. Overview of Grant Process V. Applicable Rules, Statutes, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements A. Grant Administration B. Common Eligibility Waivers and Alternative Requirements and Other Provisions: Housing, Floodplain Issues, Infrastructure, Economic Revitalization C. Certifications and Collection of Information Section 4: Duration of Funding Section 5: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Section 6: Finding of No Significant Impact
    Section 1: Program Background and Purpose:

    NDRC awardees identified in this notice were allocated Community Development Block Grant National Resilient Disaster Recovery (CDBG-NDR) grant funds on a competitive basis. These funds were made available by the Appropriations Act for disaster recovery from major disasters declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) (Stafford Act) in 2011, 2012, and 2013. The Appropriations Act made available $16 billion in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds. On March 1, 2013, the President issued a sequestration order pursuant to section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. 901a), and reduced funding for CDBG disaster recovery grants under the Appropriations Act to $15.18 billion.

    HUD has not allocated other Appropriations Act funds competitively. As of September 2014, HUD had allocated or set aside approximately $13 billion-$14 billion in response to Hurricane Sandy, and Tropical Storms Irene and Lee; $514 million in response to disasters occurring in 2011 or 2012; and $654 million in response to other 2013 disasters. The Department determined that the data available for the earliest disasters eligible under the Appropriations Act no longer credibly represented additional current unmet needs (beyond those for which HUD had already allocated funding by formula) to support a formula allocation method for the remaining funding. No other reasonably current data sources common to all possible eligible jurisdictions existed at the time of the allocation. Because the law directs that CDBG-DR assistance must flow to the Most Impacted and Distressed areas with unmet recovery and revitalization needs related to the effects of a covered major disaster, HUD decided that a competition framework would work best to elicit the data needed to inform allocation choices, and ensure that the unmet disaster recovery and revitalization needs of communities around the country were appropriately considered.

    To comply with statutory direction that CDBG-NDR funds be used for disaster-related expenses in the Most Impacted and Distressed areas related to the Qualified Disaster, HUD has required that Grantees address unmet needs in areas identified in the Grantee's approved application and accepted by HUD as “Most Impacted and Distressed” as a result of the effects of the Qualified Disaster.

    The Appropriations Act requires funds to be used only for specific disaster recovery related purposes. The Appropriations Act also requires that, prior to the obligation of CDBG-NDR funds, a Grantee shall submit a plan detailing the proposed use of funds, including criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will address disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the Most Impacted and Distressed areas. This Action Plan is discussed in section 3.I.B, “Action Plan, Amendments, and Benefit Cost Analysis,” below.

    Allowable costs for CDBG-NDR funds under this appropriation include only those expenses necessary to meet the Unmet Recovery Needs of the Most Impacted and Distressed target area(s), but once the necessary Tie-Back is established for a Project, it could be designed to also meet other community development objectives and economic revitalization needs, including greater Resilience to address the negative effects of climate change. Tie-Back to the Qualifying Disaster was established for CDBG-NDR projects by demonstrating a logical link to addressing Unmet Recovery Needs from the Qualifying Disaster. Under this competition, HUD awarded points for leverage, long-term commitments, and regional coordination. The most competitive proposals, however, brought other resources and commitments to bear beyond the CDBG-NDR request to enhance Resilience beyond the Most Impacted and Distressed target areas with Unmet Recovery Needs (MID-URN target areas).

    Summary of Competition Details

    HUD has established six goals for the NDRC: First, to fairly allocate remaining Appropriation Act funds; second, to create multiple examples of local disaster recovery planning that apply science-based and forward-looking risk analysis to address recovery, Resilience, and revitalization needs; third, to leave a legacy of institutionalizing, in as many States and local jurisdictions as possible, the implementation of thoughtful, innovative, and resilient approaches to addressing future risks; fourth, to provide resources to help communities plan and implement disaster recovery that makes them more resilient to future threats or hazards, including extreme weather events and climate change, while also improving quality of life for existing residents and making communities more resilient to economic stresses or other shocks; fifth, to fully inform and engage community stakeholders about the current and projected impacts of climate change and to develop pathways to Resilience based on sound science; and sixth, to leverage investments from the philanthropic community to help communities define problems, set policy goals, explore options, and craft solutions to inform their own local and regional resilient recovery strategies. As with all CDBG assistance, the priority is on serving low- and moderate-income people.

    The NDRC applied elements of the Hurricane Sandy Task Force's rebuilding strategy to support Grantee efforts to build back stronger and more resilient through integrating comprehensive planning and investing in meaningful efforts in their recovery and revitalization. The Task Force was established by Executive Order 13632 (published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2012, at 77 FR 74341) to: (1) Ensure governmentwide and regionwide coordination was available to assist communities make decisions about long-term rebuilding and (2) develop a comprehensive rebuilding strategy.

    The NDRC bears some similarities to other Federal programs that address disaster recovery and threat and hazard mitigation. This similarity (and the distinctions noted below) is deliberate. The similarity allows States and local governments to invest CDBG-NDR funds to support or fill gaps to address unmet needs inaccessible or unaffordable to other Federal programs, and for which insurance and State, local, and other resources are unavailable. In addition, any similarity in program structure will enable lessons learned from the competition to potentially be transferable to other Federal programs. The distinctions, on the other hand, spring from the CDBG nature of the funding source, as directed in the congressional appropriation. Among major disaster recovery programs, CDBG is notable in its statutory focus on determining and meeting the unmet needs of vulnerable lower-income people and communities and targeting the Most Impacted and Distressed areas. CDBG is also singular in its ability to consider a wide range of local community development objectives related to recovery and economic revitalization, including integrally related Resilience objectives. HUD intends that the most successful proposals from the competition will take advantage of these CDBG similarities and distinctions to envision and implement recovery Projects that serve multiple purposes and position recovering communities for a prosperous and more resilient future. To ensure programs harmonize and do not duplicate benefits, HUD required all Applicants to describe how they consult with or coordinate with funders of other proposed recovery and Resilience investments in the Most Impacted and Distressed target area and region. The CDBG context also leads naturally to requiring Resilience elements within recovery projects because it creates stability. Reducing current and future risk is essential to the long-term economic well-being of communities and businesses. When a disaster chills local and regional economies, investments in anchor Projects to reduce risk and stimulate economic revitalization can be an essential part of any disaster recovery.

    Eligible Applicants. Eligible Applicants in Phase 1 were States with Qualified Disasters and units of general local government who received CDBG-DR funding from HUD for disasters occurring in 2011—2013 (including Grantees under prior disaster recovery supplemental funding)—a total of 67 potential Applicants (See Appendix B to the NOFA for a list of eligible Applicants). HUD set aside $181 million for applications serving Hurricane Sandy Qualified Disasters in the States of New York and New Jersey and in New York City, due to the catastrophic level of damage caused in those areas from Hurricane Sandy and tropical storms in 2011. Note that HUD reserved the right to fund applications out of rank order to ensure geographic diversity of funding. For the same reason, HUD also reserved the right to partially fund an application(s). To ensure HUD had complete understanding on how to scale down Projects, each Phase 2 Applicant was required to identify any phasing or scalability inherent in its proposal. Those invited to submit applications for Phase 2 should have developed proposals with scalable options to the degree possible and practicable, and were required to ensure that each component proposed for CDBG-NDR funding had independent utility.

    Successful completion of Phase 1 was a threshold requirement for eligible Applicants for Phase 2.

    Phase 1: Framing Unmet Recovery Needs, Vulnerabilities, and Community Development Objectives (Closed). During Phase 1 (the framing phase) of the NDRC, Applicants consulted with stakeholders and comprehensively framed the recovery needs, relevant risks and vulnerabilities (current and future), and related community development opportunities in the target geographic areas. Every fundable application had to first demonstrate a logical link, or Tie-Back, to addressing Unmet Recovery Needs stemming from the effects of the community's presidentially declared major disaster from 2011, 2012, or 2013. The other objectives, needs, or issues a Project would address were unique to the Applicant's community. For example, a community that suffered a flood might want to offer flood buyouts and property acquisition in the Most Impacted and Distressed areas, followed by restoration of a wetland to limit future flooding and provide a nature preserve or recreation area. A community that lost housing and a road during a mudslide might not only want to construct housing in a safer area for survivors, but also to find a financing mechanism for affected downstream businesses to survive the effects of the last event and be prepared for and recover more quickly from future hazards. Once the community framed the recovery need(s), identified current and future risks and vulnerabilities and noted community development opportunities, the Applicant had to identify and seek commitments from the public and private Partners it needs to develop and implement a solution, and develop a high level implementation idea. The Applicant's responses in Phase 1 described this framing process and its results, identified the Partners and other resources, and described the resulting resilient recovery concept or idea.

    The Phase 1 CDBG-NDR NOFA included criteria and deadlines for both this initial “framing” phase and the later “implementation” phase of the competition. Applicants had approximately 180 days from the Phase 1 CDBG-NDR NOFA publication to complete the framing process and to submit initial proposals stating in general terms the Applicant's vulnerability(ies), issue(s), community development objectives, team (meaning the Applicant, all Partners, and any other supporting entities), required threshold items, known obstacles, substantial consultation and citizen engagement (particularly with affected and Vulnerable Populations), and general information about Unmet Recovery Needs.

    After the 180-day deadline, HUD reviewed, rated, and provided detailed comments on each initial application that met all threshold requirements. HUD then ranked the applications by score and selected the qualifying Applicants for the Phase 2 application round.

    Phase 2: From Framing to Implementation (Closed). In the second phase of the competition (the implementation phase), the highest scoring Applicants from the first phase were invited to fully articulate a Resilience-enhancing disaster recovery or revitalization Project or program that addressed as many of the Phase 1 identified risks, vulnerabilities, and community development opportunities as feasible and compete for implementation funding. The best Projects demonstrated how the proposal or Project would help the community recover from the effects of the covered disaster, advance community development objectives such as economic revitalization, and improve the community's ability to absorb or rapidly recover from the effects of a future extreme event, stress, threat, hazard, or other shocks. The proposed Phase 2 Project could be a pilot for the overall Phase 1 solution, could be limited to the CDBG-NDR-eligible portion of a Phase 1 concept that would benefit a geography larger than the Most Impacted and Distressed target area, or could be a stand-alone portion of a Project idea envisaged in Phase 1 that could take years or decades to completely realize. In any case, the Phase 2 Project could not be contingent on actions outside the scope of the Project to provide a defined level of protection against the threat(s) and hazard(s) identified, meet a CDBG-NDR national objective, or comply with program requirements as described in this notice. The Applicant was asked to explain how the Phase 2 proposal logically arises from the Phase 1 framing.

    In Phase 2, each Applicant completed a benefit cost analysis (BCA) for any Covered Project(s), as described in the NOFA. Although the required completion of a BCA is new to CDBG disaster recovery, Rebuild by Design competitors completed BCAs and the analysis process helped improve the final proposals. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) also employ BCAs in reviewing applications for major Projects, and cost efficiency analysis is employed in reviews of environmental impact and consideration of alternatives. The CDBG-NDR BCA provided a sense of the cost efficiency of the proposal, but the BCA score was not used alone to rate soundness of approach. HUD recognizes that the benefits and costs may be difficult or impossible to comprehensively quantify, but, regardless of a proposed Project's scale, HUD did not fund any Phase 2 activities for which the benefits to the Applicant's community, and to the United States as a whole, were not demonstrated by the evidence submitted to justify the costs. Appendix H to the NOFA provided guidance on completing an acceptable BCA. Note that quantifying or otherwise accounting for social and ecological benefits and costs were a critical component, as was consideration of all related resources, including leverage, and the benefits and costs of long-term commitments under Factor 5.

    Some of the resources provided to CDBG Grantees to support completion of the environmental reviews required under 24 CFR part 58 are also useful sources of information for a benefit-cost analysis. Consideration of these resources at an early stage in a Project may help speed the required environmental reviews. Applicants were strongly encouraged to integrate general and Project planning with the environmental review process, and to coordinate these reviews under the Unified Federal Review (UFR) process, where possible and as appropriate. The Applicant could have used public outreach meetings not only to seek Phase 1 planning input and Phase 2 Project comments or to meet the consultation requirement of the NDRC competition, but also to inform the public about environmental effects of different design approaches or of a proposed Project and its alternatives. Examples of required outreach included scoping for the National Environmental Policy Act, notices and evaluation in compliance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 (the 8-step decision process for floodplain management and wetlands protection), and consultation for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108). The Applicant engagement plan was to include strategies to ensure that vulnerable and underserved populations are involved throughout the planning and decisionmaking processes, including outreach and engagement of low-income and minority populations in furtherance of the Department's environmental justice obligations under Executive Order 12,898. This informs decisionmakers of the widest possible range of needs and options. Meaningful engagement and participation ensures the highest probability of success for all stakeholders.

    After HUD provided comments on the initial Phase 1 submissions, each continuing Applicant had approximately 120 days in Phase 2 to develop a final submission. HUD considered soundness of approach, needs, capacity, leverage, and long-term commitment at this phase. Leverage in this phase could have included traditional financial and some types of in-kind contributions. The application must also have included the supporting